Thomas Luben is an epidemiologist who for nearly 20 years worked for the scientific arm of the Environmental Protection Agency — the Office of Research and Development — in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park. His work focused on what are known as the “criteria pollutants,” which are regulated, under the Clean Air Act, by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, often shortened to NAAQS (pronounced “nacks”). At the start of the second Trump administration, life for most scientists at ORD changed dramatically: Many research projects were terminated, and rumors began to circulate that the whole division was being eliminated.

(Since then, ORD has, in fact, been dismantled.) Last June, Luben, along with more than 150 other EPA staff members, signed a letter objecting to the way the agency was being run. For putting his name on the letter, Luben was fired in the fall. He now works at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health.

Luben spoke to e360 contributor Elizabeth Kolbert about what it was like to work at the EPA under Trump 2.0, about the implications for the public of getting rid of ORD, and about the future of science at the agency. “I think that it will take a lot longer to rebuild than to break down,” Luben said. “And I also think that attracting, hiring, and retaining great scientists to the EPA or any federal agency after this administration is going to be incredibly difficult.” Elizabeth Kolbert: You spent most of your career at the EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

Can you tell me what you worked on? Thomas Luben: During [my] first 13 years at EPA, my main duties were working on the integrated science assessments [ISA], and as time allowed, I could do some research on the side. In 2020, I moved over to do research full-time.

Kolbert: And you were looking at the six criteria pollutants named in the Clean Air Act? Luben: So the way the Clean Air Act is set up, they identified these standards back in the 1970s, and every five years we’re supposed to review what they call the criteria pollutants to see if anything has changed and to provide the scientific basis so the policy office and policymakers can decide if the current standards adequately protect public health or if a revision is required.