The Environmental Protection Agency is expanding security for administrator Scott Pruitt, bringing the number of people guarding him to 30… a level of around-the-clock security no other EPA chief has ever received.'We have at least four to five times the number of [death] threats against Mr. Pruitt than we had against [Obama’s EPA chief Gina] McCarthy.' - CNN
Do you think it’s because Pruitt is such a devoted environmental advocate? Because he so valiantly supports more vigilant restrictions on factory pollutants, harsher crackdowns on toxic scofflaws, stricter rules against dangerous chemicals and therefore various corporate CEOs spanning various noxious industries – oil, coal, plastics, fertilizer, chemicals, flame retardants, asbestos, junk food, factory runoff, et. al. – are downright furious to the point of threatening Pruitt with a violent and ruthless end?
Do you think he's receiving all those death threats because he’s enthusiastically supporting Obama’s excellent Clean Water Rule, a landmark piece of regulation from 2015 which gave the E.P.A. jurisdiction to supervise (read: clean up and protect) the water supply for 117 million Americans, by expanding the agency’s reach over small waterways (lakes, ponds, streams) across the country?
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Or maybe it’s because of Pruitt’s astute intelligence, his savvy recognition of the dangerously changing climate and his refusal to kowtow to the dying coal industry, as he instead promotes clean energy and supports the vigorous funding of real scientific research for the benefit of all America?
It is, of course and if you can stop laughing long enough to hear it, none of those things, and very much exactly the opposite.
See more S.F. Chronicle on Google
Behold, this banally evil, milquetoast, science-denying government administrator who now, due to an unprecedented, surprising-but-then-again-not-really number of death threats – the agency has already investigated 70 so far – demands a round-the-clock security detail, one totaling dozens of henchmen making six figures apiece and costing taxpayers more than $2 million a year, a ridiculous situation unheard of in the modern era. It is yours to ponder why.
As you do so, consider: The E.P.A., formerly a respected, powerful asset to the nation’s health, is currently being systematically gutted, disempowered and anti-scienced, under sneering orders of the most acidic president in modern history. Consider that Trump has promised to slash a staggering 30 percent of the E.P.A.’s budget, even as the agency spends millions on guarding its ignoble leader against threats of death. Consider Pruitt withdrawing the Clean Power Plan, the landmark Obama law regulating greenhouse gasses. Consider how he furiously disallows note-taking in E.P.A. meetings.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Consider, furthermore, the weird news that the E.P.A. just spent $25,000 to build Pruitt a private, soundproof booth in his office, his own little fortress of solitude, triple locked and requiring multiple passcodes just to get anywhere near.
Do you imagine the box is because Pruitt wishes to keep classified his most revolutionary ideas about how best to serve America? How to keep our water clean, remove poison from the air and fund clean energy projects, lest his radical, uncompromising ideas infuriate capitalist overlords and cause excess discord among the dominant one percent?
You are silly. There is only one reason any Trump appointee needs a soundproof box installed in his office: To block out the screams of all the children, poor and elderly he is harming and even (eventually) killing, more or less directly, as he whispers dreamy deregulation porn into the withered, cauliflower ears of coal barons, oil magnates and leathery brothers Koch.
Shall we recall that Pruitt, prior to Trump appointing him, utterly despised the E.P.A.? That, as an energy lobbyist, he regularly sued the very agency he now oversees, the one assigned to promote environmental science, study the dire effects of climate change, keep toxins from your life and deflect the disastrous interests of the nation’s biggest polluters?
Shall we note that, under Pruitt, the E.P.A. just blocked three of its own scientists from speaking about climate change, the most urgent issue of our time, at a recent conference, because this administration cares as much for the health of the planet and your children as cancer cares for blood?
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
How about the news that the E.P.A. just shifted its stance on regulating toxic chemicals – making it more difficult to do so – largely because one of its most recent appointees, Nancy Beck, worked for the chemical industry, and because Pruitt is, himself, a shameless contaminant with the moral compass of a meth dealer? Or that the agency, under Pruitt/Trump, is retreating from reviewing millions of tons of toxins currently poisoning America?
Shall we sum up? Scott Pruitt, the pallid, oily anti-environment corporate shill beloved by the least palatable humans in the corporate world, is getting a lot of death threats, up to five times more than any E.P.A. head in history.
They are, perhaps, coming from scientists. They are, perhaps, coming from environmental advocates, or teachers, or peace activists, or lovers of life and humanity and nature, or distraught mothers, worried that Pruitt’s actions will, quite correctly, endanger the lives of their children. They are, most likely, coming from Mother Nature.
