Environmental Protection Agency ethics officials have interpreted impartiality guidelines in a way that has allowed several former industry insiders to oversee dramatic changes to chemical regulations, documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show.
Those ethics decisions have cleared the way for a former agriculture lobbyist to help reinstate a pesticide that had been banned twice by federal courts, as well as for two former chemical industry executives to help reassess the agency’s stance on the dangers of formaldehyde.
Internal emails and documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity and shared with the Washington Post show EPA ethics officials determined that Kyle Kunkler’s recent lobbying on behalf of the American Soybean Association did not require his recusal from pesticide regulation, including decisions about dicamba, a pesticide that soybean farmers have wanted to see reinstated.
According to federal loss-of-impartiality regulations, new government employees are supposed to have a yearlong “cooling-off period” on matters that directly involve their previous employer, unless given written authorization by the ethics office.
Emails show that before Kunkler started as EPA’s top official on pesticides in late June, ethics officials began prepping him on recusal strategies and answered questions about his ability to work on pesticide regulations given his previous role.
An email exchange from after his first week shows officials knew he had helped develop his association’s comments to the EPA on dicamba. In light of that, he should not “participate in any meetings, discussions or decisions about ASA’s specific comments,” one ethics office lawyer wrote in a July 3 email, but “he could still work on comments submitted by other parties about dicamba, including those that may overlap with ASA’s comments.”
On July 23, the EPA announced plans to bring back dicamba. The agency is slated to make reregistration official in the coming weeks.
In a statement, EPA ethics office director Justina Fugh said “a federal employee’s ‘previous lobbying efforts’ do not constitute any conflict of interest as defined by existing federal ethics laws or regulations” and that only Kunkler’s direct interaction with his former employer would violate loss-of-impartiality rules.
“The federal ethics rules simply do not preclude him from working as part of his EPA duties on general issues or topics,” Fugh said. “He is therefore permitted under the federal ethics rules to work on pesticide registrations generally, including EPA actions on dicamba, even though he previously worked on that same topic.”
The ethics decision is legally correct but still raises concerns about bias in regulatory decision-making, said Richard Briffault, a professor of legislation at Columbia Law School.
“There is a legitimate concern that people who have made a career out of representing or advocating for an industry that has a stake in regulation will be predisposed to favor that industry’s position when they make decisions as regulators – that they will be biased and not impartial,” Briffault said.
The federal impartially standards are designed to ensure government decisions are not made on the basis of personal bias, personal connection, or loyalty to a former employer, said Kathleen Clark, a government ethics lawyer and a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Clark said barring Kunkler from comments and meetings is “relatively unimportant” given his ability to participate in the government approval of pesticides he once lobbied for.
“It seems strange to me that they would say that it would be inappropriate for him to respond to comments but, on the other hand, he can absolutely participate in what presumably is something extremely important to his former employer,” said Clark, who reviewed some of the documents at the Post’s request.
“It’s sort of like hiring the fox to guard the hen house,” she said.
The American Soybean Association did not respond to request for comment.
The EPA originally approved dicamba in 2016 for use on soybeans and cotton that had been genetically modified to withstand what would otherwise be a damaging dose. But in 2020, a federal court vacated that approval over concern that the pesticide was drifting to and damaging other crops and wild plants. The EPA reapproved dicamba months later with additional application restrictions, but a court revoked that approval in 2024, saying drift damage remained a problem.
Kunkler had been among those lobbying for dicamba’s reinstatement. Calendar records show he had a virtual meeting in March with officials from the office he would later join, the Post reported last year.
He once likened the dicamba dispute to the “legal and regulatory equivalent of a Wimbledon court littered with land mines.” He told his association’s members: “ASA knows just how vital it is for your operations to have choices in the crop protection tools available to you, and we will continue to advocate strategically and vigorously to defend your access to them.”
Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said it’s not surprising that the new registration plans for dicamba closely mirror proposals from ASA.
“I don’t see any limitations on what he can or cannot do based on his past work,” said Donley, whose organization has sued the EPA three times over dicamba. “It assures that industry interests are going to be considered above what’s in the public interest.”
Kunkler’s role in the reinstatement of dicamba in some ways parallels the involvement of two former chemical industry executives who helped drive the EPA’s reassessment of formaldehyde, a cancer-causing chemical used in furniture, wood adhesives, and body preservation at funeral homes.
Toxicologist Nancy Beck heads the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Lynn Dekleva, an environmental engineer, serves as her deputy.
Both fought to roll back chemical regulations as part of the first Trump administration. Afterward, Beck joined the chemicals practice at law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, where her clients included top industry trade groups. Dekleva signed on with the American Chemistry Council trade group as a senior director. Both criticized the EPA’s risk assessment model, and Dekleva directly pressed the agency to reassess the model in relation to formaldehyde.
But when they joined the second Trump administration, both Beck and Dekleva received written approval from the agency’s ethics office to work on chemical regulation, as reported by E & E News last year.
“I conclude that the interest of the United States Government in your participation outweighs any concerns about your impartiality,” Fugh wrote in March.
She told the Post that while federal ethics guidelines proscribe engaging with former employers or clients in activities such as grant-making and enforcement actions, matters with “general applicability” — such as rule- or policymaking — aren’t prohibited.
The new approach to formaldehyde announced by the EPA last month is the one favored by the industry. It assumes there can be a safe threshold of exposure, and that some carcinogens pose no health risk at lower levels. Under the Biden administration, the agency took the position that even small exposures could pose risks.
The proposed revisions nearly double the amount of formaldehyde considered safe to inhale.
Briffault said the real issue may be less about ethical interpretations and than about political decisions — namely, the administration’s pick of proindustry people for top regulatory appointments.
Asked whether Beck and Dekleva’s appointments influenced the EPA’s shift, agency spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made the decision and it was based on “the most advanced, gold standard scientific methods.”
“EPA’s move to a threshold approach for formaldehyde does not at all mean the agency is relaxing its standards or giving industry a pass,” Hirsch said. “By using this science, EPA can set limits that are more protective, not less, because they are based on the most sensitive biological changes that occur before serious health effects develop.”
In a statement to the Post, the American Chemistry Council said the EPA’s revised approach was recommended by their own peer reviewers and is consistent with other international authorities. “ACC supports risk evaluation approaches that are grounded in sound science and protective of public health, consistent with [Toxic Substances Control Act] requirements.”
