AFGE Local 704 Positions and Talking Points

“I trust a fully-funded and science-based EPA, including environmental and public health initiatives that keep our air clean and water safe. Help keep your family and community healthy by supporting AFGE Local 704 workers and their union.”

“Following the science that shows our planet is warming at an alarming rate is our best way forward. The more information we share openly, the sooner we will adopt renewable sources of energy and climate mitigation measures. #Climate Emergency #ClimateCrisis”

“Any and all actions by EPA should meet the highest standards of science and environmental protection. Don’t allow your clean water and clean air to be degraded by Trump EPA dangerous rollbacks. #CleanAir #Clean Water”

“Whistleblower and Free Speech rights are crucial to AFGE Local 704 workers’ protection of human health and the environment. Don’t allow your clean air and clean water to be swept under the rug in favor of polluters who profit from poisoning your community. #FreeSpeech”

“Elimination of #PFAS and associated toxic #ForeverChemicals from your sources of drinking water is crucial to human health.”

“Protect #AFGE Local 704 workers’ right to practice #SoundScience! When environmental protection does not reflect scientific consensus, public health will not be protected.”

Unions at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have historically played a vital role in protecting employees’ rights, advocating for scientific integrity, and reinforcing the agency’s mission.

However, their importance has been highlighted recently due to the termination of collective bargaining agreements by the EPA in August 2025.

Functions of EPA unions:

• Protection of scientific integrity: Unions like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Council 238 have fought for provisions that protect EPA scientists and other employees from political interference. These provisions allow staff to speak freely about their work without fear of retaliation, which is critical for an agency that relies on science-based decision-making.
• Workplace advocacy: EPA unions represent thousands of employees, including scientists, inspectors, and other staff, ensuring fair wages, safe working conditions, and job security. They address issues such as staffing cuts, burnout, and unfair dismissals.
• Mission support: By fighting against political interference and defending the ability of career employees to do their jobs, unions argue they are directly supporting the EPA’s core mission to protect human health and the environment. They believe that a strong, independent workforce is essential for an effective agency.
• Employee rights: For many years, unions established collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) that defined employee rights and obligations regarding working conditions. This included official time for union duties, a practice that has been halted following the termination of CBAs in August 2025.
• Blue-green alliances: EPA employee unions have historically collaborated with environmental groups to promote both worker protections and environmental sustainability. For example, the BlueGreen Alliance is a coalition of labor unions and environmental organizations.

The recent termination of collective bargaining agreements in August 2025 has highlighted the unions’ importance by drawing attention to the protections that employees have lost:

• Loss of rights: The action, justified by citing Executive Order 14251, terminated CBAs with unions like the AFGE, the National Association of Government Employees, and others. This stripped thousands of workers of protections they have relied on.
• Alleged union-busting: Critics, including the affected unions, have labeled the move as “union-busting” and an attack on democracy and the rule of law.
• Concerns over deregulation: Union leaders have expressed concerns that ending collective bargaining is a step toward further deregulation to benefit corporate polluters.
• Potential for political interference: The termination of scientific integrity protections within the union contract has raised fears that scientists will face greater pressure and be less able to speak out against actions that threaten environmental protections.
• Legal challenge: AFGE Local 704 has vowed to fight the administration in court, arguing that the action was unlawful and will ultimately weaken the EPA’s ability to carry out its mission.

Scientific integrity and free speech are considered crucial for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees to effectively protect the environment and public health. Free and transparent communication of scientific findings, uncompromised by political interference, is seen as essential for developing sound, evidence-based environmental policy.

