PFAS Regulation Under the Second Trump Administration: Is PFAS Political?
Gabi Mosey
The second Trump Administration has created new policies regarding polyfluoroalkyl substances, or substances more commonly known as “PFAS.” The Administration’s new environmental policies have been varied, but as many expected, most have prioritized economic and private land ownership interests.[1] Many questions arose as to what President Trump would do with the more strict PFAS Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), created by the Biden EPA in April 2024.[2] Stricter MCLs ensure states have to adjust their standards to be just as strict, costing bureaucratic time and corporate money. The Biden rules altered many existing state standards.[3] However, on May 14, 2025, (relatively quickly in the Administration’s tenure, after only four months), the Trump EPA, under Secretary Lee Zeldin, moved to relax some of those standards.[4]
The Biden Administration’s contaminant levels were set to become enforceable in 2029, giving states five years to establish compliance.[5] In 2025, the Trump EPA delayed this timing to 2031, with a stated aim to do the “right thing for rural and small communities.”[6] The administration stated that they desired to allow for better planning and to lower costs for small towns that may be unprepared for the Biden EPA standards.[7]
It is notable that current Secretary Zeldin was a founding member of the PFAS Congressional Taskforce and claims to maintain a longtime interest in protecting constituents from PFAS dangers.[8] Specifically, the EPA notes that his interests lie in further making sure that local utilities (and thus consumers) do not foot the bill for contamination problems.[9]
For PFOS and PFOA, the MCLs will remain the same.[10] However, in the 2025 announcement, the Trump EPA announced its intention to “rescind the regulations and reconsider the regulatory determinations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and the Hazard Index mixture of these three plus PFBS.”[11] In its announcement, the Agency does not provide extensive explanation for this rescission, other than stating its intention to ensure these regulations comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act.[12] Meanwhile, advocacy agencies like Food & Water Watch interpret this as a capitulation to PFAS industry lobbying.[13] Alongside these advocates, some Democrats are up in arms. In December of 2025, fifteen attorneys general signed a letter opposing these changes and challenging Secretary Zeldin’s decisions.[14] They call it a “complete, unsupported, and unsupportable reversal by the Agency.”[15]
Even though other standards are being weakened, the EPA has newly launched its “PFAS OUT” campaign, which seeks to give local (including tribal) communities struggling with infrastructure capital extra technical assistance in complying with regulations.[16] The program aims to provide local governments with federal assistance, information, and technical help for PFAS compliance,[17] continuing the Trump EPA’s focus on smaller communities’ adaptation to imposed PFAS standards.
To many, it may be surprising that the second Trump Administration has not further rolled back the Biden-era PFAS Maximum Contaminant Levels, considering how many other Biden EPA policies have been reversed. Does this imply that PFAS regulations and protections may be less political than other environmental law issues, including climate change, electric vehicle subsidies, or offshore wind projects? It is interesting that, despite large rollbacks of EPA power and responsibilities in the last year, the Trump Administration is choosing to tout its regulatory initiatives regarding PFOS, PFOA, and PFAS. Balancing interests regarding PFAS policy often seemingly amounts to balancing industry interests with citizen water quality interests. With much of President Trump’s rhetoric focusing on creating jobs, revamping industry, and unleashing American energy potential, many in the environmental community likely assumed that his Administration and EPA Secretary would take a more laissez-faire approach to the regulation of PFAS chemicals. However, it remains up for interpretation as to whether the Administration is taking a more hands-on approach than expected, especially considering the new PFAS OUT program and investments touted by the Environmental Protection Agency and Secretary Zeldin.
Reactions to the new regulatory scheme from Trump’s EPA are mixed. For instance, the NRDC has said they will challenge the new Rule in court, specifically utilizing the Safe Drinking Water Act’s anti-backsliding provision against the new Rule.[18] They plan on quoting the SDWA, which states “each revision [of a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR)] shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons.”[19] Are the Trump EPA’s updated regulations an example of backsliding, as the NRDC says they are? Or are they merely an extension of deadlines and a reevaluation of certain standards? It is important to note that states have also been enacting legislation simultaneously, especially during this change in administration.[20] According to the Sierra Club, more than 350 new pieces of PFAS-related legislation have been proposed in states in 2025.[21] While this data can definitely be construed as a positive for PFAS regulation initiatives, such trends highlight an issue: which federal administration’s standards should states ensure their regulations comply with? Will state regulations continue to move back and forth with each administration? Is protecting citizens from PFAS dangers a political and volatile issue, or are the switches between administrations minimal enough to represent a consistent commitment to PFAS protections?
The coming years will be telling as to whether the Trump Administration doubles down on PFAS rollbacks, creating more ease for both small communities and industry polluters, or whether their decisions will keep most of the Biden-era regulations. Further, the impact and emphasis of the PFAS OUT program will be telling; is it merely something to distract Americans from regulatory rollbacks, or does the Administration intend to seriously redistribute helpful resources to disadvantaged communities at a meaningful pace? Also, will the reevaluation of regulations for the less mainstream versions of the PFAS chemical result in a complete lack of regulation, or will some standards remain? This story will continue to unfold in the coming years, as policies likely continue to be at least slightly altered between administrations, depending on which political party holds the presidency.
[1] U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, EPA Announces It Will Keep Maximum Contaminant Levels for PFOA, PFOS (May 14, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/ newsreleases/epa-announces-it-will-keep-maximum-contaminant-levels-pfoa-pfos.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Food & Water Watch, As Trump Attacks PFAS Water Safety Rules, New Analysis Shows Massive Industry Lobbying Influence (Sept. 17, 2025),https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2025/09/17/as-trump-attacks-pfas-water-safety-rules-new-analysis-shows-massive-industry-lobbying-influence/.
[14] Attorneys Gen. of Conn. et al., Comments on Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Data Reporting and Recordkeeping Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Revision to Regulation (Dec. 22, 2025), https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/ag/press_releases/2025 /20251222-attorneys-general-pfas-reporting-rule-comments.pdf.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Alexander Van Roekel, What Is Trump Doing With PFAS?, Cal. Water Views (Aug. 11, 2025), https://www.californiawaterviews.com/what-is-trump-doing-with-pfas.
[19] Id.
[20] Sierra Club, PFAS,https://www.quorum.us/spreadsheet/external/ LTvSFqyweNCRbSHZJoFg/.
[21] Id.