EPA Spending Slashed by More Than Half in Trump Admin’s Proposed 2027 Budget

The Trump administration is again seeking to halve the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) annual budget with a proposed $4.2 billion fiscal year 2027 (FY27) spending plan that slashes $4.6 billion–or 52.4 percent–from this year’s $8.8 billion appropriation.

The request is the same $4.2 billion the administration proposed in its FY26 EPA budget that sought to gut $5.3 billion–55 percent–from the previous year’s $9.5 billion allocation and called for whittling the agency’s 15,000 employees to 10,000, rescinding billions in approved agency-administered grants. and rolling back a broad slate of environmental regulations.

Ultimately, less than 8 percent was pared in the $8.8 billion agency budget Congress approved and only half the requested 5,000 staffing cut was enacted, but as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment Subcommittee during an April 28 hearing, the agency has successfully orchestrated the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history” by rescinding the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding and in “urgently reversing” Biden-imposed air quality rules that “tried hard to strangulate coal out of existence.”

“This past January, at the one-year mark of President Trump’s term in office, I announced 500 top environmental wins from during that first year,” Zeldin said, which included accelerated review of public health risks from fluoride in drinking water, farmers’ right to repair, extending key compliance deadlines for coal combustion, and “signing of the historic agreement with the Mexican government to end the decades long Tijuana River sewage crisis.”

Zeldin said that among 2027 EPA aims is to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2025 Sackett ruling to “finalize a clear, durable Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule” and its July 2024 Chevron determination to curb administrative overreach, while working with Congress in “modernizing the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act].”

“Not only will we be able to fulfill all of our statutory obligations, we will be able to do more with less. We inherited backlogs of over 14,000 pesticide reviews, 500 in new chemicals, 175 small refinery exemptions, hundreds of state implementation plans–the core statutory obligations set by this body were ignored by our predecessors,” he said. “And guess what? All of those backlogs are either eliminated or greatly reduced. Doing more with less–[a] wild concept.”

But how much more the agency can do–and for whom it’s doing it–was vigorously questioned by Democrats in Zeldin’s second hearing of the week, one of many budget hearings that kicked off in April and will continue through summer on 12 proposed appropriations bills that constitute the annual federal budget before the fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

While criticism was withering, it was more temperate than what he endured during an April 27 House Appropriations Committee’s Interior and Environment Subcommittee hearing that featured scorched earth exchanges with Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who suggested he “should try” drinking or injecting glyphosate, a herbicide.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) accused Zeldin of favoring polluters versus “taking action to protect our air, water, and public health.”

‘Cooperative Federalism’

Among the most vehemently opposed cuts in EPA’s proposed FY27 budget is a $2.46 billion–91 percent–slash in its Clean Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, including the elimination of $1 billion in 16 “categorical grant” programs to states and local governments to subsidize water infrastructure improvements and compliance with federal water quality standards.

“From day one, I’ve made it clear that we are going to fix the mess that we inherited and reaffirm our commitment to cooperative federalism, understanding that the best solutions are found outside of Washington,” Zeldin said.

“Cooperative federalism?” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) scoffed. “We all know what this really is. It’s cost-shifting, requiring states to find more revenue to carry out federal requirements at a time when costs from Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other programs are being passed onto those state budgets.”

Utilities, “primarily customers,” pay for 96 percent of these expenses, he said. “If the federal government further reduces its financial commitment, people inevitably will see their water bills go up, especially as systems work to reduce risks from lead, PFAS [“forever chemicals”], and other public health issues.”

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) noted the $305 million remaining in the fund is the “lowest level since the Reagan era,” adding “We need to preserve it.”

“The good news is that EPA is once again working closely with our state partners on their state implementation plans,” Zeldin said, claiming by “advancing cooperative federalism” the agency can find other ways to assist communities in financing water programs.

The agency’s proposed FY26 budget also called for slashing the fund by more than $2.32 billion and eliminating the “categorical grant” programs, but the money was restored with bipartisan support.

That appears likely again with House Appropriations Interior and Environment Subcommittee Chair Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) saying the loan program is among “good things” the federal government does.

“We likely cannot accept the proposed steep cuts to the State and Tribal Assistance Grants that our states, tribes, and water utilities rely on for implementing federal statutes and providing safe and reliable drinking water and wastewater,” he said.