PFAS at a Crossroads: How U.S. Policy Is Shifting from the Biden Era to the Trump Administration

Understanding PFAS

Per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a vast class of synthetic chemicals used since the mid‑20th century in non‑stick cookware, stain‑resistant textiles, firefighting foams, and industrial processes. Their chemical stability makes them resistant to heat, water, and oil, but that same stability means they persist in the environment and accumulate in human bodies. Research continues to associate PFAS exposure with immune suppression, thyroid disruption, certain cancers, elevated cholesterol, and developmental effects. The scale of contamination is significant; U.S. federal analyses have described PFAS pollution as rivaling historic environmental liabilities such as asbestos and PCBs.

PFAS in the United States: The Biden Administration’s Actions

The Biden administration treated PFAS as a national public‑health priority and advanced the most comprehensive federal PFAS strategy to date. In 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the PFAS Strategic Roadmap, a multi‑year plan leveraging multiple environmental statutes to restrict PFAS use, expand monitoring, and accelerate cleanup. The administration’s approach combined regulatory action, enforcement, and major investment in research and community support.

In 2023, the White House Council on Environmental Quality reported that the administration had taken significant steps to prevent PFAS release and expand cleanup efforts across rural, suburban, and urban communities, noting that PFAS contamination disproportionately affects disadvantaged populations.

By late 2024, the EPA highlighted “bold and concrete actions” under the Biden‑Harris administration, including dramatically increased investment in PFAS research and solutions. The third annual progress report detailed achievements across drinking water protections, industrial discharge controls, and expanded scientific capacity.

One of the most consequential regulatory moves was the designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA (Superfund). This designation strengthened federal authority to pursue polluters for cleanup costs and signalled a shift toward more aggressive enforcement. The EPA emphasized that enforcement would focus on major contributors to PFAS contamination rather than entities such as farms or community water systems where equitable factors do not support cost recovery.

PFAS in the United States: The Trump Administration’s Current Direction

The Trump administration has stated that it remains committed to addressing PFAS contamination through expanded testing, community support, and “commonsense regulation.” In 2025, the EPA released a new PFAS strategy outlining cross‑agency actions targeting PFAS in water, air, waste, and manufactured products. However, investigative reporting has noted tensions between stated commitments and implementation, including delays in enforcement and reductions in PFAS research funding. Some reports describe the termination of more than $15 million in PFAS research funding and slower progress on implementing protective standards, raising concerns among environmental and public‑health experts.

The administration has also begun revisiting certain Biden‑era PFAS rules. In 2025, the EPA announced major changes to two key regulations: revised Safe Drinking Water Act standards for PFAS in drinking water and updated Toxic Substances Control Act timelines for PFAS reporting. These changes are part of a broader effort to reshape the federal approach to PFAS, with further revisions expected as congressional and judicial scrutiny continues.

While some regulatory frameworks remain intact—such as the CERCLA hazardous‑substance listings for PFOA and PFOS—policy analysts continue to debate whether the administration may narrow or reinterpret these designations. Any such shift would have significant implications for cleanup liability and cost distribution.

Why These Shifts Matter

PFAS regulation in the United States influences global supply chains, chemical markets, and scientific research priorities. The Biden administration’s approach emphasized aggressive regulation, expanded enforcement, and substantial investment in research and cleanup. The Trump administration’s approach emphasizes regulatory revision, cost considerations, and a more industry‑focused framework. For communities, researchers, and policymakers in the United Kingdom, these shifts shape international norms, corporate behaviour, and the pace of scientific advancement.