Headlines this weekend refer to “renewed chaos” over e-mails sent to federal employees at most (some? all?) agencies of the government — asking employees to list their five accomplishments for the week. In our February 24, 2025, blog item, we explored how employees might answer such vague requests in the absence of more guidance about who is asking and what is to be reported.

The larger issue is that the current turmoil and confused information surrounding budget and staffing outcomes at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies will have impacts not only in the near term but also will impair future capabilities over a much longer timeframe. Just how long is uncertain.

In the end, “pruning” the budget and workforce may result in greater productivity or performance improvement by some measures, yet even that outcome will be in the eye of the beholder. One can disagree on program priorities as part of the debate over climate change versus energy production. What will be less obvious and harder to predict about the future is the impact on EPA programs, even if designated a priority, given the turmoil and fear that federal employees will face over the next months.

Regarding chemical and pesticide regulation programs, these impacts could be significant. Both programs need to be ably and sufficiently staffed to maintain a predictable course for new and innovative products to enter the market. Chemical and pesticide products both need EPA approval for market access and are the responsibility of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). Responsible for implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), OCSPP staff review new products and new uses of products to ensure environmental and public health protection. OCSPP is a “science-heavy” office when compared to other media programs, with a proportionately larger fraction of its staff representing the wide variety of scientific disciplines needed to review pesticide and chemical safety as required by law.

To review chemical and pesticide products, OCSPP staff review hundreds of studies relevant for assessing toxicology, chemistry, aquatic and terrestrial toxicity, worker safety, movement of chemical exposure through the air or soil, and other technically complex, sophisticated questions regarding chemical and pesticide applications that come through the door. New products typically have improved environmental or health profiles compared to existing ones, as companies rarely invest in riskier or dirtier products. Without sufficient numbers of technically capable staff, the time needed for EPA to review submissions will inevitably lengthen, regardless of targeted or required deadlines (OCSPP has both). The time it takes with current staffing and budget levels is already frustrating for companies for a variety of reasons. These frustrations, in part, may be justification enough for some to take a blunt approach to budget cuts. And on paper, forcing the programs to “reinvent” or “reform” their way of doing business might result in a more rapid process.

But given the approach taken to date, with talk of chainsaws, axes, and woodchippers in the headlines, public trust in any reforms will be suspect regardless of the outcome of any “efficiency improvements.” There are a variety of reports by the General Accountability Office (GAO) and EPA’s Inspectors General (IG) over the years suggesting improvements to the chemical and pesticide review programs. At the same time, there appears little linkage between any of those recommendations and the “woodchipper approach” to program reforms.

The longer-term risk to program performance will include at least two impacts from the current approach. First, regardless of any program reforms or improvements, or with any budget reductions, changes to improve performance will be seen as giving priority to production outputs over public health and environmental protection. This would be the case even if all changes fit comfortably under the heading of GAO or IG recommendations.

The even greater impact will be on the morale of current staff and an impediment to the recruitment of future employees. Current staff face the specter of budget cuts, which are unsettling in any organization, public or private (will I, or do I, have a job this week?). Decisions to cut budgets or change program priorities may be no surprise given the election, but the process used to date is uncertain and chaotic and designed at least in part to intimidate the workforce.

This leads to contemplating how new employees might be recruited to work for EPA or any government agency. OCSPP managers have continually mentioned that recruiting new staff in critical science disciplines is especially difficult given the traditional pay scale and characteristics of work at government agencies (e.g., opportunities for career development, advancing pay scales).

The current tumult surrounding government work — how does the probationary period work, how will new employees be evaluated, what are expectations for career prospects — would make attending career fairs to recruit new employees a fool’s errand. Over the long run, future recruitment of any new workers at EPA and other agencies may be the most impactful result of the present upheaval.

A snarky summary of reports where current employees have been fired over the weekend by e-mail might be: “Just a note — don’t bother to show up tomorrow.” It may soon be that fresh graduates with the latest technical skills and knowledge in core science disciplines tell government recruiters: “Just a note — don’t bother to show up tomorrow.”