- Trump’s FY 2026 EPA budget proposal would sharply cut waste and recycling funding, including ~47% less for Superfund appropriations and ~42% less for the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
- State and categorical grants face major rollbacks, with water infrastructure appropriations reduced by roughly 87–90% and total EPA grants dropping by about 54%.
- Enforcement and compliance would be scaled back through large budget and staffing cuts, including eliminating environmental justice enforcement funding.
- The plan targets a smaller, reorganized EPA workforce with about $300 million in annual savings and shifts more cleanup funding toward user fees and excise-tax revenues.
Read More
The Trump administration’s FY 2026 EPA budget proposal represents a sweeping change in federal environmental policy, especially in areas of waste management, enforcement, and agency operations. The cuts proposed—both in appropriated funding and staffing—are substantial enough that, if enacted, they would significantly narrow the EPA’s role as regulator, enforcer, and science agency.
First, waste and recycling programs face some of the deepest cuts. The proposal would cut the Superfund program’s appropriated funds by about 47% and ORCR (Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery) budget by ~42%. Within ORCR, specific subprograms critical to environmental protection—corrective action, waste management, and waste minimization&recycling—are reduced by roughly 35-56%. These cuts threaten core functions like landfill oversight, hazardous waste cleanup, and recyclability initiatives.
Second, enforcement and compliance functions are being deprioritized. The civil enforcement budget is slated to fall by ≈$61 million with ~180 full-time positions cut. Compliance monitoring and criminal enforcement also face large percentage reductions. Environmental Justice enforcement is proposed to be eliminated altogether. These shifts suggest a change in strategy: focusing only on ‘significant noncompliance’ and withdrawing from broader oversight.
Third, there is a systemic effort to shrink agency scale. The reorganization aims to return the EPA workforce to numbers comparable to President Reagan’s era (~11,400-14,400 FTEs, depending on the year), down from ~14,733 in early FY 2025. The proposal seeks ~$300 million in annual savings tied to staff and structural reductions. Simultaneously, the Office of Research and Development is eliminated or transformed, raising concerns about scientific independence.
Fourth, financial architecture is being shifted. Superfund remediation is being transformed from appropriations-based funding to relying on income from revived excise taxes (restarted under the IRA and IIJA), while many grant programs (water, brownfields, hazardous waste) are being axed or shrunk. This redistribution underscores an approach favoring internal (EPA fee/tax) and state/tribal responsibility over federal funding.
Strategic implications for stakeholders:
- States and tribes may be forced to assume greater responsibility (and cost) for environmental regulation and infrastructure without federal support.
- Corporations may see reduced regulatory risk and oversight but also fewer opportunities to collaborate through federal programs; litigation risk may shift to citizen suits or state enforcement.
- Environmental justice communities and low-income areas could bear disproportionate harm due to cuts in enforcement and grants targeted to underserved areas.
- Science-dependent programs—hazard assessment, long-term monitoring, cumulative impacts—may lose capacity or credibility given reduced staff and the restructuring of research offices.
Open questions remain:
- What will Congress do? Appropriations can override or alter large parts of the President’s budget—will there be pushback or bipartisan resistance?
- How effective will repurposing funding (e.g., excise taxes) be in maintaining cleanup capacity compared with prior appropriations?
- What is the long-term risk of legal challenges—enforcement reductions may shift burden to courts, state agencies, or non-profits.
- What mechanisms will be used to ensure that scientific integrity and independent review survive within a reduced and reorganized institutional structure?
Supporting Notes
- Superfund-appropriated funds cut by ~47% in FY 2026 proposal; ORCR budget down ~42% compared to FY 2025 levels.
- Within ORCR, corrective action funding down ~35% (~$25.1 million), waste management down ~44% (~$40.4 million), waste minimization & recycling down ~56% (~$4.3 million).
- EPA’s civil enforcement division proposed to see a $61 million cut and loss of ~180.8 FTEs; criminal enforcement and compliance monitoring also substantially reduced; EPA to eliminate Environmental Justice enforcement funding.
- Budget seeks to reduce total EPA funded grants from $9.14 billion in FY 2025 to $4.16 billion for FY 2026, a ~54% drop.
- Water infrastructure funding (Clean Water SRF, Drinking Water SRF, WIFIA) proposed for ~87-90% cuts in appropriations; though IIJA supplemental funds partially offset.
- EPA workforce target to shrink toward “Reagan-era” FTE numbers; current core workforce ~14,733 and goal to lower staffing for ~$300 million annual savings.
- Superfund remediation proposed to transition from appropriated funding to revenue from reinstated excise taxes collected in FY 2025 (~$1.6 billion expected) rather than general budget.
- The Office of Research and Development is eliminated and replaced by new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, with concerns raised over scientific independence.