Trump Proposes End to Federal Lead Reduction Program

Barbara Haddock Taylor/TNS via ZUMA

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


This should surprise no one:

Environmental Protection Agency officials are proposing to eliminate two programs focused on limiting children’s exposure to lead-based paint, which is known to cause damage to developing brains and nervous systems.

The proposed cuts, outlined in a 64-page budget memo revealed by The Washington Post on Friday, would roll back programs aimed at reducing lead risks by $16.61 million and more than 70 employees, in line with a broader project by the Trump administration to devolve responsibility for environmental and health protection to state and local governments.

Old housing stock is the biggest risk for lead exposure — and the EPA estimates that 38 million U.S. homes contain lead-based paint.

This is pretty typical Trump. Or maybe I should say, pretty typical conservative. The lead program is part of the EPA, liberals like the EPA, therefore the lead program must be a worthless, job-killing regulation. Or something like that.

The only thing that keeps me from being more pissed off is that $16 million is an absurdly paltry sum to begin with. I’d take issue with the article’s claim that lead paint is the biggest risk for lead exposure—lead in soil is an equal or bigger threat—but either way, we ought to be spending something like $10 billion a year to remediate this. Getting rid of the current program is like going from a 1 percent response to a 0 percent response.

The problem with lead, of course, is the same as the problem with climate change: you have to spend money on it now, but the benefits don’t come until today’s politicians are long out of office. Getting Congress to approve $10 billion for a program that will start to show results around 2040 or so is a hard lift.

Plus it would make it harder to fund tax cuts for the rich. We can’t have that, can we?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest