Muslim World Report

Trump Administration's EPA Rollbacks Threaten Public Health

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 6, 2025 10:19 AM | 9 min read | 1747 words

TL;DR: The Trump administration’s rollbacks of environmental regulations through the EPA threaten public health, potentially leading to increased pollution, health crises in vulnerable communities, and a decline in global environmental leadership. If unchecked, corporate interests may worsen environmental inequalities, while public outcry could lead to renewed advocacy for health protections.

The Situation

The Trump administration’s recent push to dismantle key environmental protections through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represents a pivotal moment in U.S. environmental policy, with significant implications that extend far beyond national borders. The administration’s stated objective is to ease regulations intended to limit harmful pollutants such as smog, mercury, and lead—substances notoriously linked to grave health risks.

These threats are particularly pronounced for vulnerable populations, including:

  • Children
  • The elderly
  • Lower-income communities

The rollback of these essential regulations threatens public health, potentially resulting in thousands of premature deaths while simultaneously undermining decades of hard-won progress in environmental governance (Himmelstein & Woolhandler, 2021; McGuire & Lynch, 2017).

This initiative starkly illustrates a troubling trend: prioritizing corporate interests over the well-being of the American public and the environment. The rationale that reducing restrictions will stimulate economic growth echoes the long-standing agenda of industrial lobbying groups eager to diminish regulatory oversight (Mansfield, 2020).

For communities already grappling with the health impacts of pollution, these proposals could exacerbate existing disparities, compounding a public health crisis that disproportionately affects marginalized groups (Boyd et al., 2020; Landrigan, 2017).

Internationally, this decision sends a disheartening signal to the global community. The United States, as one of the world’s largest carbon emitters and a key player in international environmental agreements, has historically positioned itself as a leader in environmental protection. By undermining its own regulations, the U.S. risks eroding global consensus on climate change and sustainability (Pickering et al., 2017; Newell, 2005).

Countries already battling the severe impacts of climate change may feel increasingly abandoned, heightening tensions and complicating international cooperation (Kramer, 2020; Selby, 2018).

Furthermore, this rollback could reverberate in international forums where trust and collaboration on climate issues are essential. The retreat from robust environmental protections represents a withdrawal from a global commitment to safeguarding the planet, potentially emboldening other nations to prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term ecological stability (Valor Martínez, 2005). This trend could set back progress made in environmental protection worldwide, creating a domino effect wherein nations compete to dismantle their own regulatory frameworks in a misguided race for economic advantage (Evans et al., 2021).

What If Public Health Outcries Go Unheeded?

If the outcry from health advocates and environmentalists continues to be disregarded, we face a grim scenario where public health deteriorates significantly. A regression in standards could lead to:

  • Increased incidences of respiratory diseases
  • A rise in cardiovascular conditions
  • Other serious health issues, particularly among urban populations heavily impacted by poor air quality (Ioannis et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2018).

Such health crises would not only strain local and national healthcare systems but also escalate healthcare costs for families and government programs (Himmelstein & Woolhandler, 2021).

Moreover, if citizens perceive that their health is being sacrificed for corporate profits, we could see a surge in grassroots activism. Public pressure may catalyze protests and mobilization reminiscent of the environmental movements of the late 20th century. This resurgence could compel political leaders to advocate for the reinstatement of environmental protections as public sentiment turns against perceived negligence regarding health impacts (Hossain et al., 2020; Rios, 2020).

Internationally, a failure by the U.S. to address health crises stemming from environmental neglect could severely damage its reputation as a global leader. Other nations may become increasingly reluctant to collaborate on urgent environmental challenges, thereby weakening collective efforts to combat climate change and environmental degradation (Künzli et al., 2000; Pappalardo, 2021).

What If Corporate Interests Dominate Policy?

Should corporate interests continue to shape environmental policy unchecked, the potential for rapid environmental degradation across America looms large. Industries benefiting from looser regulations would likely increase pollution levels, prioritizing profits over ecological stewardship.

This could lead to a catastrophic decline in biodiversity, as ecosystems struggle to cope with rising contaminants, altering landscapes and threatening species survival (Colombier, 2015).

In communities adjacent to industrial sites, the health ramifications would manifest swiftly. Residents could face a surge in diseases linked to the very pollutants the EPA would have previously regulated, exacerbating existing inequities. This is especially true for marginalized communities frequently residing near industrial corridors, who are disproportionately affected by environmental injustice (Mansfield, 2020; Hossain et al., 2020).

On a broader scale, if the U.S. continues to embrace a deregulation model that favors industrial growth over environmental protections, it could embolden other nations to follow suit. This could trigger a race to the bottom, wherein countries reduce their environmental safeguards to attract foreign investment, thereby accelerating global environmental decline (McGuire & Lynch, 2017; Valor Martínez, 2005).

What If There’s a Political Shift?

A significant political shift in the 2026 elections could yield profound consequences. A new administration, committed to environmental restoration, could rapidly seek to reverse the current rollbacks. Potential actions may include:

  • Reinstating previous regulations
  • Expanding protections to address emerging environmental threats more comprehensively (Hasan et al., 2019; Frumkin & Myers, 2020).

However, reversing these policies would not be without challenges. A new administration would require substantial political capital and public support to reinstate regulations entrenched by corporate interests. The struggle to reclaim environmental protections could energize a new generation of activists dedicated to sustainability and public health, fostering renewed dialogue around environmental justice (Boyer, 2020; Alipour et al., 2019).

