EPA Budget Would See Deep Cuts Under Trump’s Spending Plan (1)

The EPA’s budget would be cut by more than half under President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget request, released Friday.

The plan would reduce the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget from $9.1 billion to $4.2 billion, a 54.5% cut. That would mark the EPA’s smallest budget since 1986, according to the agency’s records.

Included in the budget request is a $2.46 billion cut for the EPA’s clean and drinking water state revolving loan funds. The program “has been heavily earmarked by the Congress for projects that are ultimately not repaid into the program and bypass states’ interest and planning,” according to the request.

The plan also seeks a $1 billion cut in the EPA’s categorical grants program, which the budget request says “have become a crutch for states at the expense of taxpayers—many of whom receive no benefit from these grants.”

Other cuts include $254 million in funding for Superfund cleanup, $100 million for environmental justice, $90 million for Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grants, and $100 million from the agency’s atmospheric protection program. Trump is also proposing a $235 million cut from the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, whose staff the Trump administration is planning on dramatically reducing, according to a reorganization plan reviewed by House Democrats.

The budget blueprint would provide for a $27 million increase for the EPA’s Indian reservation drinking water program, and a $9 million boost for drinking water programs generally for responses to drinking water disasters.

The Trump administration wants to dramatically withdraw the federal government from its traditional role of writing and enforcing environmental rules.

The skinny budget is just a starting point for talks with Congress. Trump also wanted steep EPA budget cuts during his first term, but Democratic appropriators were able to keep the agency’s funding on a slight upward trajectory.

Trump’s request marks a sharp reversal from the Biden era, when the EPA’s budget rose to record levels, although some of that funding came in the form of one-time boosts under the climate and infrastructure laws.

Environmental groups were quick to lambaste the budget plan.

Michelle Roos, executive director of the Environmental Protection Network, called it a “a reckless and short-sighted plan that will lead to higher levels of toxic pollution in the air we breathe and water we drink across the nation.”

Camden Weber, climate and energy policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, deemed it a “full-frontal assault on the institutions that protect our air, water, and public lands.”

To Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the budget “shows a lack of even a rudimentary understanding of how federally funded science protects the American public.”

“Trump’s plan to virtually eliminate federal funding for clean, safe water represents a shocking, malevolent disregard for public health,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “Even by Trump’s appalling standards, this direct attack on a benchmark water safety program is unconscionable.”