March/April 2018 Issue

Scott Pruitt Is a Historically Bad EPA Chief. But This One Might Have Been Even Worse.

Oh, and her son Neil is on the US Supreme Court.

Mother Jones illustration

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Scott Pruitt isn’t the first EPA administrator famously hostile to the agency. That distinction goes to Anne Gorsuch. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, the agency’s first female head was known for her jet-black hair, fur coats, proclivity for Marlboro cigarettes—and coziness with polluters.

Just weeks after taking the post on May 20, 1981, Gorsuch relaxed clean air standards. By September, she had slashed 3,200 jobs and the agency’s budget by 22 percent, even as she claimed to have shrunk the manual of clean water regulations from six inches high to half an inch. She tried to have a 30-by-40-mile rectangle of ocean off mid-Atlantic beaches designated as a spot where incinerator ships could burn toxic waste. Despite public fervor over hazardous waste sites—the Love Canal disaster had prompted passage of the Superfund law just before Reagan took office—Gorsuch lifted regulations for waste disposal and cut deals benefiting megacorporation Chemical Waste Management, which was later sued for illegal dumping.

A fierce politician—a newspaper in her native Colorado once wrote that she “could kick a bear to death with her bare feet”—she resigned after she was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over Superfund records suspected to reveal mismanagement. But the controversy that surrounded her tenure had a lasting influence on her son Neil—the rock-ribbed conservative nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as an associate justice of the US Supreme Court, where he is expected to rule on environmental cases for decades to come.

Image credit: Con Keyes/LA Times/Getty

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate