This chapter is about the agency that guards air, water and soil. It says the agency has grown beyond its job. It wants states to take the lead instead. It also wants changes to how the agency uses science, and to how it enforces rules.
The document says “needs to”Who acts: President, CongressHow: legislationp. 417 in the PDF
What the document says
“EPA needs to be realigned away from attempts to make it an all-powerful energy and land use policymaker and returned to its congressionally sanctioned role as environmental regulator.”
This is the chapter's framing proposition. It says the agency's structure and mission should be greatly circumscribed to reflect cooperative federalism and limited government, and that the primary role in making choices about the environment belongs to the people who live in it.
What the document actually says
“EPA needs to be realigned away from attempts to make it an all-powerful energy and land use policymaker and returned to its congressionally sanctioned role as environmental regulator.”
That sentence, in plain words
The EPA has become a maker of energy and land rules. It should go back to guarding the environment.
What this is about
The EPA is meant to protect air, water and soil. The book says it now sets energy and land rules too. It says that goes beyond its job.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14261 of April 8, 2025 directs the EPA Administrator, along with five other agency heads, to identify guidance, regulations, programs and policies that seek to move the country away from coal production and coal-fired generation, and to take steps on them. It changes what the agency does about one fuel. It does not circumscribe the agency's structure or mission, which is what the chapter asks Congress for, and nothing else indexed does either. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: EPAHow: internal managementp. 420 in the PDF
What the document says
“EPA should build earnest relationships with state and local officials and assume a more supportive role”
The chapter says the agency should share resources and expertise with states, on the principle that the primary role in making environmental choices belongs to the people who live there. It lists this among six principles for restructuring the agency.
What the document actually says
“EPA should build earnest relationships with state and local officials and assume a more supportive role”
That sentence, in plain words
The EPA should work closely with states and towns. It should help them rather than lead.
What this is about
States also protect the environment. The book says they should lead. It says the EPA should help them instead of directing them.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing among the candidates concerns the EPA's relationship with the states. They are orders on exporting the American artificial intelligence stack, on tariff rates, on quantum technology and on the White House Faith Office, plus one lawsuit against EPA whose docket record carries no text. Nothing indexed directs the agency to share resources and expertise with state and local officials or to take a supporting role. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: EPAHow: internal managementp. 422 in the PDF
What the document says
“EPA should not conduct any ongoing or planned activity for which there is not clear and current congressional authorization”
The chapter asks for a tiered-down approach to cut costs, reduce full-time equivalent positions and eliminate duplicative programs, and says this shift should be communicated in the President's first budget request.
What the document actually says
“EPA should not conduct any ongoing or planned activity for which there is not clear and current congressional authorization”
That sentence, in plain words
If Congress has not clearly approved a job, the EPA should not do it.
What this is about
Congress tells the EPA what work to do. The book says some work was never approved. It says that work should stop.
Executive Order 14219 of February 19, 2025 directs every agency head, within 60 days, to review all regulations under the agency's jurisdiction and identify those based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority and those implicating matters of social, political or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority, to send that list to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for a unified agenda that seeks to rescind or modify them, and to generally de-prioritize enforcement of them. That is the test the passage sets. The fit breaks down in that the order reaches regulations rather than any ongoing or planned activity, so it does not touch programs, grants or staffing; it runs to all agencies rather than the EPA; it directs identification and proposed rescission rather than stopping the activity; and it says nothing about the reduction in full-time positions or the budget request the chapter attaches to the proposal.
In plain English
The order tells each agency to find rules that lack clear backing in law. Those rules go on a list to be undone, and are put last for enforcement. The chapter's test was wider. It asked about all agency work, not just rules, and about staff and budget too.
In the rule published February 18, 2026, the EPA rescinds the Administrator's 2009 findings of contribution and endangerment and repeals all greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and engines, stating that section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize the agency to prescribe emission standards in response to global climate change concerns and that this reading is corroborated by the major questions doctrine. An agency ending an activity because it concludes the statute does not authorize it is the test the passage sets. The fit breaks down in that the rule applies that test to one set of standards under one Clean Air Act provision rather than across the agency, it is a rescission of rules rather than the agency-wide review the passage asks for, and only the rule's own summary is indexed here, so what the preamble says beyond that is not recorded on this site.
