The Handfield Report Newsletter: Rethinking the Call to “Save” Environmental Justice Offices

The Ugly Truth About “Saving” Environmental Justice Offices

In light of the recent Change.org petition titled "EPA, Don't Shut Down Environmental Justice Offices," it’s worth taking a closer look at the broader picture of environmental protection in the United States. While the petition argues that maintaining these offices is critical for community safety, a review of recent events and policy decisions suggests that preserving an agency’s structure does not automatically translate into effective environmental protection.

Alright, folks—let’s cut through the crap and get down to the bare, unfiltered truth. That Change.org petition shouting “EPA, Don’t Shut Down Environmental Justice Offices” sounds all noble and righteous, but here’s the kicker: keeping an office on paper isn’t going to fix our broken environmental defenses.

The Ugly Truth About “Saving” Environmental Justice Offices

During the 1st Trump Administration, plans to restructure the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stirred significant controversy. Proponents of these changes claimed that streamlining operations would eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies. However, critics pointed out that these plans also involved reducing funding and support for environmental justice initiatives—a move that, in practice, risked weakening regulatory oversight. Yet, even when dedicated environmental justice offices were active, the agency’s overall performance has been called into question.

Then came May 5, 2022. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan, (under the Biden administration), paraded a new Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) as the golden ticket to fix everything. They even resurrected Supplemental Environmental Projects to supposedly deliver public health benefits. But let’s be honest—this isn’t a revolution. It’s a rebranded band-aid on a bullet hole.

| “Fancy offices and slick announcements don’t mean squat...” |

Disasters That Expose the System’s Rot

Let’s talk cold, hard facts. Recent disasters have laid bare the reality that fancy offices and slick announcements don’t mean squat when it comes to protecting our communities, and that these industrial disasters have underscored systemic issues that no internal restructuring can mask! let me make this very clear, the Trump Administration’s obvious intent is to expose these systemic issues and government bloat:

• East Palestine, OH – Norfolk Southern Train Derailment & Chemical Explosion (February 3, 2023, at 8:55 p.m. EST):

• In East Palestine, OH a Norfolk Southern train derailment turned chemical explosion left locals exposed to hazardous toxins. Investigations revealed that weak and insufficient regulatory oversight—despite the supposed presence of environmental justice offices—led to a preventable catastrophe that screamed systemic failure and called into question the overall effectiveness of the EPA’s measures.

• Conyers, GA – Biolab & Chemical Fire (September 29, 2024):

A fiery disaster at a biolab in Conyers showed that no matter how many offices you slap on an organizational chart, when enforcement falters, disasters strike hard and fast.

| “…a shiny new OEJ is nothing but cosmetic fluff...”|

The Real Problem: A System in Ruins

Here’s the unvarnished truth: the petition’s rallying cry is about saving an office, not solving the real issues! Look, a shiny new OEJ is nothing but cosmetic fluff if it’s shackled by outdated bureaucracy and underfunding. The root of the problem isn’t a missing office—it’s a system that’s chronically failed to enforce solid policies, provide real funding, and hold polluters accountable. We’re not talking about isolated misfires here; we’re staring down decades of broken promises and enforcement failures.

Challenging the Petition’s Validity

While the petition’s intent—to protect communities from environmental harm—is undeniably important, the evidence points to a larger issue: the EPA’s historical performance in safeguarding public health and the environment has been inadequate. The following points are crucial:

• Inadequate Protection in Practice:

Both the East Palestine derailment and the Conyers fire highlight that the existence of environmental justice offices has not equated to robust environmental protection. The core problems stem from broader regulatory and enforcement challenges that extend beyond any single office or policy change.

• Structural vs. Functional Effectiveness:

The petition focuses on preserving an element of the EPA’s structure. However, if the agency’s strategies, enforcement capabilities, and inter-agency coordination remain flawed, then maintaining these offices alone will not address the persistent risks of industrial disasters.

• Policy and Enforcement Over Office Titles:

True environmental protection requires comprehensive policies, adequate funding, and rigorous enforcement. The recent industrial incidents underscore that a reorganization—or preservation—of offices cannot substitute for decisive, well-implemented environmental regulations.

| “The real change won’t come from empty titles” |

The Bottom Line

The call to “save” environmental justice offices is wrapped up in the language of accountability and safety. But here’s what matters: we need deep, structural change—real power, money, and no-nonsense enforcement that gets results. Until our policymakers, industry leaders, and communities demand actual reforms rather than settling for fancy rebranding, we’re just spinning our wheels.

Don’t be fooled by the headlines or the slick marketing. The real change won’t come from preserving empty titles; it comes from tearing up the old playbook and writing a new one that puts public safety and environmental protection at its core.