When Veronica Correa started college at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, she knew she wanted to pursue some kind of science, but traditional paths—such as medicine or research—didn't feel right to her. She sampled different classes, at one point signing up for a class about water management and human rights to fulfill a philosophy requirement. This class helped Correa realize she wanted to enter the environmental field, which combined many disciplines.
Correa's interest in science was both personal and familial. Her parents are originally from Venezuela, where her grandmother worked as a biologist studying tropical disease and teaching at a university. "I always thought it was really admirable what she was doing, especially starting her career in the '60s and '70s in a time in culture when there weren't a lot of women pursuing her particular field," Correa said.
Correa continued on to grad school, where she studied sustainability and communication, and soon began contracting for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. She was eventually hired there full-time as a public affairs specialist working in the Office of Pesticide Programs. There, on a team of 10 full-time employees, Correa worked to inform the public about new pesticide registrations, a process that involves comprehensive scientific assessment for safety before a new product can be approved for sale and distribution. Correa wrote news releases, ensured people would have a chance to share their feedback, and helped connect journalists to EPA scientists.
On Valentine's Day, Correa learned she and a couple other probationary workers in her branch had been fired under the mass layoffs directed by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. In March, Correa was reinstated, per a judge's order, and placed on administrative leave, meaning she is receiving pay and benefits again but is barred from working and accessing any EPA systems. Correa's future at the EPA, along with those of the many other temporarily reinstated probationary workers, is unclear. She fears that "as soon as there's a first round of Reduction in Force, these people would still be the first to go," she said. I spoke to Correa about the importance of science communication, the specialized skills of her department, and the emotional experience of being fired by someone who's never even worked with you.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Could you tell me about your path toward federal service?
When I was studying at UNC, they had a big focus on environment and science communications at the time. I ended up taking a few classes in that field, and learned a little bit about the basics of writing and media and content production, which I think helped me give a unique approach into how to convey to the public what I was learning in my core science classes. I think that was what really guided my path towards federal service. I wanted to do something that I felt was tangible and I knew that people outside my job or my community would be able to lay eyes on whatever it was that I was doing. I ended up finishing a master's degree in environmental science. From there, I had been thinking about public service for a couple of years, just because I had a couple of acquaintances who had worked in either federal or state agencies. When I graduated, I found out about a contract position at the EPA working as an assistant to some of the research programs and the Office of Research and Development. From there, I was doing some basic data entry and logistic support for the Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure within EPA. I worked as a contractor for about two years. In the meantime, I was applying to full-time federal positions and had a couple of interviews until eventually, in February 2024 I started a full-time position as a public affairs specialist at EPA.
What really drew me to it was I like the focus and research, both on human health and the environment. That's kind of been a slogan of the EPA for a long time. Then I applied to a couple of different job positions, including biology, or working site remediation and Superfund and a couple other things. But what stood out to me about public affairs is that it had been a couple years since I had really used my writing experience from school, and I didn't know to what extent that would be possible in my career. but when this opportunity came up, I thought this would be perfect. Because I could still use my science background to talk to different subject matter experts in the field and be able to understand what these reports were saying, but then [write] different news announcements or [respond] to citizen letters, for example. That was another big part of my job. I would be able to use my expertise exactly in the way that I had envisioned when I was in school. So I was really excited.
Could you talk a little bit about what an average day looked like for you on the job?
The main part of my job was handling a couple of different communications materials during the day. For example, in the morning, a couple times a week, I might meet with different subject matter experts in the pesticides office. Those are the people who are actually conducting evaluations when a company either wants to register a new kind of pesticide active ingredient, or maybe they want to register it for a different purpose that has been used before. When those applications are received, the branch I worked with would do all kinds of biological evaluations and risk assessments to see if there's any substantial risk that may be presented to the public or workers or the environment.
