The issue of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) regulation in the United States has emerged as a pivotal concern at the intersection of environmental policy, public health, and political governance. PFAS chemicals, ubiquitous in many industrial and consumer products due to their unique water- and grease-resistant properties, have garnered significant attention due to their persistence in the environment and potential health risks.
Under the Biden administration, addressing PFAS contamination has been a priority, culminating in April’s announcement of nationwide restrictions aimed at ensuring safe levels of these chemicals in drinking water. This move represented a continuation of efforts initiated under previous administrations but escalated under Biden’s EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), which has sought to strengthen regulations and oversight concerning PFAS.
Conversely, concerns have been raised about the potential reversal of these environmental policies should former President Donald Trump be re-elected in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. Critics, including environmentalists and Democratic leaders, fear that a return to Trump-era policies could lead to the rollback or weakening of current regulations aimed at controlling PFAS contamination. Scott Faber, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at the Environmental Working Group, has been vocal about these concerns, citing indications from former Trump EPA officials that suggest a less stringent approach to environmental regulation.
Andrew Wheeler, who served as EPA administrator under Trump, has countered these concerns by pointing to his administration’s actions on PFAS during his tenure. The Trump EPA’s PFAS Action Plan, unveiled in 2019, outlined steps to evaluate maximum contamination levels, propose hazardous substance designations, and develop cleanup recommendations for affected groundwater sites. Wheeler maintains that while there may be adjustments under a second Trump administration, the fundamental approach to managing PFAS would likely remain consistent with previous efforts.
However, environmental advocates remain skeptical, pointing to documents such as the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which outlines recommendations for a future Republican administration. This project includes suggestions to revise groundwater cleanup regulations to better accommodate contaminants like PFAS and reconsider their classification as hazardous substances under federal law.
Mandy M. Gunasekara, a prominent figure in energy policy and former chief of staff at Trump’s EPA, emphasizes the need for a balanced regulatory approach that respects environmental concerns while ensuring economic competitiveness. Gunasekara and proponents of revising environmental policies argue for clearer guidelines and a streamlined regulatory process that avoids overreach and bureaucratic impediments.
The debate underscores broader ideological divides regarding the role of government in environmental protection, the balance between economic growth and environmental stewardship, and the extent of regulatory authority wielded by federal agencies like the EPA. For supporters of stringent PFAS regulations, maintaining the current trajectory under Biden’s administration is crucial for safeguarding public health, minimizing environmental harm, and upholding the EPA’s mandate to protect the nation’s air, water, and land resources.
Ultimately, the outcome of the 2024 election will likely determine the future direction of PFAS regulations and broader environmental policies in the United States. The choice between candidates could have far-reaching implications for environmental health, regulatory frameworks, and the overall trajectory of environmental governance in the country.