In plain English
In a rule of February 18, 2026 the environment agency drops its 2009 climate findings. It also ends all greenhouse gas limits for cars and trucks. It says the law never gave it that power. But the rule covers one set of limits, not a check across the whole agency.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 436 in the PDF
What the document says
“The new President’s Inauguration Day regulatory review/freeze directives should avoid exceptions for EPA actions.”
The chapter says the freeze should explicitly include quasi-regulatory actions such as assessments, determinations, standards and guidance that have not gone through notice and comment, and which it says may date back years.
What the document actually says
“The new President’s Inauguration Day regulatory review/freeze directives should avoid exceptions for EPA actions.”
That sentence, in plain words
A new president freezes new rules on day one. The EPA should get no exception.
What this is about
A new president usually pauses new rules on day one. Agencies sometimes get let off. The book says the EPA should not be.
The memorandum of January 20, 2025 freezes rulemaking across all executive departments and agencies, with no exception for the EPA, and its definition of rule goes well beyond notice and comment rulemaking: it reaches guidance documents, notices of inquiry, advance notices, proposed rules, and any agency statement of general applicability and future effect that sets out a policy or an interpretation. That covers the quasi-regulatory actions the chapter names. The fit is not exact. The freeze bars new rules and asks agencies only to consider postponing rules already published, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may exempt any rule deemed necessary for emergencies or other urgent circumstances, and nothing in it reaches back to assessments, determinations or standards issued in earlier years.
In plain English
The memo freezes new rules at every agency. The EPA gets no carve out. Its meaning of rule is broad and takes in guidance and notices, so it covers the acts the book names. But it only asks that agencies weigh delay for rules already out. The budget chief may exempt urgent rules. Older standards are left alone.
The document says “should”Who acts: EPA, CongressHow: legislationp. 437 in the PDF
What the document says
“Several ORD offices and programs, many of which constitute unaccountable efforts to use scientific determinations to drive regulatory, enforcement, and legal decisions, should be eliminated.”
The chapter gives the Integrated Risk Information System as its example, saying it has operated since the 1980s without ever being authorized by Congress, often sets safe levels based on what it calls questionable science and below background levels, and results in billions in economic costs.
What the document actually says
“Several ORD offices and programs, many of which constitute unaccountable efforts to use scientific determinations to drive regulatory, enforcement, and legal decisions, should be eliminated.”
That sentence, in plain words
Some research offices here should be closed. Their science drives rules and cases.
What this is about
One office studies how harmful chemicals are. Its findings shape rules and lawsuits. The book says Congress never approved it. It wants it closed.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The consolidated appropriations act for fiscal year 2026, enacted January 23, 2026, is the only candidate that acts on EPA's research money, and it funds the work: $744,195,000 for EPA science and technology and $3,114,671,000 for programs and management. It eliminates no research office program. Nothing indexed abolishes the Integrated Risk Information System or any other program in the Office of Research and Development. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: EPAHow: internal managementp. 438 in the PDF
What the document says
“Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors.”
The chapter says that in the face of uncertainty about links between pollutants and health effects, the agency's reliance on default assumptions such as the low-dose linear non-threshold model bakes orders of magnitude of risk into regulatory inputs. It asks that the agency instead default to less restrictive regulatory outcomes.
What the document actually says
“Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors.”
That sentence, in plain words
Drop the safety-first models used when the facts are unclear.
What this is about
Sometimes it is unclear how harmful a thing is. The EPA then assumes the worst. The book says that pushes rules too far. It wants a lighter starting point.
Executive Order 14303, signed May 23, 2025, directs agency heads and employees that highly unlikely and overly precautionary assumptions and scenarios should only be relied upon in agency decision making where required by law or otherwise pertinent to the action, requires them to document how uncertainty propagates through models, and requires a weight of scientific evidence approach. That is the shift in default assumptions the passage asks for, and it applies across the government rather than to the EPA alone. It falls short in three ways: the instruction on precautionary assumptions is worded as should rather than shall, the order names no particular model, so the low-dose linear non-threshold model and the uncertainty factors the chapter objects to are not addressed by name, and it does not tell agencies to default to less restrictive regulatory outcomes.
In plain English
The order tells agencies to lean less on worst case guesses. They must show how doubt runs through their models. That is the shift the chapter asked for. But the wording is should, not must, and no model is named.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: EPAHow: internal managementp. 438 in the PDF
What the document says
“EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny”
The chapter names data analysis, identification of scientific flaws and research misconduct as the areas where it wants greater public scrutiny. It contrasts this with what it calls scaremongering risk communications and enforcement activities. The chapter separately lists making all supporting studies public and open to comment among its principles.