Once they've conducted those evaluations, there is usually a proposed decision announcement and a public comment period. The purpose of the communications office is to write that announcement and to summarize some of the findings in that report in accessible language. And then we would publish that announcement [on] an email listserv that different business stakeholders and people with a general interest may subscribe to. I think at the time, there were almost, I want to say, 30,000 people who were subscribed to that listserv. So there's a pretty big reach in that regard. And then also any announcements would go on the website. That's really important, because people can see these things in the Federal Register if they look for them. But if it's not announced, it's a lot harder to find. You want as many people as possible to be able to know what's going on, what is being used in their food and commodities, and be able to comment with any feedback or any concern that they have.
Another different writing material that I would work on during the day is correspondence or incoming letters that are usually addressed to the EPA administrator or one of the leads within the Chemical Safety Office. For example, if we receive one of these registration decisions, sometimes there can be concerns from different groups. We'll receive a lot of letters either from nonprofits, stakeholder or trade groups relating to agriculture, or a lot of times even a concerned citizen. We want to be able to address those questions in as specific of a way that is possible with the public, but also in a timely manner, because we want to be able to address someone's concerns once we have enough information to be able to do so and not address them months later, when something's dated. So I worked a lot on getting those draft responses out and trying to ensure that there's not a big backlog in letters, which can happen sometimes.
Throughout the day, we might get reporter questions if they're working on an article related to my subject field. We would also try to draft desk responses. Or sometimes if someone requests an interview with a scientist, we would be the ones to schedule that and help prepare the source if they don't have experience talking to the media but are interested in doing so. Those things would often come up throughout the day and would have the shortest deadline. So it's always important to make space for those as well. And then for each of those materials, there's a really standard review process, where first things will be coordinated with our subject matter experts, just to check everything for accuracy before it goes out. So usually I would juggle about, I want to say, three or four different types of deliverables within a day.
A lot of people had been hired in the last two years. It had become pretty clear, I think, a couple years ago, that before I started, there were not enough staff to meet deadlines.
I was curious if you could talk a little bit about how you approached that process of making these technical results accessible to the average person?
I had a good relationship with the different biologists or chemists that I was working on. They were available to explain things to me when I was starting about how people can interpret these results. So by the time I left, I had different templates of how to explain things—keeping it more concise, but also providing enough information for people to know what's going on and being able to comment. I think because we had a good workflow, that really helped me be able to explain the things I know, and then when something was new to me I had the resources to be able to ask before I continue a draft.
Were there any bigger projects that you had worked on that you were proud of?
The biggest thing was—and this was something that the whole team did, it was not just me—being able to reduce the backlog of letters. At the time, there just were not enough staff to be able to respond to things in timely manner. We worked together to kind of develop a triage system and assign things in a way that people have the right subject matter experts to talk to. By the time that I left, I think that I had helped reduce that log by, I want to say, between 30 and 35 percent. So that was really helpful to be able to make sure that those things don't keep piling up in the future. And one of the last things that I was doing was being able to make small weekly reports to other people in the branch about what our progress was on incoming letters. Being able to visualize, is there a certain topic area or a certain branch that are experiencing more delays? Or are there things that we're waiting on to be able to comment on?
One thing that EPA had been working on, as well, in collaboration with other agencies, is the idea of antimicrobial resistance. If you use a certain antimicrobial product on a crop, for example, there they might develop resistance. The same way that people may become resistant to antibiotics. There was a lot of research being done to try to figure out how to mitigate that and to account for that when doing research and making those decisions. That was something that definitely interested me early on, because I was not aware of that at all.
Could you talk about your experience being fired?
I found out on Valentine's Day. The notice I got said that I'd be terminated effective 5 p.m. that day. It was about 4:30 in the afternoon. I was logging off because I was about to go out to dinner with my husband. I got this email right as I was checking my computer to make sure. I know that none of the supervisors that I had knew who was going to be terminated beforehand. They only found out after I forwarded them the email. Then they also had to scramble to figure out who's going to fulfill our responsibilities, especially since they had just spent the past year working to to build the division up to full staffing capacity. Unfortunately, I have no idea how the decision was made, or even who did. Because I don't think it was anyone that I directly worked with, which is the saddest part.
Did the email come from the Office of Personnel Management?
