Throwaway for obvious reasons. I was an intern at the EPA last summer and after going through the hiring process for a full-time job at EPA HQ in D.C. I feel like I can answer a few of these questions.

I can tell you right off the bat, my office from last summer (which I won't reveal) is no longer a department within the EPA. Wasn't responsible for any direct research on climate change but the material my office published would certainly contradict the direction the new Administrator wishes to take the agency.

I've made the analogy before of NASA appointing an administrator that denies astronauts ever went to the moon. The EPA IS NOT DESIGNED TO FUNCTION WITH SCOTT PRUITT AS ADMINISTRATOR. Every single individual employed by that office has an immense passion for environmental protection and usually passes up a higher private sector salary as the EPA gives them a job where employees can actually make a difference in their community.

The EPA has 10 regional offices that oversee the environmental impacts of businesses and issues fines as they see fit. Only HQ in DC focuses on policy issues and implementation. Most consider the EPA's primary responsibility as issuing policy directives, but most employed by the EPA across the nation are involved in oversight and R&D. My guess is that these reports of unsustainable business practices from across the US will be sent to HQ with no/minimal follow-up. Without these jobs, our underserved communities are at greater risk for public health concerns as well as growing unemployment.

The EPA is kept on a short leash by Congress and the West Wing as they provide all the funding to their projects. For this reason, every action taken by the EPA becomes politicized. This is the biggest systematic flaw of the agency but solutions to this are nearly impossible. Very few problems with apathetic employees per other federal agencies.

I'm hungover and really don't feel like editing this before I submit it so I apologize for any typos or grammatical mistakes.