By Will Atwater
On Dec. 2, 1970, with the stroke of a pen, President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. By the end of that month — on Dec. 31 — he signed the landmark Clean Air Act into law.
These actions reflected a growing federal recognition that clean air and water were vital to America’s health, economy and long-term prosperity.
Nixon himself framed the moment as a turning point in national environmental responsibility.
“I think that 1970 will be known as the year of the beginning,” Nixon said, “in which we really began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the future generations of America.”
Fifty-five years later, the EPA is at the center of a political and ideological shift that threatens the solvency of federal institutions — and the effects are rippling beyond Washington.
In North Carolina, environmental nonprofits are already feeling the effect as the Trump administration moves to dismantle environmental initiatives that were championed by the Biden administration, dismissing them as wasteful and politically motivated.
Charlotte-based CleanAIRE NC, a nonprofit focused on environmental advocacy and public health, recently told NC Health News that its $500,000 Community Change Grant, awarded during the Biden administration to work with low-income neighborhoods in North Mecklenburg on air quality issues, was canceled.
“We received notice that the EPA terminated our North Mecklenburg Air Monitoring grant because the award’s objectives no longer meet EPA funding priorities under the new administration,” said Andrew Whelan, communications manager for CleanAIRE NC. The three-year grant was part of a Biden-era initiative to expand community air monitoring in low-income areas.
What’s at stake
CleanAIRE’s grant cancellation came amid a broader effort by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who recently announced the cancellation of more than “$22 billion in environmental justice and ‘DEI’ (diversity, equity, and inclusion) grants and contracts.” Zeldin characterized this move as necessary to redirect federal priorities.
“Instead of directly fixing actual environmental problems with our precious taxpayer dollars, the Biden Environmental Protection Agency lit them on fire to fund cronies and activist groups,” Zeldin said in an agency release.
However, critics warn that eliminating these grants risks undoing vital safeguards and community initiatives that monitor pollution and protect public health. CleanAIRE’s North Mecklenburg partners live in neighborhoods facing chronic exposure to pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter, Whelan said. If left unchecked, these contaminants could significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory illnesses, lung cancer and even death.
“Soot particles are easily inhaled into our lungs, where they are small enough to pass into our bloodstream and wreak havoc on other primary organs, including the heart and brain,” said Daisha Wall, CleanAIRE’s community science monitor. She noted that nine of the 10 leading causes of death in North Carolina can result from — or be exacerbated by — particulates.
“Efforts like what CleanAIRE is trying to do in North Mecklenburg are becoming increasingly important, because you can’t manage what you don’t measure,” said Dr. Steve Justus, a community physician and project partner.
“When pollution levels spike, local sensors can detect the danger in real time, sometimes hours or even days before traditional systems issue alerts,” Wall said. “This allows residents to take immediate protective measures, such as staying indoors, using air purifiers, or seeking medical attention, especially residents in north Mecklenburg who experience higher adverse health impacts and air pollution exposure.
“The loss of this funding means that critical health interventions may never be fully realized,” Wall said.
In addition to immediate health risks, Amy Turner, director of Cities Climate Law Initiative at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said the grant cancellations threaten a vital relationship. Turner offered her assessment in February during a Sabin Center forum on the federal government’s funding freeze.
“Local governments often rely on nonprofit partners for their climate work, especially for equity and environmental justice work,” Turner said. “When it’s a nonprofit partner carrying out a project for the benefit of the community, the local government shares in that win.”
Legal fight
In addition to policy concerns, legal experts argue the funding freeze may violate binding federal agreements. Irena Como, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, a nonprofit environmental legal advocacy organization, also participated in the Sabin Center’s forum and echoed Turner’s take.
“By distributing funding to nonprofits that work closely with specific communities and constituencies, the federal government efficiently improves numerous lives on the ground without creating an entirely separate federal infrastructure to do so,” Como said.
“This sudden and ongoing disruption to nonprofits’ legally [binding] federal grant agreements is barring them from advancing the important priorities set by Congress and also fulfilling their obligations to the communities they serve,” she said.
Whelan said the government’s action “has left us with no choice but to file suit.”
Regarding that lawsuit, Como told NC Health News by email: “We have our preliminary injunction hearing on April 23. The court also granted our motion for expedited discovery related to the grants, which the defendants must file by April 17.”
CleanAIRE NC and Rural Advancement Foundation International are two North Carolina organizations being represented by SELC in the lawsuit, The Sustainability Institute v. Trump (2.25-cv-02152), which also includes multiple organizations across the U.S.
Threatening research
The cancellation of grants to environmental organizations and the Department of Government Efficiency’s broader push to shrink federal agencies threatens vulnerable communities’ access to health-protective resources and critical research conducted by the EPA, environmentalists say. Scientists and advocates also warn that these funding cuts could stall projects to track health effects from pollution exposure, develop mitigation strategies and inform evidence-based public policy.
Adding to those concerns, the New York Times reported last month that the EPA is planning “to eliminate its scientific research arm.”
One such research hub is the EPA’s Office of Research and Development facility on the UNC Chapel Hill campus. Since the 1970s, the center has conducted air quality studies on pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter—research that informs Clean Air Act regulations. According to a source familiar with the facility, it is the only EPA site conducting controlled exposure air pollution research involving human volunteers in the country.
“Since we’re dealing with humans in our research, and most other places are dealing with rats or mice, our research is pretty important,” said a source who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. “[We’re] one of the few groups out there that can actually show research with humans as causing effects or not causing effects.”
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to reassess the science on pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter every five years. This involves a multi-year process of gathering and evaluating scientific studies that culminates in a comprehensive science assessment. While the assessment itself doesn’t set policy, it lays out the current state of research. The Office of Air and Radiation then reviews the findings and recommends whether national air quality standards should be updated.
Final decisions on standards rest with the EPA administrator.
Uncertain future
The ORD facility continues its work for now, but according to the source, staff are preparing to vacate the UNC space by June. What will happen to the specialized research chambers — which cost over $1 million annually to operate and maintain and can’t be disassembled and moved — is unclear.
The staff’s future is equally uncertain.
“The plan right now is to relocate the staff to Research Triangle Park — that’s where things are moving,” the source said. “If, on the other hand, EPA decides they really do want to try to fire 1,000 ORD employees, then, obviously, some won’t be moving anywhere.”
The post Disrupted systems: How EPA cuts are shaking up community health and climate research appeared first on North Carolina Health News.