Usually when you get a message from HR, it'll be signed to someone's name. But I think this one just said "notice@epa.gov" and it wasn't signed by anyone. Based off the language of the letter that I got, just based off of my performance and suitability, I hadn't really qualified to justify my further employment, or whatever it was. I tried to block a lot of it out. When I had gone online and seen people from other agencies who were in the same situation, they basically all got the same language. So I guess I can't prove that OPM copy-pasted that to everyone. But it seemed like someone was was told to send that language.
I was working from home that day, so I just logged off and went to dinner and just kind of sat there in silence throughout the whole meal.
What was going through your mind?
I've circled through the full five stages of grief, I guess. First I felt really sad right away, and then worried about how am I going to be able to find another job if I have to explain being dismissed on [my] applications? And if other organizations that also do environmental work are losing grant money and all these other things, is there really a point in continuing in this field? And then also just wondering if there's anything else I could have done to advocate for myself.
It also was hard because I was less than two weeks away from leaving my probationary period. I just felt really dumb, I guess. Thinking wow, I could have started this job two weeks earlier, and maybe I wouldn't be in this situation.
How has this firing impacted your personal life, or your emotional state?
I feel appreciative that I have friends and family who are helping me out and have been able to check in on me or take me out to lunch and see me how I'm doing. So on one hand, I feel like I should feel like I'm going to be OK, because I have a good network and a good relationship with the people that I've worked with.
I think it definitely has made me feel very unsure of myself. I think I just feel like, in some way, it's impossible not to feel like I didn't deserve this in some capacity. Even if I was good at my job and I got positive feedback and I had a good mid-year evaluation. I have proof that any reasoning of being fired for poor performance isn't true. But it's still really hard not to feel that way. I just go back and forth between trying to be productive and spend time at home and make the most out of my days. Then some other days I just sit on the couch and feel like my life is over.
Do you have any concerns for your department or the work that you were doing amid these layoffs?
Although I don't know any more details about layoff plans, I definitely feel worried [about] these jobs that are doing any kind of programmatic support and public affairs and anything research-related. I know there's already been reports on wanting to close or rearrange the Office of Research and Development. Because I know a lot of people who are still there, it makes me really upset to see that work not being respected for whatever reasons. And the other thing that does potentially concern me—although I haven't seen any confirmation of it yet—is a plan to maybe centralize any agency communications in some way.
I saw a quote from HHS saying, "Why do we have 40 different comms departments and 40 different IT departments?" People might see that as being wasteful, but it's really not. Because one centralized office just isn't able to perform all these tasks to really cover what the EPA is doing. And I think having that specialized knowledge of pesticides, for example, or the Office of Water or Land Management, or all these other departments of the EPA, there's a reason why people have these jobs. If that goes away, then people are not going to know what the agencies are doing and are not going to be able to comment on new changes and have their voice heard.
Do you think these layoffs are going to have any ripple effects in the natural world and human health and crop health?
I'm definitely worried if layoffs continue. Especially I know that the EPA has been going through the process of canceling or reviewing certain grants, and so I think that, if that continues, then there'll be repercussions for a lot of different jobs. Because that funding helps with state government, local government, a lot of other nonprofit groups who are doing a lot of work that does support the EPA mission. It'll be really hard to see that potentially go.
I just wanted to reiterate how smart everyone at EPA is and how there's a lot of specialized knowledge that I'm really worried will disappear if it's not appreciated. A lot of the people that I worked with in all the different branches, a lot of them have advanced degrees or specialized experience. Or a lot of them did Peace Corps and all these other competitive programs. So I think it is really hard to see a lot of the rhetoric that's going on outside. I try not to take it personally. Because at the end of the day, someone commenting online that people in government don't do anything or they're overreaching, I should know that's not true? But it is hard not to to take it personally, just by nature of, I think, being a more sensitive personality. But I really hope that as more legal recourse and judges' decisions continue, I'm hoping that the damage will at least slow down in some way. And if I end up not being fully reinstated this job, I do hope that I can return to public service in capacity at some point, even if I don't know when it'll be.
If you are a fired federal worker or contractor interested in speaking with me for this series, please contact me on signal at simbler.88 or simbler@defector.com. I would love to hear from you.
