In early February, The New York Times published this article, EPA Workers Try to Block Pruitt in Show of Defiance, which focused on how many current and former EPA employees were protesting and contacting their senators in an attempt to block Pruitt’s confirmation as the new head of the EPA. Pruitt’s nomination was largely contested due to his ties to fossil fuel industries as well as his ideology when it comes to environmental regulation. He’d previously sued the EPA on numerous occasions to prevent various regulations from being put into place.
This article shows an interesting side of this issue that I hadn’t previously been exposed to, and that was how these workers were reacting to the idea of Pruitt taking charge of the EPA. The author mentioned how it’s uncommon in a bureaucracy to see workers join together and contact their government representatives in an event like this. I like how they had quotes from employees who wished to block the confirmation, as well as a quote from a senior official, Jeffrey Holmstead, who gave a different take on these protests, saying that they were demonizing Pruitt. I had imagined that the entirety of the EPA was against the Pruitt nomination, but it appears that he had some support within the agency as well.
The article ended with what I considered to be a strong kicker because makes readers wonder about the consequences of Trump’s plans for possible dismantling the EPA and how difficult it would be to revive the agency was it was ended. With all of that being said, what do you think made this article unique? Many other authors have written about individuals contacting the government and taking other actions in response to political nominations, so why would this article stand apart from all of the other ones? How do you think members of a political institution who were opposing changes in leadership feel about having their names and opinions shared by a national news outlet when it may potentially jeopardize their careers?