The Trump administration is moving to dismantle federal drinking water protections put in place less than two years ago, proposing to rescind limits on four dangerous PFAS compounds and delay standards for two others.
The Environmental Protection Agency announced the plan through two separate regulatory actions that will require approval and almost certainly face court challenges. The move represents a sharp reversal of Biden-era protections that public health advocates hailed as historic when they arrived in 2024, the first new drinking water standards for contaminants in 27 years.
PFAS, shorthand for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are man-made chemicals used to manufacture water-, stain- and grease-resistant products. Known as "forever chemicals" because they do not break down naturally in the environment, the compounds are estimated to contaminate drinking water supplies for more than 200 million Americans. Scientists have linked PFAS exposure to cancer, birth defects, weakened immunity, elevated cholesterol, kidney disease, and other serious health conditions.
The Biden EPA had established limits of 10 parts per trillion for combinations of three PFAS compounds including PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO dimer acid, commonly called GenX. The agency also set a variable limit when a fourth compound, PFBS, was included in the mix. For PFOA and PFOS, the two most studied PFAS chemicals, the Biden administration set drinking water limits of four parts per trillion, while requiring water utilities to comply by 2031.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the rollback at a press conference, with Zeldin framing the effort as part of a broader health agenda. Kennedy pushed back against criticism, insisting the administration was not abandoning chemical protections but rather pursuing them through different means.
"The Trump EPA is committed to Make America Healthy Again by ensuring clean air, land, and water, and by taking on PFAS the right way," Zeldin said in a statement. Kennedy added that reports claiming the administration was rolling back protections were inaccurate, describing the effort instead as implementing a "clean water mandate."
The rationale offered by the Trump EPA centers on process concerns. Officials contended that the Biden administration did not follow proper legal procedures, moved too quickly in developing the standards, and that the limits would face legal challenges. The Trump team said redoing the process would actually save time by avoiding prolonged litigation.
Public health advocates rejected the justification. Dr. Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, condemned the move in sharp language.
"Zeldin and Kennedy are trying to sell potions out of the back of a covered wagon," Reade said. "The millions of Americans demanding safe drinking water are not going to fall for their hocus pocus."
The rollback creates tension with Trump's stated commitments on water safety. During his campaign and early term, the president pledged to eliminate toxic chemicals from drinking water. Kennedy has made eliminating toxins from food and water a cornerstone of his Make America Healthy Again movement. The PFAS decision appears to undercut both public promises.
The Biden EPA had projected that the 2024 PFAS limits would reduce exposure for 100 million people and prevent thousands of illnesses, including fewer low birth-weight infant deaths, kidney cancer deaths, bladder cancer deaths, and cardiovascular disease deaths. The agency based its timeline partly on what technology could reliably detect, noting that utilities already had the capacity to measure PFAS at the four parts per trillion level for PFOA and PFOS.
The regulatory process the Trump EPA will initiate can stretch over several years, and any new rules issued are expected to face immediate legal challenges from environmental groups and health organizations.
Author James Rodriguez: "Rolling back protections for chemicals that sicken millions while invoking a 'clean water' mandate is political theater at its worst."
Comments