The relationship between EPA employee rights and environmental protection is supported by several factors:

• Public accountability: A strong scientific integrity policy is meant to ensure that the EPA’s work is of the highest quality and free from political influence or personal motives. Protecting employees from retaliation for disclosing wrongdoing helps build public trust and holds the agency accountable for its decisions.
• Data transparency: The EPA’s scientific integrity policy and whistleblower protections are intended to prevent the censorship, suppression, or misrepresentation of research findings. This transparency is vital for public and scientific scrutiny and for informing sound policy decisions.
• Protecting whistleblowers: EPA employees who report breaches of scientific integrity or raise differing scientific opinions are protected from retribution and retaliation. This provides a channel for internal dissent, which can improve policy outcomes. For example, whistleblower laws protect employees who expose censorship or suppression of research related to public health and safety.
• Encouraging scientific exchange: EPA policy encourages scientists to openly publish their work in peer-reviewed journals, present at scientific meetings, and participate in professional organizations. This open exchange ensures the agency relies on rigorous, peer-reviewed science.
• Informing the public: By allowing scientists to communicate their findings honestly, the public is better informed about environmental risks, such as climate change, toxic chemicals, and hazardous waste. Undermining scientific findings can have serious public health consequences, particularly for underserved communities.

Recent concerns over EPA scientific freedom:

In recent years, actions at the EPA have triggered concern over the potential undermining of scientific integrity and employee free speech, raising questions about the future of evidence-based policymaking.

• Publication freeze: In September 2025, reports indicated that the EPA ordered scientists in at least one research office to pause almost all publication of new studies. This move came from political appointees and prompted immediate concern that scientific findings might be silenced.
• Employee retaliation: In July 2025, 144 EPA employees who signed a “Declaration of Dissent” criticizing administration policies were placed on administrative leave. This sparked a letter from U.S. Senators urging the EPA to reinstate the employees and protect their right to express viewpoints as citizens.
• Removal of policies: In August 2025, the updated EPA scientific integrity policy was removed from the agency’s website. Though the agency issued a revised policy in January 2025, critics have expressed concern that the new rules do not resolve issues regarding the Inspector General’s oversight role or fully protect whistleblowers.
• Changes to climate science: Since 2025, there have been multiple instances of the EPA and other federal agencies halting or reversing climate-related initiatives, including ending a database for calculating emissions and delaying reports. The 2017 dismissal of EPA scientists from a climate change conference is another example of previous administrations silencing scientists.
• Elimination of research and personnel: Actions in mid-2025 included the elimination of the EPA’s Office of Research and Development and layoffs of scientific staff. These cuts were criticized for their impact on climate research and environmental protection.

The First Amendment rights of federal employees are balanced against the government’s interest in workplace efficiency.

• As private citizens: When speaking on matters of public concern in their personal capacity, employees are generally protected. Protections are strongest when speech occurs outside the workplace and is not related to official duties.
• As part of official duties: The U.S. Supreme Court case Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) established that the First Amendment does not protect speech made as part of an employee’s official job duties. However, this does not apply to external communications with the public or media.
• Whistleblower protections: Whistleblower laws provide specific protections for federal employees who report waste, fraud, abuse, or threats to public health and safety.

The tension between scientific integrity and political interference at the EPA highlights the ongoing challenge of ensuring that federal science remains independent and transparent, ultimately impacting the agency’s ability to protect the environment and human health.

Combating climate misinformation is critical because it erodes public trust in science, delays climate action, and polarizes public discourse. False narratives, spread intentionally as disinformation or unintentionally as misinformation, create a distorted understanding of the climate crisis, hindering society’s ability to respond to this global threat effectively.

Impact on public perception and trust:

• Undermines scientific consensus: Climate misinformation creates confusion and sows doubt about the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is causing climate change. Tactics like cherry-picking data or promoting fringe theories distort the public’s perception of the issue and its severity.
• Erodes public trust: The circulation of false narratives damages trust in critical institutions, including scientists, media, and government agencies. This erosion of trust makes it difficult for people to make informed decisions and for officials to implement effective climate policies.
• Increases polarization: Misinformation exacerbates political polarization by framing climate change as a partisan issue rather than a scientific one. This creates echo chambers where false information is amplified, while evidence-based solutions are dismissed, further fragmenting public discourse and hindering collaborative action.

