The Defender Children’s Health Defense News and Views
Close menu
Close menu
January 24, 2025 Agency Capture Health Conditions News

Toxic Exposures

Trump Withdraws EPA’s Proposed Limits on Toxic PFAS Chemicals in Industrial Wastewater

The draft rule, which the EPA sent to the White House for review in June 2024, was seen as a precedent-setting move by reducing allowable discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of chemicals that have been linked to multiple health problems.

wastewater and letters "PFAS"

Listen to this article

0:00/

By Shannon Kelleher

Amid a flurry of actions curtailing former President Joe Biden’s environmental policies, the administration of newly inaugurated President Donald Trump this week withdrew a plan to set limits on toxic PFAS chemicals in industrial wastewater.

The draft rule, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent to the White House for review in June 2024, was seen as a precedent-setting move by reducing allowable discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of chemicals that have been linked to an array of health problems.

“It is abundantly clear that this action was taken to benefit the chemical industry — and every American will suffer for it,” said Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

PFAS contamination is already a national health crisis, and this will force states to try and fill the regulatory void left by EPA’s failure.”

The decision to withdraw the draft rule came as Trump issued an executive order to freeze any new federal regulations pending review.

Though the initial rule would have applied to only about 13 facilities, almost 30,000 industrial sites have been identified as potential sources of PFAS in the environment, including drinking water sources, according to a 2021 analysis of EPA data by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG).

And the EPA itself has identified more than 120,000 facility sites around the U.S. where the agency says people may be exposed to PFAS.

The proposal’s withdrawal is a “devastating setback” that “not only delays establishing critical federal standards but also sends a dangerous message giving polluters a green light to continue poisoning our water and communities without fear of consequence,” Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president for government affairs, said in a statement.

“It’s an unconscionable betrayal of the public’s health in favor of corporate interests.”

When asked about the move, an EPA spokesperson said it was “common transition procedures,” to pause major decisions, including a hold on new and pending regulations.

“President Trump advanced conservation and environmental stewardship while promoting economic growth for families across the country in his first term and will continue to do so this term,” the EPA spokesperson said.

PFAS are a class of thousands of human-made chemicals that widely contaminate U.S. water sources, food, food packaging and household dust. Under Biden, the EPA released a report on Jan. 14 concluding that PFAS in sewage sludge used to fertilize farmland poses health risks.

Some of the chemicals have been linked to certain cancers, liver damage, thyroid disease, immune system dysfunction and other health problems.

The agency last spring designated two well-studied types of PFAS, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), as hazardous substances under the Superfund law and announced the first legally enforceable limits for these and four other types of PFAS in drinking water.

The move to withdraw the PFAS discharge rule is one of a barrage of actions taken in the first days of the new Trump White House that have alarmed health and environmental groups.

Among others, Trump issued executive orders withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement (which will go into effect next January), encouraged opening Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas drilling, and declaring an “energy emergency,” which would suspend regulations including the Endangered Species Act to boost U.S. fossil fuel production.

“There is no energy emergency. There is a climate emergency,” Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

“There’s a whiff of American oligarchy in actions meant to further enrich billionaire oil and gas donors at the people’s expense. Floods wash away entire communities, drought bakes croplands to chalk, and firestorms engulf our cities in flames. This is no time to abandon ship, cut US climate leadership adrift, and throw our children overboard,” Bapna said.

Also of concern to environmental groups, Trump’s U.S. Department of Energy this week reversed Biden’s pause on export permits for liquified natural gas, temporarily halted federal approvals for offshore wind projects and reversed tailpipe emissions standards designed to help popularize electric vehicles.

“The President’s actions will undermine investments, jobs and affordability for electric vehicles — all while allowing more climate and health-harming pollution into our air,” Peter Zalzal, associate vice president for Clean Air Strategies at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.

Some environmental advocates question whether the Trump administration actually has the authority to carry out the executive orders.

“The United States has some of the strongest environmental laws in the world, and no matter how petulantly Trump behaves, these laws don’t bend before the whims of a wannabe dictator,” Kierán Suckling, executive director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.

“The use of emergency powers doesn’t allow a president to bypass our environmental safeguards just to enrich himself and his cronies.”

Trump also issued an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization.

The WHO includes the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which offers a globally recognized standard for identifying carcinogenic substances.

However, the two agencies have distinct governing and funding structures, said a spokesperson for IARC.

“As of today, there have not been any changes or announcements indicating an intention by the US to withdraw from IARC,” said the agency spokesperson.

Originally published by The New Lede

Shannon Kelleher is a reporter for The New Lede.

Suggest A Correction

Share Options

Close menu

Republish Article

Please use the HTML above to republish this article. It is pre-formatted to follow our republication guidelines. Among other things, these require that the article not be edited; that the author’s byline is included; and that The Defender is clearly credited as the original source.

Please visit our full guidelines for more information. By republishing this article, you agree to these terms.