Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency with a clear mandate: to protect public health and the environment. For over five decades, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, that mission has been reinforced through bipartisan legislation to clean up hazardous waste, improve air and water quality, and assist states, territories, and tribal nations in safeguarding their communities. Congress also provided the funding — never excessive but historically sufficient — to fulfill those legal responsibilities.

Today, that funding is under threat. The proposed 55% cut to EPA’s budget would reduce the agency’s capacity to its lowest level since its founding in 1970, as environmental emergencies are becoming more frequent and more severe. From catastrophic wildfires in Los Angeles to deadly tornadoes in Kentucky and Oklahoma to hurricanes like Helene that ravaged the East Coast, communities rely on the EPA’s expertise in emergency response, air and water monitoring, hazardous materials management, and environmental recovery. Drastically reducing the EPA’s funding undermines not only the mandate to provide clean air and clean water but also the government’s ability to respond rapidly and effectively when disaster strikes.

In Region 2, which includes New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and eight federally recognized tribal nations, the EPA’s work has been central to health, safety, and environmental progress. The EPA has helped clean up toxic Superfund sites like the Hudson and Raritan rivers, restored safe drinking water access in cities like Newark and San Juan, and supported air quality improvements that have reduced asthma rates and premature deaths. These aren’t abstractions; they are measurable public health and environmental victories.

But they depend on federal funding and expertise. The proposed budget would slash $2.46 billion from the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, stalling long-overdue repairs of pipes in schools, homes, and hospitals. Drastic cuts to the Office of Research and Development would undermine the science that guides environmental health policy. Eliminating the Environmental Justice and Community Outreach program would turn a blind eye to communities long overburdened by pollution.

Some argue that states should take on more of this responsibility. But the EPA was never designed to replace the states; it was built to support them. The EPA provides technical assistance, enforcement backing, and funding for state and territory-run air and water programs. Pulling federal support out from under states and territories won’t streamline regulation. It will leave communities with weaker protections, inconsistent enforcement, and fewer avenues for progress and accountability.

President Donald Trump’s recent claim that pollution has “zero impact” reflects a deep misunderstanding of both science and governance. Pollution has real, well-documented effects on human health, from cancer and developmental disorders to respiratory illness and premature death. The EPA exists because Congress recognized that the consequences of pollution cross state lines and demand a national response.

Congress faces a critical decision. Will it honor its own environmental laws by funding the agency charged with enforcing them? Or will it impose cuts that prevent the EPA from doing what it was created to do?

We urge Congress to reject proposed EPA budget cuts and restore full funding. Environmental protection isn’t partisan; it’s a matter of law, science, and basic public duty. Undermining the EPA won’t eliminate the costs of pollution. It will simply shift those costs to states and local communities through higher health care bills, degraded ecosystems, and long-term harm to our children’s futures.

Congress set the mission. It must now stand up and continue to provide the means to fulfill it.