[[link removed]]

TRUMP EPA SEEKS TO WEAKEN SCRUTINY FOR SOME OF US’S MOST TOXIC
CHEMICALS  
[[link removed]]


 

Tom Perkins
October 21, 2025
The Guardian
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ New rule would prohibit states from banning dangerous chemicals,
and could invalidate hundreds of protections _

The PFAS treatment plant in Yorba Linda, Calif., is the largest of
its kind. The water it provides to its 80,000 customers is free of
these chemicals, (Photo by Carl Smith)

 

A new rule proposed by the Trump administration would dramatically
weaken safety reviews for some of the nation’s most toxic chemicals
that are already on the market, public health advocates and an EPA
employee warn.

Many of the chemicals that would receive less scrutiny are among the
nation’s most dangerous substances, including PFAS, formaldehyde,
asbestos and dioxins. Each poses serious health risks in consumer
goods, or for workers handling the substances, advocates say.

If implemented, the new rule would shorten the time it takes to review
chemicals, and alter the methodology used to assess their dangers. It
would also prohibit states
[[link removed]] from
banning or restricting dangerous chemicals, and could invalidate
hundreds of state-level protections.

“This is a gift to industry wrapped on golden wrapping paper with a
big bow on it,” said Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist now with
the Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility non-profit.

Federal law requires the Environmental Protection Agency to
continuously review the safety of toxic chemicals on the market, and
that requirement has been an industry target in recent years.

Under Joe Biden, the EPA completed dozens of evaluations and put in
place restrictions on the most toxic chemicals. The Trump EPA has
reopened those evaluations, a current EPA employee who did not use
their name for fear of retaliation. The administration probably aims
to reassess the chemicals using the new rule, which would reduce the
level of scrutiny and potentially justify lifting restrictions.

In a statement, the EPA said the rule would not change the “basic
methodological approach used to conduct the risk evaluations”,
though it would streamline and speed up the process.

The new rule “would better protect human health and the environment
by amending provisions that may impede the timely completion of risk
evaluations, and therefore unnecessarily delay any risk management
action that may be necessary to address unreasonable risk”, a
spokesperson wrote.

The new rule proposes to eliminate review of some routes of exposure
to a chemical from scrutiny. The EPA now puts in place restrictions if
it can be “reasonably foreseen” that the public or workers may be
exposed to toxic substances in the air, water, orally or dermally. The
EPA employee said the Trump administration probably plans to exploit
the gray area in that language – it seems poised to change the rule
so the agency reasonably foresees fewer exposure routes.

The EPA is also planning to create what Bennett called a “giant
loophole” by not restricting the use of some dangerous chemicals as
long as those who work with the substances use proper personal
protective gear.

The EPA employee said voluminous research shows that workers often
choose not to wear the gear, or fail to use it properly. Moreover, if
the agency finds there is no risk to workers because it assumes proper
use of protective equipment, then it cannot put in place enforceable
personal protection equipment requirements. The employee said this
“circular argument” increases the likelihood that gear will not be
used in situations in which workers are at risk.

“What the EPA is doing in this rule is saying, ‘Trust industry –
they’ll protect their workers,’” Bennett said. “Since when
does industry protect their workers?”

Industry has a long history of not protecting its workers from toxic
exposures. DuPont in the 1960s knew its employees who handled PFAS
were being sickened by the chemicals, and internal science showed it
caused a range of dangerous health problems, but the company never
told the employees
[[link removed]].

The proposed rule also includes a requirement that risk assessments
meet the Gold Standard Science framework that the Trump administration
developed. The EPA employee said the standard includes stipulations
that are effectively impossible to meet, so it seems to be “reverse
engineered” to invalidate risk evaluations.

For example, the Gold Standard requires that all data used to develop
a risk assessment be made public. But much of the research is covered
by confidential business information laws or medical privacy laws, so
it cannot be made public, the employee said.

“It would pull the rug out from the program and for almost every
chemical it would say ‘insufficient information’,” they said.
“We wouldn’t be able to regulate.”

In a press release, the American Chemistry Council trade group that
represents many chemical makers, applauded the proposed changes. The
EPA is “refining its processes in a way that is both protective and
practical,” said Kimberly Wise White, an ACC lobbyist.

The rule making process can take about three years and will almost
certainly be subjected to legal challenges. The law states that the
EPA’s risk evaluations should be done within 3.5 years, but in
reality they often take more than five years, and 18 are already open.

The agency’s political appointees are moving more staff into the
toxics office, the employee said, probably because it is attempting to
prioritize successfully rewriting the rule and redoing the risk
evaluations to be more favorable to industry.

Many of the employees that are being re-assigned to do risk
evaluations have no experience, so they are less likely to push back
on political appointees’ pressure, the employee said.

Even if a Democratic administration that prioritizes stronger chemical
safety reviews takes over the agency following the 2028 election, it
would have to start a new rule-making process which would take another
three years. Industry is satisfied with a tug of war between
administrations because it delays regulation, the employee said.

“From a business perspective, every quarter and every year that they
slow down the process means they can keep making a profit off of
it,” the employee added.

* toxic chemicals
[[link removed]]
* PFAS
[[link removed]]
* EPA Regulations
[[link removed]]
* pollution
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]