Impact on policy and climate action:

• Weakens support for policies: Public opinion significantly influences policy decisions. When misinformation weakens public understanding and support for climate solutions, it undermines the mandate for effective policies aligned with goals like the Paris Agreement.
• Enables delay tactics: A recent strategic shift in disinformation involves delaying climate action rather than denying climate change outright. These narratives, such as “climate delay” and “greenwashing,” acknowledge the problem but question the feasibility, cost, or urgency of solutions. This leads to political inaction and stalled environmental progress.
• Influences policymaker decisions: Misinformation can be directly targeted at policymakers and amplified by politicians, influencing legislative decisions and resulting in policies that delay or oppose climate action.

Other societal consequences

• Exacerbates social tensions: In regions already vulnerable to environmental stress, climate misinformation can escalate existing tensions. False narratives that blame specific communities for climate-related hardships can foster fear and mistrust, undermining peace and stability.
• Silences experts: As climate misinformation spreads, it can incite hostility toward climate experts and advocates. Coordinated online harassment campaigns against researchers are a documented example of malicious actors attempting to discredit scientific work and discourage public engagement from scientists.
• Harmful for businesses and consumers: Greenwashing, a form of climate misinformation, misleads consumers and investors into believing that companies are more environmentally friendly than they are. This provides a false illusion of progress, delaying meaningful, systemic changes by corporations.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) averts environmental and climate disasters through a multi-faceted approach: mitigating climate change by enforcing regulations on climate pollutants and promoting clean technologies, building climate resilience by researching impacts and helping communities prepare for disasters, responding to disasters to protect health and the environment, and providing expertise and funding for critical infrastructure and cleanup efforts. The EPA’s work includes reducing greenhouse gases, safeguarding air and water quality, and developing tools to help communities manage climate risks.

Mitigating Climate Change

• Enforcement and Regulations: The EPA enforces laws to curb climate super pollutants like methane and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and includes climate adaptation measures in its compliance activities.
• Promoting Clean Energy: The EPA supports initiatives like the Clean School Bus program, which funds the transition from diesel to electric buses to reduce emissions and improve air quality.
• Scientific Research: The agency conducts and coordinates research to understand climate change impacts on air quality, ecosystems, and human health, which informs mitigation efforts.

Building Climate Resilience and Preparedness

• Infrastructure Protection: The EPA works with local, state, and tribal governments and water utilities to strengthen drinking water and wastewater infrastructure against storms and flooding.
• Community Support: The agency previously offered expertise and tools, such as the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, to help communities understand and manage climate-related risks.
• Sustainable Rebuilding: The EPA provides guidance for communities on rebuilding in a way that promotes long-term viability for both people and ecosystems after a disaster.

Responding to and Recovering from Disasters

• Emergency Response: The EPA’s emergency response program supports on-scene responders, coordinates with federal agencies, and conducts removal actions when hazardous materials or oil spills occur.
• Environmental Monitoring: The EPA collects samples, monitors conditions, and uses specialists to evaluate environmental health during and after a disaster.
• Funding and Expertise: The agency provides funding through State Revolving Funds to help restore vital water infrastructure after a disaster.

To avert a climate disaster, immediate, significant, and widespread action is required, not just from EPA, but from everyone. Changes should focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by transitioning to renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, adopting sustainable transportation and agriculture, and protecting natural ecosystems. Individuals can contribute by reducing their energy consumption, adopting a more plant-based diet, and advocating for policy change, while larger systemic changes are needed at the governmental and corporate levels.

Key Actions and Solutions

• Transition to Renewable Energy: Shift away from fossil fuels to renewable sources like solar and wind power for energy generation.
• Improve Energy Efficiency: Enhance energy efficiency in homes and buildings through better insulation, smart thermostats, and using ENERGY STAR certified appliances and LED lighting.
• Adopt Sustainable Transportation: Promote walking, cycling, public transport, and electric vehicles to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
• Change Dietary Habits: Reduce meat consumption and adopt more plant-based meals, as well as minimizing food waste to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
• Enhance Sustainable Land Use: Implement sustainable forestry practices, restore degraded ecosystems, and adopt farming techniques that store more carbon in the soil.

