EPA's Costly Regulations Based on Bad Science Are Crushing American Businesses

Congress stands at a critical juncture, facing a choice between safeguarding American jobs and innovation or capitulating to bureaucratic overreach disguised as environmental protection. Two bills, H.R. 1415 and S. 623, known as the No IRIS Act, aim to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from relying on its Integrated Risk Information System assessments. These assessments, while billed as vital for public health, often serve as a cudgel to impose crippling regulations on businesses. Simultaneously, plans to dismantle the EPA’s Office of Research and Development threaten to gut the agency’s scientific capacity, leaving states and industries in the lurch.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. IRIS assessments, which evaluate chemical risks, frequently exaggerate dangers based on speculative data, saddling industries with compliance costs that kill jobs and stifle growth. The ORD, with its sprawling staff of over 1,000 scientists, churns out research that fuels regulatory overreach, often ignoring real-world economic trade-offs. By supporting these bills and reining in the ORD, Congress can restore balance, prioritizing prosperity while ensuring environmental standards remain grounded in practical science.

This isn’t about dismissing health concerns; it’s about rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach that punishes American workers. The EPA’s current trajectory, backed by state attorneys general like California’s Rob Bonta, risks turning independent science into a weapon for endless red tape. Congress must act to protect the economic engine that drives our nation, not the bureaucratic machine that stalls it.

The No IRIS Act and the push to streamline ORD are not radical; they’re a necessary correction. Decades of regulatory creep have left businesses drowning in rules based on questionable science. It’s time to demand transparency, accountability, and a system that values both clean air and a paycheck.

At the heart of the EPA’s regulatory empire lies IRIS, a program that claims to protect Americans by assessing chemical risks. In reality, its assessments often rely on outdated or incomplete studies, inflating health risks to justify sweeping regulations. Industry groups, from chemical manufacturers to energy producers, have long criticized IRIS for its lack of transparency and failure to incorporate real-world exposure data. These flaws translate into billions in compliance costs, hitting small businesses hardest and driving jobs overseas.

The ORD, meanwhile, employs an army of scientists whose research underpins everything from air quality standards to hazardous waste cleanups. While some of this work is valuable, much of it duplicates state efforts or serves as a pretext for federal overreach. The Reagan administration recognized this in the 1980s, slashing EPA budgets to curb bureaucratic excess. Today’s push to downsize ORD echoes that wisdom, aiming to eliminate redundancy and focus on science that serves the public, not the regulators.

State attorneys general, led by figures like Bonta, argue that gutting IRIS and ORD would cripple their ability to protect residents. Yet states like Texas and Florida have robust environmental programs without relying on bloated federal research. These states prove that local expertise, paired with industry collaboration, can deliver results without the EPA’s heavy hand. The notion that only federal scientists can safeguard public health is a myth, one that ignores the innovation and efficiency of state-led solutions.

Historical precedent supports this view. The Clean Air Act and other landmark laws were built on the principle of federal-state partnership, not federal domination. By decentralizing scientific research and empowering states, Congress can honor that legacy while freeing businesses from regulatory shackles.

The economic impact of IRIS and ORD’s unchecked power is staggering. A 2018 study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that EPA regulations, many rooted in IRIS assessments, cost American businesses $300 billion annually. These costs ripple through the economy, raising prices for consumers and forcing layoffs in industries like manufacturing and energy. Small businesses, unable to absorb the compliance burden, are often the first to close their doors.

Project 2025, a policy roadmap for the current administration, rightly identifies IRIS and ORD as drivers of this economic strain. By recommending their restructuring, it seeks to align environmental policy with economic reality. The plan’s call for transparency—requiring publicly available, reproducible studies—would force the EPA to justify its regulations with hard evidence, not theoretical risks. This is a common-sense reform that respects taxpayers and workers alike.

Opponents, including environmental groups and certain state officials, warn of health risks if these programs are curtailed. They point to IRIS’s role in setting cleanup standards and ORD’s research on contaminants like PFAS. But their arguments gloss over a critical truth: states already have the tools and expertise to address these issues. California’s own Department of Toxic Substances Control, for instance, conducts rigorous cleanups without needing IRIS’s inflated risk estimates. The federal government’s role should be to support, not supplant, these state efforts.

Congress has a rare opportunity to strike a balance between environmental protection and economic vitality. Passing the No IRIS Act would send a clear message: science must serve the public, not special interests or bureaucrats. By barring the EPA from using IRIS assessments, lawmakers can curb regulations that prioritize fear over facts, giving businesses the certainty they need to invest and grow.

Streamlining ORD is equally urgent. Reducing its staff and focusing its research on practical, state-driven priorities would save taxpayer dollars while preserving essential science. The Trump administration’s plan to cut over 1,000 ORD scientists may sound drastic, but it’s a necessary step to eliminate waste and refocus the agency on its core mission: supporting states, not smothering them.

The alternative—doubling down on IRIS and ORD—would perpetuate a system that punishes innovation and burdens families. State attorneys general may claim they need federal science to protect their residents, but their real aim is to preserve a federal leviathan that amplifies their influence. Congress must reject this vision and champion one that empowers states, protects jobs, and ensures a cleaner, freer America.