Continuing with the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum on April 9 titled Directing the Appeal of Unlawful Regulations. It instructs executive agencies to repeal regulations that, in the administration’s view, are “unlawful” in light of ten recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The directive builds on Executive Order 14219 and the broader “Department of Government Efficiency” initiative and calls for a sweeping review and repeal process.
The question is not whether Wisconsin will act on PFAS—but who should pay the bill. As Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers rolls out a sweeping plan to tackle per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination statewide, Republican lawmakers are doubling down on legislation that could exempt polluters and passive receivers from financial responsibility.
On April 10, 2025, at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit extended the stay by 30 days in American Water Works Association, et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir. 2024) to give new leadership time to evaluate the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established for six PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 89 Fed. Reg. at 32,532-33; 40 C.F.R. §§ 141.900-905. The court had previously granted EPA’s February 7 request for a 60-day stay to allow for initial review of the rule. The EPA has until May 12, 2025, to file future motions in the MCL challenge.
Recently, Congress allocated approximately $17 million in EPA’s fiscal year 2025 budget to modernize outdated technical systems and accelerate chemical reviews which may help resolve ongoing concerns about the functionality and security of the agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), a key platform supporting the TSCA program (Sec. 1801(7) of H.R. 1968).
House Republicans have introduced a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) late in the prior administration. The rule narrowed the availability of expedited review pathways for certain new chemical substances—including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The resolution, H.J.Res.76, introduced by Reps. Clay Higgins (R-LA) and William Timmons (R-SC), seeks to nullify EPA’s December 2024 rulemaking, Updates to New Chemicals Regulations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (89 Fed. Reg. 102773).
In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin addressed top state environmental officials, highlighting the Agency’s priorities for the year ahead. Without committing the EPA to an official stance, Zeldin reaffirmed his commitment to “cooperative federalism” by engaging with states on environmental challenges ranging from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to permitting reform at the Environmental Council of States Spring Meeting. At the meeting, Zeldin told state officials the EPA is in the process of figuring out how to best address concerns coming from water utilities regarding the timing and funding of the substantial infrastructure investment required to meet the Biden-era PFAS standards.
Maryland has filed suit against W.L. Gore & Associates (Gore), a downstream user of PFAS-containing materials, alleging that its manufacturing processes contributed to PFAS contamination through its use of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), including Teflon®-branded PTFE. The complaint asserts that Gore sourced PTFE from E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) and Chemours Company—two PFAS manufacturers already facing lawsuits from Maryland—and used it to manufacture expanded PTFE (ePTFE), a microporous material incorporated into various products, including GORE-TEX® breathable, water-resistant fabrics used in outdoor and athletic apparel.
In a move that signals potential policy shifts under the new administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted EPA’s requests for 60-day stays in two high-profile cases challenging Biden-era PFAS regulations. The stays, issued on February 7 and February 25, 2025, temporarily pause litigation over EPA’s maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for several per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the agency’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Both stays were requested by the EPA and its new administrator, Lee Zeldin, as the second Trump administration appears to be reassessing its approach to PFAS regulation. The move raises questions about whether the administration will revise or rescind these regulations.
New York and California have recently imposed sweeping prohibitions on the sale of apparel containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These prohibitions have a broad scope and are effective and enforceable as of January 1, 2025. Clothing companies and their suppliers will be impacted by these state regulations.
With 2024 winding down and a change of presidential administration imminent, it is worthwhile to consider the state of EPA’s efforts to regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In this connection, EPA recently released its third annual Progress Report on the Agency’s 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap. This most recent report, which comes in the waning months of the Biden administration, highlights key EPA accomplishments in addressing PFAS over the past year and identifies areas for continued action in the months and years to come. However, it remains to be seen whether the second Trump administration will follow through on these action items.
