Science News & Analysis

Trump officials accused of stacking top chemical safety board with industry 'mouthpieces' (July 13, 2026)

Tom Perkins reports for the Guardian that the Trump administration has filled a key chemical safety review body with industry-aligned scientists carrying financial conflicts of interest, according to public health advocates who say the appointees stand to profit from deregulation. The Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals is scheduled to review research on dozens of toxic substances during the incoming members' terms, and comments filed with the agency by a coalition of public health groups allege that at least 13 proposed appointees are likely conflicted on chemicals slated for review. Critics contend the appointments are meant to furnish scientific cover for the EPA's wider campaign against the nation's toxic chemical protections. Among those named is Wade Barranco of Lyondell Chemical Company, which in 2024 released nearly one million pounds of chemicals the committee is expected to review during his term — acetaldehyde, benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene and styrene among them. The coalition argues that participation in reviews where such conflicts exist may be unlawful, citing federal law and the agency's own guidelines requiring that the committee be "both balanced and free of members who have actual or perceived conflicts of interest" or any appearance of lost impartiality. The committee itself consists of 20 to 23 experts appointed every three years by the EPA administrator, and exists to peer-review agency science and examine the chemical risk analyses underlying regulatory decisions.

The coalition's method was documentary. Researchers worked through the EPA's chemical data reporting database and its toxics release inventory — the records tracking manufacture and release of toxic chemicals — to determine which companies make or release the substances the committee will review, then matched those companies against the publicly available professional backgrounds of the proposed appointees. The result identifies, concretely, which members and which employers stand to benefit from the committee's determinations. Erik D. Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council, among the groups leading the inquiry, said the reason for the appointments is plain, describing the appointees as spokesmen for the chemical industry or for consulting firms funded by chemical companies. Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist now with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, expects a committee that ratifies whatever is put before it and supplies cover for poor science. Committees of this kind have customarily drawn from across the scientific community, including researchers affiliated with chemical manufacturers; the difference the coalition identifies is the degree of the tilt.

Attention has centered on Michael Dourson, who in 2024 led an extensive effort to overturn the Biden EPA's PFAS drinking water limits. A former EPA scientist, Dourson left the agency to found Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, characterized by critics as a single source for industry-friendly research. Trump nominated him in 2017 to head the EPA's chemical safety division, but he withdrew after failing to secure sufficient Republican support, with Senate critics alleging he operated a science-for-sale arrangement permitting the American Chemistry Council to edit papers; Dourson has attributed the withdrawal to procedural matters. He did not answer the Guardian's questions, instead supplying a link to his organization's funding page, and has previously described it as impartial and science-neutral, funded partly by nonprofits and regulatory agencies. He has not addressed why its conclusions diverge almost uniformly from those of groups receiving no industry money and align so consistently with manufacturers' positions. The coalition report states that Dourson has been paid by chemical makers or industry groups for work on substances the committee is expected to review, including TBBPA, acrylonitrile, styrene and naphthalene, and asserts that his TBBPA work — funded by the American Chemistry Council's North American Flame Retardant Alliance — contradicted the best available science on reproductive toxicity and harm to developing children. Sarah Vogel of the Environmental Defense Fund called the appointment a blatant attack on the committee's scientific independence, noting Dourson's career leading firms funded by the tobacco industry and dozens of chemical companies. The committee is chaired by Robinan Gentry, a consultant with Ramboll, a firm that routinely challenges chemical regulation. The EPA responded that several of the alleged conflicts might instead reflect general scientific expertise acquired through prior employment, grants or consulting, and that under federal law previous work in industry, academia or the nonprofit sector does not itself constitute a conflict or disqualify someone from serving as a Special Government Employee. Olson rejected the framing, arguing that with chemical industry figures running the agency's toxics office and nominally independent reviewers carrying these conflicts, no independent voices remain.