Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Project 2025: The Environmental Protection Agency

Entrance to EPA building in Washington, DC
Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Shapiro, a freelance journalist, was a newspaper editor for 30 years in California, Illinois and Iowa, including 21 years as executive editor of the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's "Cross-Partisan Project 2025" relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025

No matter if you’re a bleeding-heart woke liberal or a conservative anti-vaxxer, you want the water you ingest to do no harm.

The average human is 60 percent water, although men are more waterlogged than women and infants have more, seniors have less. Your heart and lungs are 75 percent to 80 percent H20. But much of that water is contaminated.


Environmental Protection Agency data indicate that at least 56 percent of Americans drink from water systems with lead levels detected.

The EPA contends: “A dose of lead that would have little effect on an adult can have a significant effect on a child. In children, low levels of exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral nervous system, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing, and impaired formation and function of blood cells.”

Then there are the toxic “forever” chemicals known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). According to a study published by the Environmental Working Group, 200 million Americans have been exposed to tap water containing them.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites studies linking PFAS to kidney and testicular cancer, lower antibody response to vaccines, changes in liver enzymes, high cholesterol rates, and pregnancy-related problems, including low fertility and decreased birth weights.

Project 2025’s conservative playbook — developed by the Charles Koch-funded Heritage Foundation — pays homage to the founding of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Nixon administration and cites the necessity of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water acts.

It also acknowledges that the Clean Water Act is underfunded and that “water infrastructure is crumbling” in certain areas. Yet it ignored President Joe Biden’s infrastructure proposal, which included provisions to replace all lead water pipelines by spending $45 billion. Congressional negotiators reduced it to $15 billion.

Instead, Project 2025 contends “the primary role in making choices about the environment belongs to the people who live it” — state governments.

So let’s consider some initiatives Republicans are taking.

The EPA wants to order the replacement of 9 million lead water lines — mostly found in low-income areas — within 10 years. But 15 Republican state attorneys general are trying to block that effort, claiming it’s an infringement on states’ rights: “It’s unworkable, underfunded, and unnecessary.” Private homeowners, they maintain, would “bear the brunt of the costs.”

Had the GOP not cut the Biden infrastructure allocation, their argument would be moot.

Earlier this month, after a U.S. Geological Survey found PFAS could be contaminating 45 percent of the nation’s tap water, the EPA announced new standards down from 70 parts per trillion to 4 ppt.

PFAS are a part of the Manhattan Project legacy. Scientists creating the atomic bomb made the ultimate coolant — needed to separate uranium — by bonding carbon and fluorine atoms, building on DuPont’s pioneering refrigerant efforts in 1938.

After the war, PFAS synthetic chemicals became ubiquitous — in coolants, fire retardants, repelling grease and grime, waterproofing and carpeting. 3M, which hired Manhattan Project chemists, used them in Scotchgard; DuPont in Teflon.

Internal memos indicate both 3M and DuPont knew about the toxicity of PFAS in the 1960s. The law caught up with them last year.

3M reached a $10.3 billion settlement (without an admission of liability) amid 4,000 lawsuits filed by states and municipalities. DuPont, Chemours (a DuPont spinoff) and Corteva (a DowDuPont spinoff) agreed to pay $1.9 billion.

A 2023 study published in Exposure & Health put the cost of treating PFAS-related diseases at $62.6 billion.

Yet the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Legislature has refused to release $125 million to clean up PFAS in drinking water until 3M and DuPont get immunity.

Environmental Science & Technology reported that Brunswick County, N.C, along the Atlantic coast in the Cape Fear River watershed, has spent $99 million on a reverse osmosis plant and will incur $2.9 million annually in operations because of PFAS discharges upriver from Chemours’ Fayetteville plant.

When Consumer Reports tested drinking water in 120 locales two years ago, the highest PFAS contamination was in a North Carolina church. The state’s drinking water ranks third in the nation in the discharge of 1,4-dioxane, an industrial solvent.

But the Republican supermajority in the Legislature, which wrested control of the Environmental Management Commission from Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, has resisted enacting enforceable water quality standards.

According to the Raleigh News & Observer, Republicans are “stalling efforts to regulate chemicals that have contaminated North Carolina drinking water supplies, including forever chemicals and an industrial solvent that is a likely human carcinogen.”

Project 2025’s clean water agenda? Recall the admonition of Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell: “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

More articles about Project 2025



    Read More

    How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

    A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

    (John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

    How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

    In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

    “Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

    Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

    Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

    A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

    In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

    Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

    Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

    New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

    Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

    1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

    Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

    Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

    How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

    In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

    From Episode to System

    The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

    Keep ReadingShow less