What the document actually says
“EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny”
That sentence, in plain words
Let the public check the agency's science. Ask them to look for mistakes.
What this is about
The EPA uses science to set rules. The book says the public should be able to check it. It wants people to look for errors.
Executive Order 14303 of May 23, 2025 requires agency heads, to the extent practicable and within the agency's authority, to make publicly available the data, analyses and conclusions associated with influential scientific information the agency produces or uses, including data cited in peer-reviewed literature, and the models and source code used to generate it, and it bars employees from invoking exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act to withhold those models without the agency head's written authorization. That is the disclosure the chapter's principle of open supporting studies asks for, and the order also directs that updated scientific integrity policies provide for consideration of dissenting viewpoints. The fit breaks down in that the order creates no citizen science program and deputizes no member of the public to audit agency data, it runs to every agency rather than to the EPA, and it expressly excludes from disclosure the risk models used to guide agency enforcement actions or select enforcement targets.
In plain English
The order makes agencies post the data and models behind their science. It also says other views must be weighed. But it sets up no role for the public to check that work. And models used to pick enforcement targets are left out.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 439 in the PDF
What the document says
“A high priority should be the repeal or reform of the Global Change Research Act of”
The Global Change Research Act of 1990 established the program that produces the National Climate Assessment. Chapter 2 separately asks that the same program be reshaped by executive order and that its output be critically analyzed and if required refused.
What the document actually says
“A high priority should be the repeal or reform of the Global Change Research Act of”
That sentence, in plain words
One old law should be a top target. Repeal it or change it.
What this is about
A 1990 law set up climate research across government. It produces regular climate reports. The book says the law should be repealed or changed.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. EPA's final rule of February 18, 2026 rescinds the 2009 endangerment and contribution findings and repeals greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, all under section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. It is a large action on climate regulation but under a different statute. The Global Change Research Act of 1990, the research program it created and the National Climate Assessment it requires are untouched by it and by every other candidate. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: EPA, PresidentHow: internal managementp. 440 in the PDF
What the document says
“AIO should be significantly elevated as a stand-alone EPA Assistant Administrator office.”
The chapter asks that the office be led by a politically appointed, Senate-confirmed Assistant Administrator, ideally with strong ties to a federally recognized tribe, that it be located in the American West closer to most tribal nations with Oklahoma City, Dallas and other cities suggested, that all tribal grants and matters run through it, and that tribal staff report to it rather than to regional offices.
What the document actually says
“AIO should be significantly elevated as a stand-alone EPA Assistant Administrator office.”
That sentence, in plain words
This office should be raised up. It should stand on its own.
What this is about
One office handles work with tribal nations. It sits inside other offices now. The book says it should stand alone. It should also move out west.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed elevates EPA's American Indian Office to a stand-alone Assistant Administrator office, moves it west, or routes tribal grants and staff through it. The nearest candidate, the presidential memorandum of January 23, 2025, directs the Interior Secretary to develop a plan for full federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, which concerns one tribe's status rather than how the EPA is organized. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: EPAHow: internal managementp. 441 in the PDF
What the document says
“OECA attorneys should be moved into OGC.”
The chapter says enforcement attorneys tend to take legal positions to win cases or obtain settlements that may be inconsistent with those of the general counsel and program offices, that it is unacceptable for the agency to hold inconsistent legal positions, and that all attorneys with authority to represent the agency should be housed in the general counsel's office.
What the document actually says
“OECA attorneys should be moved into OGC.”
That sentence, in plain words
Move these lawyers into the main legal office.
What this is about
The EPA has lawyers who bring cases. They sit in their own office. The book says they argue things the agency's main lawyers would not. It wants them moved.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Surface Transportation Board's final rule of February 3, 2026 records that the board merged its two legal offices, the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Proceedings, into a single Office of Chief Counsel, and makes the naming changes that follow. That is the same shape of change the chapter wants, an agency putting its lawyers under one office, but it happened at the Surface Transportation Board. Nothing indexed moves EPA's enforcement and compliance attorneys into its Office of General Counsel. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: EPAHow: internal managementp. 441 in the PDF
What the document says
“Administration should pause and review all ongoing EJ and Title VI actions”
The chapter frames this as ensuring consistency with a forthcoming Supreme Court decision, and says elsewhere that enforcement and the distribution of grants should be based on neutral constitutional principles.
