Is US EPA gearing up to unban toxic chemicals?

The second Trump administration is gearing up for a seismic shift in environmental policy—one that critics argue could open the floodgates for toxic chemicals long restricted in consumer products.  

By Jed Thomas

Under the guise of regulatory reform, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is quietly pursuing changes that would effectively nullify dozens of state-level bans on hazardous substances such as PFAS (commonly dubbed 'forever chemicals'), mercury, bisphenol A, and more. 

While no chemicals are literally being “declassified,” the effect of the administration’s plan could be just as potent.  

At the heart of the effort is a proposal to rewrite how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluates chemical risks.  

If finalized, these changes would make it easier for manufacturers to continue using dangerous substances in everyday items—from cookware and clothing to cosmetics and firefighting gear—by loosening the criteria used to determine whether a chemical poses an 'unreasonable' risk.

A new definition of risk 

Trump’s EPA is pivoting away from a holistic approach to chemical risk evaluations adopted during the Biden administration.  

That model treated a chemical as hazardous if any single use—say, in mascara or food packaging—was deemed risky.  

The proposed changes would instead evaluate each use case individually, creating a fragmented standard that experts fear will water down protections and grant chemical companies a regulatory free pass. 

Formaldehyde, for example, has over 60 industrial uses. Under the proposed framework, if it’s found to be dangerous in furniture but deemed safe in adhesives, only the furniture application might be restricted.  

The result? A piecemeal approach that fails to account for cumulative exposure, a cornerstone of modern toxicology. 

One anonymous EPA scientist warned The Guardian that this strategy doesn’t just increase health risks—it also gives industry little incentive to phase out harmful substances.  

“It also allows the market for toxic chemicals to continue,” they said, “because it maintains the financial incentive for them to be made for all these consumer products.” 

[[64076:2028-01-01]] 

Will states retain their autonomy? 

States have been leading the charge on chemical safety in recent years, enacting bans in the absence of sweeping federal action.  

California, Maine, New York, and several others have outlawed PFAS in specific consumer goods, creating pressure on manufacturers to reformulate products across the board.  

But the Trump EPA’s plan threatens to override these hard-won gains through federal preemption. 

This would gut influential laws like California’s Proposition 65 and newer regulations in places like Maryland and Washington that target flame retardants, phthalates, and lead in consumer goods.  

For many public health advocates, these state laws are among the only robust checks on corporate use of toxic substances. 

“The states are on the front lines and they’ve been stepping up because communities want these laws,” Sarah Doll, the national director of Safer States which pushes for state level restrictions on toxic chemicals, told The Guardian.  

“People don’t want toxic chemicals in their homes. Firefighters don’t want to be exposed to PFAS in firefighting foam.” 

What Trump firing federal land workers means for monitoring and biodiversity

A target for efficiency and savings, a number of federal land managers and conservation workers have been laid off - but what consequences will this have for environmental health? Jed Thomas... Read More

A history of deregulation 

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has tried to walk back protections on toxic chemicals.  

During his first term, the EPA repeatedly delayed or shelved regulations to limit PFAS in drinking water, despite growing evidence of their health risks.  

Proposed designations of certain PFAS as hazardous substances languished for years, even as contamination spread across hundreds of U.S. communities. 

Critics say this new round of reforms could turn those delays into de facto deregulation. 

At a March 2025 press conference, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin framed the changes as a way to “power the Great American Comeback,” touting the economic benefits of streamlining chemical reviews and reducing burdens on industry.  

The announcement came just weeks after the White House dissolved NEPA regulations, which had for decades guided environmental reviews of infrastructure and development projects. 

What will happen if this deregulation succeeds?

What’s at stake isn’t just consumer safety—it’s environmental justice, scientific integrity, and public trust in the institutions tasked with protecting health.  

The EPA’s own Office of Research and Development, long a bulwark against politically motivated science, may be dismantled or defunded.  

And with damage, impact, and risk assessments potentially ‘DOGE’d’, i.e., dismissed as unnecessary bureaucracy by the Department of Government Efficiency, federal environmental policy could soon operate without the checks that have defined it since the 1970s. 

The move also throws a wrench into years of progress made under the updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  

Passed with bipartisan support in 2016, the law was supposed to strengthen oversight of chemicals.  

But industry influence and executive orders promoting deregulation have eroded its power, turning back the clock on toxic substance control. 

Will deregulation move too slowly? 

Interestingly, the market may provide some resistance to this federal rollback. 

Companies like 3M have already pledged to phase out PFAS due to the logistical and reputational challenges of complying with conflicting state laws.  

Consumer demand for cleaner, safer products is also pushing companies toward reformulation and transparency—regardless of what the federal government mandates. 

Still, the long-term impact of the Trump EPA’s actions could be significant.  

If the agency follows through with its proposed changes, it could take years to reverse course, even under a future administration.  

That means more delays in setting drinking water limits, more exemptions for new chemicals, and more Americans unknowingly exposed to compounds that scientists say should never have entered the marketplace to begin with. 

What does this mean for monitoring professionals? 

So, is EPA declassifying toxic chemicals? Not in name—but in effect, yes.  

By redefining how chemical risk is calculated, curbing the power of state legislatures, and dismantling the frameworks that have guided environmental safety for decades, the administration is paving the way for a more toxic consumer landscape.  

Whether this gambit succeeds will depend not only on courts and public comment, but on how loudly communities demand the right to clean air, safe water, and non-toxic homes. 

For professionals and communities who rely on environmental monitors—whether tracking water, soil, or air quality—this deregulatory wave could signal a coming storm. As federal oversight retreats and chemical risk evaluations become more fragmented, the potential for unregulated or under-regulated pollutants entering ecosystems increases significantly. 

With fewer chemicals designated as posing an 'unreasonable risk', manufacturers may reintroduce hazardous compounds into production, or continue using them without pushback.  

For environmental monitoring specialists, this means preparing for possible spikes in toxic emissions, PFAS leaching, and the reappearance of pollutants previously phased out. 

Instrumentation users may need to recalibrate expectations.  

Baseline readings that once reflected a decline in certain contaminants could soon trend upward, and anomalies could become more frequent as legacy pollutants return to circulation. 

Laboratories and field teams might need to expand their analyte panels to include chemicals once considered dealt with. 

Moreover, state and local governments may lean more heavily on independent monitoring to fill the gap left by weakened federal regulation.  

This could translate to increased demand for high-resolution sensors, advanced analytics, and longitudinal tracking to document environmental impacts in real time—and potentially support litigation or advocacy efforts. 

In short, while the Trump administration’s plans may ease restrictions for industry, the burden of vigilance will likely shift to those on the frontlines of environmental observation.  

What does Trump mean for environmental regulation?

On 19 February 1981, still less than month into office, United States’ President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order (EO) 12291. This required that any regulation ─ including ‘currently effe... Read More