The PFAS Crisis: The Future of “Forever Chemical” Regulation
By: Annmarie Buckley
Over the previous presidential term, the Biden administration made significant strides in promoting environmental regulations against “forever chemicals” in drinking water. The administration prioritized increased regulations of these man-made chemicals, scientifically defined as PFAS (perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances), in response to mounting public concern regarding their detrimental impacts on environmental and human health.
The EPA’s significant steps in regulating PFAS in drinking water drew immediate attention from industry and environmental groups. Recently, President Trump’s administration backpedaled PFAS regulations, announcing it will not continue to pursue the previously proposed plans made to bear down on PFAS contamination. Thus, the future of PFAS regulation, and specifically the regulation of PFAS in drinking water, is fraught with uncertainty.
What are PFAS?
“PFAS,” or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, refers to a broad class of chemicals consisting of thousands of different compounds.[1] These chemicals are man-made and have been used in consumer and manufacturing products since the 1940s, including in cosmetics, clothing, kitchenware, and food packaging.[2] They are known as “forever chemicals” because they take an extraordinarily long time to break down both in the human body and the natural environment.[3]
PFAS have become a central topic of public concern because of new research linking exposure to them with a myriad of health risks, including increased risk of various cancers, reduced immune system response, and developmental delays.[4] Research shows that the severity of these health impacts may vary depending on the level of exposure to PFAS as well as an individual’s personal characteristics such as age, sex, and genetic predisposition to disease.[5] Although these findings on PFAS exposure raise alarm, scientists note that further research is ongoing to determine exactly how harmful exposure can be and what level of exposure, if any, is safe.[6]
PFAS exposure occurs primarily through ingestion, and a key area of concern is exposure from contaminated drinking water.[7] A study from U.S. Geological Survey found that “~45% of the nation’s tap water has at least one PFAS compound.”[8] PFAS exposure may also occur through contaminated food products, such as through food packaged with plastic containing PFAS.[9]
PFAS Regulation and Pushback
In April of 2024, the EPA took a significant step in regulating the presence of PFAS, specifically in drinking water, by proposing the National Primary Drinking Water Rule (“NPDWR”) which established the first maximum contaminant levels (“MCLs”) for several of the most concerning PFAS compounds.[10] Under the NPDWR, public water facilities would have to test for and remove the enumerated PFAS compounds from drinking water.[11] Further, the EPA designated two specific PFAS compounds, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).[12] Notably, this was the first time the EPA used its authority as an agency to designate hazardous substances independently from other statutes.[13] This was a strong step by the EPA to exercise regulatory authority and drew attention to the issue of PFAS contamination. Additionally, to aid in implementing PFAS testing procedures, the EPA also pledged $1 billion in funding from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.[14]
Some states have also implemented state-level laws to ban or restrict PFAS in consumer products. For example, Minnesota passed a law known as “Amara’s Law,” which bans the use of added PFAS in eleven categories of consumer goods including cosmetics, cleaning products, and cookware.[15] New York and California have also passed legislation banning the sale of new clothing that contains added PFAS.[16]
Naturally, these proposed EPA regulations drew sharp reactions, including legal action. In American Water Works et al. v. EPA, several water industry organizations that would be directly impacted by the regulation argue that the science behind the health and environmental risks posed by PFAS is too new, and that the EPA failed to rely on the best evidence to establish MCLs in drinking water.[17] There are also concerns from industry leaders that the EPA overextended its authority by designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, and that the monitoring and cleanup requirements of the proposed regulations impose too high of a liability burden on public water facilities.[18]
There has been pushback on PFAS regulation laws at the state level as well. In response to Amara’s Law in Minnesota, the Cookware Sustainability Alliance, or CSA, filed a lawsuit:
CSA alleges that Amara’s Law violates the Constitution’s commerce clause and dormant commerce clause, imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce, and that its disclosure requirement (which goes into effect in 2026 and requires reporting PFAS products to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) violates the First Amendment in addition to being preempted by federal trade secret law. CSA filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of Amara’s Law, which was denied February 26, 2025. CSA has until March 28, 2025, to appeal the judgment.[19]
What is the future of PFAS regulation?
The Trump administration has signaled that it will halt Biden-era plans to monitor and limit PFAS contamination. In January 2025, Trump withdrew the above-mentioned plan to implement MCLs for certain PFAS compounds.[20] In February 2025, the EPA also moved to place cases against it relating to PFAS regulation on hold for sixty days while the Trump administration decides whether to revise or entirely abandon the Biden EPA’s approach to PFAS contamination.[21]
The federal rollback on PFAS regulatory policy further previews a similar rollback at the state level. Melanie Benesh, vice president of the Environmental Working Group, stated that
[s]tate regulators have waited for the federal government to lead on this issue so they can incorporate effective monitoring and treatment requirements into their discharge permits. Without federal limits, those efforts remain stalled.[22]
Conclusion
Overall, the Trump administration’s pause on PFAS regulation does not bode well for environmental and consumer rights activists. The future PFAS regulation is uncertain, and public health officials will be waiting with bated breath to see what the future holds for this area of environmental regulation.
____________________________________________
[1] Faith Kibuye, Understanding PFAS, What They Are, Their Impact, and What We Can Do, Penn. St. Extension (Nov. 1, 2023), https://extension.psu.edu/understanding-pfas-what-they-are-their-impact-and-what-we-can-do
[2] Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS, U.S. Env’t. Prot. Agency (Oct. 14, 2021), https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas.
[3] PFAS Explained, U.S. Env’t. Prot. Agency (Mar. 30, 2016), https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained
[4] Id.
[5] Faith Kibuye, supra note 1.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Sloane Anders Wildman, PFAS: A New Four-Letter Word in Environmental Law? Updates from 2024 and Predictions for 2025, The Nat’l L. Rev. (Jan. 21, 2025), https://natlawreview.com/article/pfas-new-four-letter-word-environmental-law-updates-2024-and-predictions-2025
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Tracy J Wholf, EPA announces first-ever national regulations for “forever chemicals” in drinking water, CBS News (Apr. 10, 2024), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-first-ever-drinking-water-regulations-pfas-forever-chemicals/
[15] 2025 PFAS prohibitions, Minn. Pollution Control Agency (last visited April 5, 2025), https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-water-land-climate/2025-pfas-prohibitions
[16] Id.
[17] Kelsey Parker, Court Approves 60-Day Stays in Legal Battles over Biden-Era PFAS Regulations amid Administration Shift, Pillsbury Law (Mar. 11, 2025), https://pfas.pillsburylaw.com/court-approves-60-day-stays-legal-battles-biden-era-pfas-regulations/
[18] Id.
[19] Michael C Lupton, PFAS Bans Go into Effect; Manufacturers Attempt to Push Back on Regulations, The Nat’l L. Rev. (Mar. 25, 2025), https://natlawreview.com/article/pfas-bans-go-effect-manufacturers-attempt-push-back-regulations
[20] Jennifer McLogan, Trump’s halting of EPA limits on PFAS in drinking water “a tragic setback,” Long Island environmentalist says, CBS N.Y. (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/trump-drinking-water-regulations-forever-chemicals-pfas/
[21] Kelsey Parker, supra note 17.
[22] Trump EPA withdrawal of PFAS effluent limits is setback for public health, EWG warns, Env’t Working Grp. (Jan. 22, 2025), https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/statement/2025/01/trump-epa-withdrawal-pfas-effluent-limits-setback-public-health-ewg
