Trump EPA moves to scrap PFAS water limits amid health warnings

The Environmental Protection Agency under President Donald Trump has asked a federal appeals court to vacate its own standards limiting toxic “forever chemicals” in drinking water, triggering alarm from public health advocates and environmental groups. At the same time, the agency is seeking to delay compliance for two other chemicals by two years, a move that critics say will deepen exposure for millions of people already living with contaminated water.

In its court motion, the EPA requested that federal judges strike down the limits for GenX, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS—four of the six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) the agency committed to regulate only last year. Separately, it announced plans to extend the deadline for utilities to comply with limits for PFOA and PFOS until 2031, rather than 2029. Together, the actions amount to the most aggressive rollback of national drinking-water protections in decades.

Environmental lawyers argue that the EPA is attempting to use the judiciary to sidestep the Safe Drinking Water Act. The law’s anti-backsliding clause explicitly bars the agency from weakening any drinking water standard once set. “In essence, EPA is asking the court to do what EPA itself is not allowed to do,” Earthjustice said in a statement.

The stakes are enormous. More than 73 million people are served by water systems that have already detected PFAS above the limits the EPA now seeks to rescind or delay. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), approximately half of the U.S. population is drinking water contaminated with these substances, “including as many as 105 million whose water violates the new standards.”

Communities in New York and beyond are bracing for the consequences. Rob Hayes of Environmental Advocates NY warned that “the EPA’s announcement is a big win for corporate polluters and an enormous loss for New York families.” He added, “Administrator Zeldin wants to strip clean water protections away from millions of New Yorkers, leaving them at risk of exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals every time they turn on the tap. New Yorkers will pay the price of this disastrous plan through medical bills—and deaths—tied to kidney cancer, thyroid disease, and other harmful illnesses linked to PFAS.”

Scientists have long sounded the alarm about PFAS exposure, which persists in the environment and accumulates in the human body. The health impacts extend across multiple systems. Betsy Southerland, former director of the Office of Science and Technology in the EPA’s Office of Water, explained:

“The impact of these chemicals is clear. We know that this is significant for pregnant women who are drinking water contaminated with PFAS, because it can cause low birth weight in children. We know children have developmental effects from being exposed to it. We know there’s an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer with these chemicals.

Two of the four chemicals targeted in this motion are the ones that we expect to be the most prevalent, and only increasing contamination in the future. With this rollback, those standards would be gone.”

The NRDC echoed the urgency, with senior attorney Jared Thompson stating, “The EPA’s request to jettison rules intended to keep drinking water safe from toxic PFAS forever chemicals is an attempted end run around the protections that Congress placed in the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is also alarming, given what we know about the health harms caused by exposure to these chemicals. No one wants to drink PFAS. We will continue to defend these commonsense, lawfully enacted standards in court.”

Agency officials maintain that their aim is to “provide regulatory flexibility and holistically address these contaminants in drinking water.” Administrator Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman with a 14% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters, has argued that the measures reflect a broader strategy for balancing compliance costs with public health needs.

But advocacy groups insist the justification masks a clear industry giveaway. Earthjustice attorney Katherine O’Brien said, “Administrator Zeldin promised to protect the American people from PFAS-contaminated drinking water, but he’s doing the opposite. Zeldin’s plan to delay and roll back the first national limits on these forever chemicals prioritizes chemical industry profits and utility companies’ bottom line over the health of children and families across the country.”

The backlash has been swift because the new standards represented a long-overdue milestone. After decades of delay, the EPA concluded in 2024 that there is no safe level of PFOA or PFOS exposure and finalized limits for six PFAS in total. Utilities were given the maximum five-year window to meet the standards by 2029. Critics now warn that undermining those deadlines will erase progress before it begins.

Industry expansion

Even as the agency retreats from regulating existing contaminants, it has approved new PFAS uses in pesticides. Between April and June of this year, the EPA gave the green light to four pesticides defined by experts as PFAS. Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Civil Eats, “What we’re seeing right now is the new generation of pesticides, and it’s genuinely frightening. At a time when most industries are transitioning away from PFAS, the pesticide industry is doubling down. They’re firmly in the business of selling PFAS.”

NRDC and community groups represented by Earthjustice have intervened in litigation to defend the rules against challenges from chemical companies and water utility associations. The court case will now also weigh whether the EPA itself can ask judges to undo standards the agency previously said were essential to public health.

For many, the implications go far beyond this one case. If the court grants EPA’s request, it could set a precedent for reversing established drinking water protections whenever industry pressures mount. The outcome will decide not only how quickly utilities act to clean up water supplies, but also whether decades of work to hold polluters accountable are undone.