The EPA says they want “PFAS Out.” Their policies are allowing more of them in

Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).

Less than three months ago, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official Jess Kramer outlined a series of promises dubbed “PFAS OUT,” aimed at eliminating a family of toxic compounds from drinking water, and touted the Trump administration’s wider commitments to protecting Americans from contamination by the chemicals.

In a May 18 press conference, Kramer, who serves as the EPA’s assistant administrator for water, spoke alongside EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, about a range of actions aimed at tackling per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) across the “full life cycle” of the chemicals. Zeldin noted that PFAS are linked to serious health effects, and said that addressing PFAS contamination is “essential to making America healthy again.” 

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is anchored in limiting the use of harmful toxic chemicals and pesticides. Multiple agencies have invoked MAHA goals since Trump took office.

But despite embracing the rhetoric of MAHA — the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks and approval of new types of PFAS signal what observers see as a sharp contradiction: promises to reduce exposure to the so-called “forever chemicals,” followed by policies that increase the risks of exposure for millions of Americans.

“They’re saying one thing, and then they’re doing something completely opposite,” said Bill Pluecker, an independent state representative from Maine and leader in PFAS prevention policy.

“They’re saying one thing, and then they’re doing something completely opposite,” — Bill Pluecker, Maine state representative

From evaluating new PFAS for use in data center developments to withdrawing proposed rules for limiting PFAS in sewage sludge spread on farmland, the EPA is sidelining health and environmental concerns, critics say.

“I think it’s safe to say that right now the focus is on deregulation,” said Rainer Lohmann, director of a PFAS research center based at the University of Rhode Island.

Under the radar

In late June, the EPA approved three new herbicides – trifludimoxazin, diflufenican and epyrifenacil – to be sprayed directly on major food crops. There was no press release or media briefings notifying the public of these approvals.

The EPA does not consider the chemicals to fit within the definition of PFAS, but that stance conflicts with international experts, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which defines the three new chemicals as PFAS. 

“Many fluorinated pesticides meet the OECD definition of a PFAS, but very few meet EPA’s definition,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This administration is putting more effort into omitting chemicals from PFAS regulation than they have in actually protecting people from PFAS.”

The EPA’s own internal data has linked these chemicals to animal tumors and persistent water contamination. For example, last year the agency classified trifludimoxazin as having “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” based on the development of thyroid tumors in animals.

The latest approvals bring the total number of PFAS pesticides greenlit under the current administration to five under the OECD definition of the chemicals.

Throwing out Biden-era regulations

While approving new PFAS, the current administration has also backed away from several Biden-era PFAS regulations, including a scientific review of PFAS-contaminated sewage sludge that is often spread on farm fields as fertilizer. 

In the US, sewage sludge is spread on almost 70 million acres of farmland, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) report. 

The EPA itself confirmed in a 2026 risk assessment that even at extremely low levels, two types of PFAS and PFOS in sewage sludge applied to farmland could result in an elevated risk of cancer.

Policymakers like Pluecker saw the review as a first step to addressing the issue. But in July, the Trump administration scrapped it. 

 “It recognized that there is a danger specifically to farmers, people who are eating the food from their own ground, drinking the water from their own contaminated ground, and raising their families there,” said Pluecker, who also serves as a public policy organizer at the Maine Organic Farmers and Growers Association (MOFGA).

Pluecker said the risks extend to the general public. “Whether or not you’re living on the farm or near the farm, as long as you’re eating the food coming from the farm, you’re going to be affected.”

The updated draft guidance from June determined that currently, “data does not indicate that there are widespread impacts to the food supply from biosolids containing PFOA and PFOS at the national level, and the general public is not likely to be exposed to sewage sludge-impacted foods.”

Limits for four cancer-linked “forever chemicals” in drinking water established during the Biden administration were also thrown out in May.

The Biden administration previously set limits on six types of PFAS; PFOA, PFOS, GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS — which have been linked to several health issues such as cancer, heart problems and birth defects. 

But in May, The Trump administration proposed to rescind the limits for GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS, alleging that the Biden administration failed to follow the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act by not allowing for proper public comment.

The EPA will leave in place the limits for PFOA and PFOS, chemicals known to be particularly harmful.

PFAS in data centers 

In a relatively new concern over PFAS use, 17 organizations in mid-July submitted formal comments urging the EPA to reject the use of a type of PFAS chemical in data centers, citing “severe risks to health and the environment.” EPA is currently prioritizing the review of new chemicals used to cool-down data centers.

Historically, data centers have used water to cool down their servers and prevent equipment from overheating. PFAS chemicals are now being proposed as an alternative to excessive amounts of water through a system called two-phase immersion cooling. 

Chemours, a major supplier of PFAS materials for data centers, is hoping to expand production of its PFAS materials for this purpose with a chemical called Opteon 2P50, a specialized liquid coolant.

Advocates say approval of the new chemical would open the door for its use in other settings. “If EPA were to approve this new chemical without some stringent restriction, once it gets on that new chemicals list of approved chemicals, it can be used for anything,” said Adriana Antezana, staff scientist at Earthjustice, an environmental law nonprofit and one of the organizations that submitted formal comments to the EPA expressing concern over Opteon 2P50.

Chemours said critics are making “sweeping generalizations about PFAS as a class, despite the fact that there are over 15,000 PFAS compounds, each with different characteristics, exposure profiles, and hazard profiles.” 

The company said that Opteon 2P50 should be evaluated based on its own “properties, data, and intended application rather than assumptions about an entire class of chemistries.”

Lohmann said a fast-tracked review process comes at a cost. 

“If the EPA’s mission is to enhance the competitiveness of the US industry, then I guess at this point you would be willing to accept environmental degradation as a cost for economic activity,” he said.

Featured Image by Zyanya Citlalli on Unsplash