EPA Says It Will Act on PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals.’ Advocates Raise Red Flags

The announcement emphasizes research, failing to mention ongoing litigation and existing regulation.

As the Environmental Protection Agency works to roll back multiple public-health protections, it announced Monday that it intends to take action to combat toxic forever chemicals.

Advocates are skeptical, saying the language of the announcement raises red flags.

The EPA announcement consists of a list of proposed actions to target contamination by per– and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS. The list includes plans to advance remediation and cleanup efforts for PFAS in drinking water, ramp up research and testing and designate an agency lead to oversee it all. The announcement does not name the person who will oversee this work, a timeline for action or a number of other specifics.

The announcement also fails to mention last year’s landmark EPA standard on PFAS in drinking water, which the chemical industry and water utilities sued over. The Trump administration has until May 12 to decide whether it will continue to defend the Biden-era rule—which was accompanied by a $1 billion investment in state-level water testing and treatment—in court. EPA did not answer questions from Inside Climate News about the rule, the litigation or Monday’s announcement.

“We are tackling PFAS from all of EPA’s program offices, advancing research and testing, stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding polluters accountable, and providing certainty for passive receivers,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement. “This is just the start of the work we will do on PFAS to ensure Americans have the cleanest air, land, and water.”

This comes after President Donald Trump’s administration has already begun dismantling environmental protections across multiple agencies, including for clean air, public lands, waterways and wastewater. The administration has also eliminated future funding for climate and health research and canceled grants for research on environmental health, including millions of dollars in research on PFAS accumulation in the food chain. 

“Based on the prior Trump administration and based on the current Trump administration’s gutting of environmental protections across the board … I’m skeptical,” said Dana Sargent, executive director of Cape Fear River Watch in North Carolina, a group that advocates for clean water in a region heavily contaminated with PFAS and that sued the EPA over these impacts.

Sargent and other advocates also noted that the announcement seems to lack teeth.

“There’s a lot of words in here that don’t really mean very much,” Sargent said. “The proof of their commitment would come out in any actionable regulation and polluter accountability.”

Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and a long-time advocate for PFAS awareness, echoed this sentiment. 

“On face value, it’s encouraging to see the support of the Trump EPA to express their concerns about PFAS,” Birnbaum said. “The question is always, what are the devils in the details.”

PFAS are toxic, long-lasting chemicals that are found in drinking water, soil, food, household products and more, and can come from everyday items like food packaging, clothing or cookware. They are called “forever chemicals” because they can take over a thousand years to break down. 

Almost all Americans have PFAS in their blood, and nearly half the country is drinking PFAS-contaminated water. PFAS exposure has been linked to severe health harms like cancer, reproductive problems, low birth weight, high cholesterol, developmental issues, decreased immunity and thyroid problems. 

Advocates flagged some of the word choices in the EPA’s announcement, pointing out potential openings for industry actors, who have lobbied hard against PFAS regulations.

Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, said the announcement suggests the EPA will delay compliance obligations and provide exemptions for polluters. 

Benesh pointed to a promise in the announcement to address “compliance challenges” for PFAS in drinking water, noting that water utilities have often asked for more time to comply with health-related rules. 

“One way that the EPA could say that they are addressing compliance issues, quote-unquote, is through delays, by giving those utilities additional time,” Benesh said. 

Birnbaum expressed similar concerns about the mention of compliance issues, as well as the EPA’s reference to reporting rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The announcement emphasized not “overburdening” small businesses and companies importing chemical substances into the U.S, which she said could signal further exemptions and delays.

Sargent said that the announcement’s focus on research fits into a playbook of delay tactics: Regulators say they’ll study the matter to signal productivity while failing to take tangible action to decrease pollution exposure. 

“If you’re going to be claiming that you need more research on PFAS while you’re defunding research on PFAS, then you’re being beyond disingenuous, you’re being dangerous,” Sargent said. 

During the first Trump administration, EPA staffers were prevented from alerting lawmakers to a loophole in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act that allowed companies to avoid disclosure for some PFAS discharges, The Hill reported. 

EPA closed this loophole during the Biden administration, but Monday’s announcement specifically mentioned the 2020 NDAA, which Sargent said she found concerning.

“That’s an improper definition of PFAS,” Sargent said. 

Some advocates also raised concerns about the announcement’s emphasis on protecting “passive receivers”—like water utilities—that don’t produce PFAS but receive them through contaminated water. Loosening up standards on passive receivers such as municipal wastewater treatment plants could pose serious health risks, said Emily Donovan, co-founder of the grassroots group Clean Cape Fear and another anti-PFAS advocate.

“This is just a non-starter for us,” Donovan said. “There doesn’t need to be a carveout [for passive receivers]—that’s a slippery slope.”

Donovan added that advocates and others are paying close attention.

“The voters that I’ve talked to … they want the drinking water standard,” Donovan said. “This is one piece that if it was taken away from Americans, it’s not about government efficiency and it’s not about protecting health, it would absolutely be about allowing billionaire corporations to keep making more profit at our expense.” 

Cover photo: Nearly half of the tap water in the U.S. is contaminated with toxic PFAS. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images