By Brian Bienkowski/The New Lede
Republicans are proposing deep cuts to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill, which additionally would limit federal help for farmers dealing with “forever chemical” contamination.
The bill, released in mid-July and debated in a US House of Representatives subcommittee, would impact regulations for clean water and air, use and management of public land, wildlife habitats and endangered species protections.
In addition to a broad 23% proposed cut to the EPA’s overall budget, the bill seeks to reduce the budgets of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service each by about 6%.
All three proposed agency budgets, however, are higher than Trump requested.
Supporters said the bill would right-size agencies that had become bloated and instead prioritize domestic energy production, tribal and wildfire support. The bill increases funding for Tribal Public Safety and Justice programs, Indian Health Services, wildland fire management and offshore oil and gas development budgets.
However, Democrats and environmental groups said the deep budget cuts threaten clean air and water. There are dozens of sections in the bill that target Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act regulations, including blocking the use of funds to limit greenhouse gases from oil and gas operations or farms, tailpipe emissions, or polluted effluent from livestock farms.
Cuts would also limit financial assistance programs for state clean water and drinking water programs and would reduce resources for the federal Superfund program, which manages the cleanup of dangerously polluted sites around the country.
The bill also eliminates funding for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and environmental justice initiatives.
The Senate has not yet released its version of the FY 2026 House Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill.
The House version is one of many currently going through Congress, which has a September 30 government funding deadline. Congress didn’t pass final appropriations bills last year, rather it passed a continuing resolution to keep the government funded through September.
The bill also prohibits the use of any EPA funds to “finalize, implement, administer, or enforce” the agency’s draft assessment on two harmful types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that are that are known to be are contaminating farms, ranches and dairies around the country.
The assessment on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), released in January concluded “there may be human health risks” from PFAS-tainted sewage sludge fertilizer, and outlined a series of steps the agency would take to address the pollution. PFOS and PFOA are linked to a variety of health problems, including certain cancers and immune system and reproductive harms.
Last year PEER sued the EPA for delays in addressing PFAS in sewage sludge fertilizers. The case was dismissed in December, and PEER has appealed.
The bill as written would continue the Trump administration’s moves to limit the federal government’s role in protecting citizens from PFAS. In May, the EPA said it will rescind limits set under President Joe Biden on four types of PFAS widely found in drinking water.
The bill wades into ongoing controversy over pesticide labeling by blocking any federal funds from being used to “issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling” for labels that are inconsistent with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Environmental and health advocates say this signals the feds want to continue discouraging states from adopting pesticide labels more strict than the EPA-approved labels, which is something pesticide makers and large farm groups have pushed for.
And the bill would bar any action to limit use of the sterilizing chemical and fumigant ethylene oxide, a known carcinogen. Its continued use is currently under review by the EPA.
Questioning “fiscal responsibility”
Republicans defended the cuts as restoring fiscal responsibility.
But Pingree said “any arguments that these irresponsible cuts are somehow fiscally responsible ring hollow in the wake of Republicans adding $3.4 trillion to the national deficit thanks to their disastrous so-called ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’”
“This bill reflects strong stewardship of America’s natural and financial resources. It directs the management of our public lands, recreation, and energy development while cutting millions in wasteful spending,” House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, a Republican from Oklahoma, said in a statement.
But Pingree said “any arguments that these irresponsible cuts are somehow fiscally responsible ring hollow in the wake of Republicans adding $3.4 trillion to the national deficit thanks to their disastrous so-called ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’”
<p><em>This story was originally published by <a href=”https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/07/house-budget-environmental-epa-pfas-cuts/”>The New Lede</a>.</em></p>
