Did the usa de-regulate PFAS?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The United States has not uniformly "de‑regulated" PFAS; rather, federal policy has shifted from an expansion of enforceable national limits under the Biden EPA in 2024 to a narrower, contested approach under the current administration that rescinds or delays several drinking‑water limits while leaving some high‑profile actions in place [1] [2] [3]. States continue to move ahead with stricter laws and phase‑outs, so regulation of PFAS in the U.S. is now a patchwork of federal retrenchment and state‑level tightening [4] [5].
1. The 2024 federal crescendo: new MCLs and Superfund listings
In April 2024 the EPA finalized the first national, legally enforceable drinking‑water standards (MCLs) for six PFAS and designated PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA “hazardous substances,” moves framed as landmark protections for tens of millions of Americans and as tools to improve cleanup and accountability [1] [2]. The agency also tied hundreds of millions in funding to testing and treatment under the Infrastructure Investment law and created criteria to help states protect aquatic life—actions described on the EPA’s website and related documents [1] [2].
2. The 2025 pullback: rescinds, delays and legal fights
On May 14, 2025 the EPA announced plans that roll back or reconsider parts of the 2024 package: the agency said it would rescind standards for four PFAS (PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO‑DA/GenX, and PFBS) and delay enforcement timelines for PFOA and PFOS—moves various outlets characterized as a rollback of the April 2024 drinking‑water limits [3] [6]. Advocacy groups called the decision illegal and tied it to industry pressure and lawsuits from water utilities and chemical firms that had challenged the 2024 rules [6]. Government communications subsequently clarified the agency would retain enforceable limits for PFOA and PFOS while extending compliance deadlines to 2031, indicating the policy is selective rather than absolute deregulation [7].
3. Mixed signals: regulation left standing vs. rules under reconsideration
Regulatory actions are not monolithic: some 2024 measures remain in force or under active implementation (for example the PFOA/PFOS designation and related MCL framework), even as others were explicitly rescinded or put on long delay [1] [7]. The EPA’s own pages note that some water quality criteria published in 2024 are non‑regulatory guidance, while other steps—like Superfund listings and certain MCLs—are legally enforceable [1] [2]. That distinction matters: rescinding a particular MCL or delaying compliance timetables does not erase every federal control on PFAS.
4. States, courts and the regulatory theater
States reacted by accelerating their own bans, labeling rules and reporting requirements; several states already moved to phase out PFAS in products and set drinking‑water standards ahead of federal action, making federal rescission less determinative on practical protections in many places [4] [5]. Meanwhile industry lawsuits and regulatory reviews have shaped agency choices—the Earthjustice brief framed the EPA’s 2025 move as responsive to industry litigation and lobbying, and other reports noted withdrawal of proposed effluent limits under the new administration [6] [8]. Courts and future rulemaking could yet restore, modify, or further weaken parts of the federal package.
5. Bottom line: not wholesale deregulation, but measurable unraveling
The factual record shows a partial federal rollback and delay of specific 2024 PFAS drinking‑water standards, retention of certain high‑profile federal actions, and a contemporaneous rise in state-level regulation—so the more accurate description is targeted deregulation of selected rules rather than a blanket removal of all PFAS controls [3] [7] [4]. Reporting and advocacy groups disagree sharply on motives and legality—some view the 2025 moves as necessary review, others as an industry‑friendly dismantling of protections—so the policy landscape remains contested and in flux [6] [3].