Why environmental justice matters:

• Health Disparities: Marginalized communities are disproportionately exposed to environmental toxins, such as lead, air pollution, and hazardous waste. This leads to higher rates of respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, neurological problems, and developmental disabilities.
• Systemic Inequality: Environmental injustice is rooted in longstanding systemic racism and social inequalities, which have historically placed pollution and environmental burdens on low-income and minority communities.
• Climate Vulnerability: Communities at risk are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including more severe heat waves, floods, and wildfires.
• Right to a Healthy Environment: Everyone has a fundamental right to live in a healthy environment, which includes access to clean air, clean water, and protection from environmental hazards.

Key Principles of Environmental Justice:

• Fair Treatment: All people have the right to fair treatment and protection from the negative environmental burdens of pollution.
• Meaningful Involvement: Communities should have a voice in developing environmental laws, policies, and regulations that affect their neighborhoods.
• Equitable Outcomes: The goal is to achieve fair and equitable environmental outcomes for all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income.

How to Protect At-Risk Communities:

• Address Systemic Issues: Recognize and address the historical and ongoing social factors and systemic racism that contribute to environmental injustice.
• Community Engagement: Involve communities in identifying environmental gaps, developing solutions, and making decisions about land use and environmental policies.
• Policy and Legal Changes: Advocate for and implement laws and regulations that reduce inequalities and improve health conditions in affected communities.
• Resource Allocation: Invest in communities that have been historically denied access to environmental benefits, such as clean natural areas and climate-resilient infrastructure.

Environmental justice ensures all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, receive fair treatment and meaningful involvement in environmental decision-making and share the same environmental protection benefits. Protecting at-risk communities is crucial because they face disproportionate exposure to pollution, hazardous waste, and the intensifying effects of climate change, leading to significant health issues like asthma, cancer, and developmental problems. Addressing environmental injustice requires understanding the cumulative impacts of these burdens and taking systemic action through policy, community engagement, and equitable distribution of environmental benefits to achieve health equity.

Eliminating protections against “forever chemicals” like PFAS in drinking water would increase public health risks, according to multiple studies and health experts.

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are synthetic chemicals that do not break down naturally and have been linked to a variety of serious health issues.

Known health effects of PFAS exposure:

Scientific research has linked exposure to PFAS to multiple negative health consequences in both humans and animals. The risks depend on the level, frequency, and duration of exposure. These risks include:

• Cancer: An increased risk of testicular and kidney cancer has been associated with exposure to certain PFAS, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
• Reproductive and developmental issues: Studies suggest a link between PFAS exposure and decreased fertility, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure (preeclampsia), and small decreases in infant birth weight.
• Immune system impacts: PFAS can affect the immune system, leading to a reduced response to vaccines.
• Liver damage: Exposure has been shown to cause changes in liver enzymes and lead to liver damage.
• Thyroid disease: An increased risk of thyroid disease is associated with PFAS exposure.
• High cholesterol: Studies consistently find a link between PFAS exposure and higher cholesterol levels.

How PFAS enter drinking water:

PFAS enter water supplies from various sources and are extremely persistent, which is how they earned the “forever chemical” label. Sources of contamination include:

• Industrial sites: Release from manufacturing facilities.
• Military bases and airports: Use of firefighting foam, or aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), containing PFAS.
• Landfills: Leaching of PFAS from discarded consumer products into groundwater.
• Wastewater treatment plants: Discharge of treated wastewater and contaminated biosolids.

The debate over PFAS regulation:

While the consensus among scientists and health advocates is that regulations are necessary, some groups raise concerns over compliance costs.