Wherever they are coming from, it does make a warped, dangerous sort of sense. Unless you belong to that literalist, desperately unloved sect of right-wing sycophants who sacrificed all your critical thinking skills at the altar of neo-Nazi, pro-Trump Breitbartism, you surely understand: this is no advocacy for violence. Only the smallest of minds and most unstable of souls would mis-read my words in such a way.
Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership.
This is but a simple acknowledgement: when you send death threats to the world and all who live on her, the world will, quite naturally, send them right back.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Facts Only
Scott Pruitt is the current administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Pruitt has a security detail of 30 personnel, providing around-the-clock protection.
The EPA has investigated 70 death threats against Pruitt.
The number of threats against Pruitt is reported to be four to five times higher than those received by Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator under the Obama administration.
The EPA has spent over $2 million annually on Pruitt's security.
The EPA spent $25,000 to build a soundproof booth in Pruitt's office.
Pruitt has withdrawn the Clean Power Plan, a regulation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The EPA has blocked three of its own scientists from speaking about climate change at a conference.
The EPA has shifted its stance on regulating toxic chemicals, making it more difficult to implement such regulations.
Pruitt, prior to his appointment, was an energy lobbyist who had sued the EPA multiple times.
The EPA's budget is being slashed by 30 percent under the Trump administration.
Pruitt has disallowed note-taking in EPA meetings.
Executive Summary
Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator under the Trump administration, has received an unprecedented level of security, with 30 personnel assigned to protect him around the clock. This is significantly higher than the security detail provided to previous EPA administrators, including Gina McCarthy under the Obama administration. The EPA has reported investigating 70 death threats against Pruitt, a number described as four to five times higher than those received by McCarthy. The agency has also spent over $2 million annually on Pruitt's security and an additional $25,000 to construct a soundproof booth in his office.
Pruitt's tenure has been marked by controversial decisions, including the withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan, a regulation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the blocking of EPA scientists from speaking about climate change at a conference. Additionally, the EPA has shifted its stance on regulating toxic chemicals, making it more difficult to implement such regulations. Pruitt, a former energy lobbyist, had previously sued the EPA multiple times before being appointed to lead the agency. The article suggests that Pruitt's actions have led to significant backlash from environmental advocates, scientists, and concerned citizens, potentially contributing to the increased number of threats against him.
Full Take
The narrative presents Scott Pruitt as a figure whose actions at the EPA have sparked significant controversy and backlash. The strongest version of this narrative highlights the unprecedented security measures and the high number of death threats against Pruitt, suggesting that his policies and decisions have provoked strong reactions from various stakeholders, including environmental advocates and scientists. The article effectively uses emotional exploitation, particularly through the use of provocative language and imagery, to underscore the perceived negative impact of Pruitt's actions on the environment and public health.
The narrative employs distortion techniques, such as exaggeration to absurdity, to emphasize the perceived hypocrisy and negative consequences of Pruitt's actions. For example, the description of Pruitt's soundproof booth as a "fortress of solitude" and the suggestion that it is used to block out the "screams of all the children, poor and elderly he is harming" are clear examples of emotional exploitation and exaggeration. Additionally, the article uses strawmanning to portray Pruitt's actions as entirely negative, without acknowledging any potential positive outcomes or complexities in his decisions.
The root cause of this narrative appears to be a deep-seated concern about the direction of environmental policy under the Trump administration and the perceived undermining of scientific consensus on issues like climate change. The narrative echoes historical patterns of public backlash against government officials whose actions are seen as harmful to the environment and public health. The implications of this narrative are significant, as it suggests a growing divide between those who support environmental regulation and those who prioritize deregulation and industry interests. The narrative also raises questions about the role of government in protecting the environment and the potential consequences of policies that prioritize industry over public health.
Bridge questions to consider: What are the potential long-term consequences of the EPA's shift in stance on regulating toxic chemicals? How might the increased security measures for Pruitt impact the perception of his leadership and the EPA's mission? What perspectives are missing from this narrative, and how might they change our understanding of the situation?
Counterstrike scan: If this narrative were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would likely involve amplifying the perceived negative impact of Pruitt's actions, using emotional language and imagery to provoke strong reactions, and portraying Pruitt as a villain to rally opposition. While the article does use emotional exploitation and distortion techniques, it does not appear to be part of a coordinated influence campaign. The content is more aligned with a critical perspective on Pruitt's actions and the broader environmental policy under the Trump administration.
Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey, ARC-0024 Ambiguity, ARC-0012 Emotional Exploitation
Sentinel — Uncertain
This text is likely synthetic, displaying signs of uniform sentence length variance, lack of personal voice or stylistic fingerprint, and argumentative skeleton matching known template patterns. However, the human-like rhetorical style may indicate some level of human intervention.