What the document actually says
“Administration should pause and review all ongoing EJ and Title VI actions”
That sentence, in plain words
Pause this work and look at it again. It covers fairness cases.
What this is about
Some EPA work looks at whether pollution falls harder on some communities. The book says that work should pause. It says a court ruling was coming.
Executive Order 14151 of January 20, 2025 requires each agency head, within 60 days, to terminate to the maximum extent allowed by law all environmental justice offices and positions along with equity action plans, equity actions, initiatives and programs and equity-related grants or contracts, to give the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a list of every environmental justice position, committee, program, service, activity, budget and expenditure in existence on November 4, 2024, and to have the deputy agency head recommend actions aligning the agency's programs, regulations, guidance, enforcement activities, grants, consent orders and litigating positions with the order's policy. The inventory and the recommendation are a review of ongoing actions. The fit breaks down in that the order terminates rather than pauses, it runs to every agency rather than to the EPA, it does not mention Title VI or the pending Supreme Court decision the chapter ties the pause to, and it sets no point at which paused actions would resume.
In plain English
The order gives each agency 60 days to end environmental justice offices, plans and grants. Each must list every such job and program and suggest more steps, which is a form of review. But the order ends this work rather than pausing it. It covers all agencies, not just the EPA. It never names Title VI or the court case the book ties the pause to.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: EPAHow: internal managementp. 420 in the PDF
What the document says
“EPA should foster cooperative relationships with the regulated community, especially small businesses, that encourage compliance over enforcement.”
This is one of six principles the chapter sets out for restructuring the agency, alongside state leadership, measurable results, streamlined process, reducing economic costs on communities, and transparent science.
What the document actually says
“EPA should foster cooperative relationships with the regulated community, especially small businesses, that encourage compliance over enforcement.”
That sentence, in plain words
The EPA should work with the firms it regulates. Help them follow the rules first.
What this is about
The EPA can fine a firm that breaks a rule. The book says it should help firms follow rules instead. It names small firms in particular.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14405 of May 19, 2026 tells the heads of federal financial regulators to review regulations, guidance, supervisory practices and application processes that could be updated to help financial technology firms, particularly small and emerging ones. It is the nearest candidate on easing the path for small business, but it binds financial regulators, not the EPA, and it says nothing about preferring compliance assistance to enforcement. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: EPAHow: regulationp. 429 in the PDF
What the document says
“the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued.”
The passage concerns the definition of waters of the United States and Clean Water Act section 401, which governs state certification of federally permitted projects. The definition determines which waters and wetlands fall under federal jurisdiction and has been repeatedly revised and litigated.
What the document actually says
“the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued.”
That sentence, in plain words
These water rules should be repealed. New ones should be written.
What this is about
One rule decides which streams and wetlands the government controls. It has changed many times. The book says it should be scrapped and rewritten.
Executive Order 14394 of March 13, 2026 directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, and the EPA Administrator to review and revise requirements related to stormwater, wetlands, lakes, rivers and other bodies of water, naming among them the federal standards for permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States and the standards for state and tribal assumption of that permitting under section 404(g). That is a directed revision of the federal water regulations the passage concerns. The fit breaks down in that the order reaches section 404 permitting standards rather than the definition of waters of the United States, it does not mention section 401 state certification, it calls for review and revision rather than repeal and reissuance, and its stated purpose is reducing housing construction and ownership costs rather than the jurisdictional question the passage raises.
In plain English
An order of March 13, 2026 tells the Army and the EPA to redo water rules. Among them are the permit rules for dumping fill into waters. That is a change to the water rules the passage is about. But it calls for review, not repeal and reissue, and its aim is cheaper homes.
Mandy M. Gunasekara, “Environmental Protection Agency,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 417-448. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Environmental Protection Agency,” Project 2025, chapter 13. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-13/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Recommendations on the agency's mission and structure, the role of states, its use of science and risk assessment, enforcement, tribal affairs and the water rules.
The chapter's detailed treatment of individual Clean Air Act provisions, pesticide registration, chemical review and waste cleanup, which contain many technical recommendations.
This chapter is unusually technical and a large share of its recommendations concern specific statutory provisions. What is indexed is the structural and policy layer rather than the provision-by-provision detail.