• Proponents of regulation: Advocates point to the scientific evidence on adverse health effects and the environmental persistence of PFAS to support strong protective measures. The EPA estimates the health benefits of its 2024 regulations—including fewer illnesses and deaths—will justify the costs.
• Opponents of regulation: Groups like the American Chemistry Council and some industry advocates have criticized the EPA’s approach, citing high compliance costs for water utilities, especially smaller systems. Concerns have also been raised about the costs and challenges of implementing PFAS treatment and disposing of the resulting toxic waste.

The safety implications of rolling back protections:

A reversal of protections would likely expose millions more people to contaminated drinking water, increasing the risk of associated health problems.

• The EPA’s 2024 regulations, which set enforceable limits for six types of PFAS in public water systems, were designed to reduce exposure for approximately 100 million people.
• Loosening or eliminating these rules would mean that millions could lose protections against scientifically-proven health threats, putting communities at risk for increased rates of chronic illness.

Over the last 50 years, historical progress in cleaning up the environment has significantly protected and improved public health through stronger legislation and increased public awareness. Landmark environmental disasters served as crucial catalysts, prompting major policy changes that have led to dramatic reductions in air and water pollution.

Talking points:

“Eliminating protections against PFAS and other “forever chemicals” contaminating our drinking water will make us unsafe.”

“Historical progress made in cleaning up the environment has been crucial to protecting public health.”

“Scientific integrity and free speech rights for EPA employees is key to protecting the environment.”

In the mid-20th century, severe smog and industrial emissions led to widespread respiratory illnesses. The creation of stronger air quality regulations has since prevented millions of premature deaths and other health problems.

• The Clean Air Act: Since its passing in 1970, this act has driven significant reductions in six common pollutants, including fine particulate matter, ozone, and lead.
• Reduced emissions: As a result of these policies, emissions of common pollutants dropped by 78% between 1970 and 2020, even as the U.S. economy grew.
• Elimination of lead: The phase-out of lead from gasoline, completed in 1995, resulted in a 98% reduction in lead in the air and a 75% reduction in children’s blood lead levels, preventing serious learning disabilities.
• Transportation regulations: Emissions standards for vehicles, trucks, and other engines have led to a 99% reduction in most tailpipe pollutants compared to the 1960s.

Historical negligence led to widespread water contamination that jeopardized drinking water supplies and fueled public outrage, which resulted in corrective legislation.

• The Clean Water Act: The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire, caused by chemical pollution, helped spur the creation of the Clean Water Act in 1972. The act established a nationwide approach to cleaning up rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water.
• Reduced discharges: The EPA began issuing permits to regulate industrial discharges into waterways, which holds over 45,000 facilities accountable for their water pollution.
• Waterway health: As a result of cleanups, the number of U.S. waterways meeting clean water goals has doubled since 1972. For instance, Chicago’s Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, inspired by the Clean Water Act, has captured billions of gallons of sewage and urban runoff and helped restore the Des Plaines River fishery.

Major hazardous waste crises brought the issue to national attention, leading to comprehensive legislation for cleanup and response.

• Superfund Act: The 1978 Love Canal disaster, where buried toxic waste led to severe health issues for a suburban community, highlighted the public health threat posed by hazardous waste. In response, Congress passed the Superfund (CERCLA) Act in 1980, authorizing the cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
• Emergency Planning Act: The Bhopal disaster in India (1984) and a similar incident in West Virginia prompted the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). This law requires companies to provide information to local governments so they can prepare for potential chemical releases.
• Research initiatives: Research programs funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have developed new technologies for cleaning up contaminated water and therapeutic treatments to bind to hazardous chemicals in the body.

Some environmental problems extend beyond national borders, requiring international cooperation to protect global public health.

• Ozone layer protection: Global action to protect the ozone layer is saving millions from skin cancers and cataracts.
• International cooperation: The EPA and similar international agencies work with other nations on transnational issues to limit emissions and address climate change.

These environmental health improvements demonstrate that economic growth and pollution reduction can occur simultaneously. However, the process highlights the complexity of environmental cleanup and the need for public participation and scientific input to ensure policies are effective and equitable. The success of these efforts provides a blueprint for addressing current and emerging environmental health threats, including climate change.