No, I’m not holding my breath on this one, but there does appear to be a bit of a break with Pruitt's past actions against the EPA:
More remarkable was the response of Scott Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general and long-time foe of EPA policies who was brought in by President Trump to run the EPA and preside over the dismantling of many of its most controversial programs, especially those designed to reduce industrial carbon emissions that directly contribute to global warming.
E&E News that he had already raised concerns about the billions of cuts with Mick Mulvaney, the new Office of Management and Budget director and former Tea Party conservative House member from South Carolina." The night of President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress, during which the new president pledged to protect the quality of air and water, Pruitt told a reporter for E&E News that he had already raised concerns about the billions of cuts with Mick Mulvaney, the new Office of Management and Budget director and former Tea Party conservative House member from South Carolina.
"I am concerned about the grants that have been targeted, particularly around water infrastructure, and those very important state revolving funds," Pruitt told the reporter. "The importance is setting priorities as an agency and then allowing the budget to be formed around that. What's difficult, having only been there a week, is to have these kinds of recommendations made and then look at our priorities and say, 'You know what, we've got to make sure that we look at these programs.'"
It will undoubtedly be a steep climb, but there are a few possibilities here. First, like the Grinch hearing the Who song and having a literal change of heart, Pruitt may have actually listened to the scientist and managers at EPA, realized that they do a demanding and necessary job, and is willing to look more carefully at its mission. Second, Pruitt may prefer to run an $8 billion agency as opposed to a $6 billion one. Neither of these would be completely unheard of, even for republicans.
There are also a few republicans in Congress who have their own interests, such as Rep. Chris Collins.
Rep. Chris Collins said he has supported increased funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and will keep a close watch on the issue.
“Right now, nothing in the president’s budget has been finalized,” said Collins, a Republican from Clarence who was the first House member to endorse Trump for president. “I am aware of the rumored cuts to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and monitoring the situation closely.”
And then, there’s the ultimate break point, Congress itself. They have been so incompetent at passing budgets, I wouldn’t be surprised if all they can do the next four years is (barely) pass continuing resolutions on the budgets. So what to do next? Treat the EPA like the ACA, go to town halls, express concern about how rivers caught on fire before the EPA, and maybe keep it intact, regardless of what Trump and his advisors want. I still see some bad things happening at the agency regardless, but they might be more limited than I expected. No matter how much Trump and most republicans in Congress talk about getting rid of the EPA, there are still enough members in Congress concerned about matters at home that they can wind up screwing up the whole plan, and sometimes in a good way. Even small amounts of hope occasionally pay off.