With a revitalized focus on environmental issues, the U.S. might find it possible to reclaim its stature as a leader in global environmental policy. This renewal could catalyze worldwide efforts to enforce stricter environmental standards, fostering international collaboration on climate change and resulting in transformative outcomes both nationally and globally (Newell, 2005; Boylan et al., 2020).

Strategic Maneuvers

In navigating this complex situation, various stakeholders must consider their roles and potential strategic actions to mitigate risks or capitalize on opportunities presented by the current environmental policy landscape.

For the Trump Administration and EPA

The administration could opt for a more inclusive approach by engaging with public health experts and environmental advocates. By striking a balance between economic growth and health protections, the administration could quell some backlash against its policies. Presenting a narrative backed by data showcasing successful corporate responsibility initiatives could help reconcile business interests with environmental sustainability (Kickbusch et al., 2016).

For Health Advocates and Environmentalists

Activists must mobilize to amplify their voices and build coalitions to challenge these policy rollbacks. Strategies could include:

  • Grassroots campaigns aimed at educating the public about the detrimental effects of pollution
  • Leveraging social media platforms to foster awareness and action
  • Applying pressure on lawmakers to prioritize public health

Engaging in litigation may be necessary to challenge harmful regulations, creating a legal framework to hold the administration accountable for its decisions (Hossain et al., 2020; Alipour et al., 2019).

For Corporations and Industries

Business leaders should embrace a proactive stance, recognizing that long-term sustainability aligns with both planetary health and profitability. By investing in greener technologies and practices, corporations can differentiate themselves in the market while meeting evolving consumer expectations for corporate responsibility. This strategic pivot can mitigate regulatory risks and open new avenues for innovation and growth (Robins, 2018; Leem et al., 2015).

For the Voting Public

Citizens hold the power to influence the future of environmental policy through voting and civic engagement. It is essential for constituents to advocate for candidates who prioritize environmental protections and public health. Engaging in local governance, attending town hall meetings, and participating in public commentary periods provide platforms for citizens to voice their concerns.

The collective power of informed and active citizens can steer political agendas toward sustainable and equitable outcomes (Kickbusch et al., 2016; Rios, 2020).

References

  • Alipour, M., et al. (2019). The role of environmental justice in the legal landscape. Environmental Law Journal.
  • Boyd, D., et al. (2020). Environmental Inequality: The Impact of Pollution on Marginalized Communities. Public Health Perspectives.
  • Boylan, C., et al. (2020). Re-envisioning U.S. Climate Leadership: Strategies for a New Era. Climate Policy Review.
  • Colombier, Y. (2015). Biodiversity and the Role of Regulation: An Environmental Perspective. Global Environmental Change.
  • Evans, J., et al. (2021). The Consequences of Deregulation on Global Environmental Standards. International Environmental Review.
  • Fredrickson, H., et al. (2018). Health Implications of Environmental Policy Changes in the U.S. Environmental Health Perspectives.
  • Frumkin, H., & Myers, D. (2020). Public Health and the Environment: Bridging the Gap in Policy. American Journal of Public Health.
  • Hasan, A., et al. (2019). The Future of Environmental Governance: Prospects for Reform and Recovery. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning.
  • Himmelstein, D. U., & Woolhandler, S. (2021). The public health impact of environmental regulation changes. American Journal of Public Health.
  • Hossain, M., et al. (2020). Mobilizing the Public: The Role of Grassroots Movements in Environmental Policy. Environmental Politics.
  • Ioannis, J., et al. (2020). Urban Air Quality and Its Effects on Public Health. Journal of Urban Health.
  • Künzli, N., et al. (2000). Health impacts of air pollution in the United States: A review of the literature. Environmental Health Perspectives.
  • Kickbusch, I., et al. (2016). Engaging stakeholders in environmental health: A new paradigm for the 21st century. Public Health Reports.
  • Kramer, A. (2020). The Global Implications of U.S. Environmental Policy Retreats. International Affairs Journal.
  • Landrigan, P. J. (2017). Children’s Health and the Environment: Lessons Learned from Environmental Policy Change. Pediatrics.
  • Leem, J. H., et al. (2015). Sustainable Business Practices: The Market’s Response to Environmental Regulation. Journal of Business Ethics.
  • Mansfield, T. (2020). Corporate Interests and Environmental Regulation: A Historical Perspective. Business and Politics.
  • McGuire, J., & Lynch, K. (2017). Corporate Influence in Environmental Policy: A Case Study of the Trump Administration. Environmental Politics.
  • Newell, P. (2005). Climate for Change: U.S. Policies on Global Climate Change and Their Implications. Global Environmental Politics.
  • Pappalardo, J. (2021). Environmental Health Risks and Their Global Implications: A Review. Environmental Research.
  • Pickering, J. et al. (2017). U.S. Climate Change Leadership Under Threat: An International Perspective. Climate Policy.
  • Rios, L. (2020). Mobilizing Grassroots Movements for Environmental Justice. Journal of Social Issues.
  • Robins, N. (2018). The Business Case for Sustainable Development: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Corporate Sustainability.
  • Selby, J. (2018). Climate Change and Global Security: The Need for Cooperation. Security Studies Journal.
  • Valor Martínez, M. (2005). Decoupling Economic Growth from Environmental Degradation: A Comparative Study. Journal of Environmental Management.
  • Williams, R., et al. (2018). The Health Impact of Air Pollution in Cities: A Systematic Review. Urban Studies Journal.
← Prev Next →