The Trump administration on Monday proposed rolling back limits on “forever chemicals” that contaminate millions of Americans’ drinking water and have been linked to a range of health problems.
The proposal would partially rescind the first national drinking water limits for the chemicals — also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — set by the Biden administration. Under the changes, EPA would eliminate strict limits for four PFAS and allow utilities to request a two-year extension to remove two other PFAS from tap water.
PFAS are a class of thousands of synthetic substances nicknamed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down. They are present in the drinking water of over 100 million Americans, with human exposure linked to cancer, developmental problems in children, high cholesterol and other adverse health effects.
Trump administration officials said the changes would reduce costs for water utilities and address legal deficiencies in the existing drinking water rule, which water utilities and chemical makers have sued to overturn.
“The Biden administration cut corners and failed to follow the law,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a news release. “We are fixing that error with standards water systems can actually implement and that will hold up to scrutiny, while addressing PFOA and PFOS, two of the best-studied PFAS with well-documented health impacts.”
But while EPA touted the announcement as a win for the Make America Healthy Again movement, critics said the partial rollback would leave people more exposed to harmful substances.
“The fact that they’re proposing to rescind four of the six limits and delay the other two is directly contrary to MAHA,” said Anna Reade, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The repeal is incredibly concerning and disappointing, because there has already been so much work and science to show that those protections are needed and justified.”
Some outspoken MAHA influencers have pushed back against the decision as well.
“Any rollback of PFAS protections in our drinking water is a betrayal to MAHA and all of the American people,” said Kelly Ryerson, co-executive director of MAHA-aligned nonprofit American Regeneration who is known online as “Glyphosate Girl.”
The changes are likely to draw legal challenges if finalized. The Safe Drinking Water Act bars EPA from “backsliding,” or amending existing regulations to be less protective of public health.
Some water sector experts are also skeptical that eliminating limits for some PFAS but not others would reduce costs. Alan Roberson, the former executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, said removing PFOA and PFOS alone — even with a potential extension — from water is costly for utilities and the customers they serve.
“If they say it’s going to save a lot of money, that’s not completely accurate,” Roberson said.
Finalized in 2024, EPA’s original rule set extremely low limits for PFOA and PFOS, which are among the most widespread PFAS in drinking water. The rule also established low limits for three closely related substances — PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA — and limits on PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and PFBS as a mixture.
EPA officials said the prior administration did not follow the required process for all of those chemicals except PFOA and PFOS. As a result, the agency is proposing to rescind the limits for the other four and requesting comment on whether the original rule “did not adhere to the procedural and substantive requirements,” EPA’s press release said.
Through a separate regulation, the agency will propose “an opt-in process” for utilities to request an extension — until 2031 — to remove PFOA and PFOS. It was not clear Monday how the agency would evaluate extension requests.
“Each system will have to go through its own application process, whereby it will have to meet the criteria required for the extension,” Jess Kramer, EPA assistant administrator for water, said on a call with reporters. “It’s hard to say other than the extension would be applied and granted on a case-by-case basis.”
EPA officials said their goal was to provide resources and funding for water utilities struggling with the cost of removing the chemicals from water. Kramer pointed to nearly $1 billion in EPA grant funding now available to help small and disadvantaged communities invest in PFAS removal technologies.
“EPA is dedicated to addressing PFAS through its funding, technical systems and regulatory programs, with a focus on engaging with drinking water systems in partnership, not punishment,” she said.
Still, the $1 billion comes from the 2021 infrastructure law, which itself expires at the end of September. And the extent to which federal dollars will continue to be available is not clear. The Trump administration has proposed steep cuts next year to EPA’s State Revolving Funds, the largest source of federal grants and loans for water utilities.
Ellie Borst contributed to this report.
