It has been 50 days since the Trump administration took office, and there remains a tsunami of activity surrounding executive actions and announcements across the federal government. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not been spared from deep cuts, office and grant program closures, and a fair amount of confusion.

On March 11, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin directed the agency to eliminate all offices focusing on environmental justice. The move comes in the wake of executive orders signed on inauguration day declaring the end to the “whole of government” approach and the “Justice40” initiative and directed all federal agencies to terminate all environmental justice offices and positions. The recent action ends over 30 years of environmental justice work at the EPA by closing the national environmental justice office, along with each of the ten regional environmental justice offices. For the foreseeable future, the environmental justice considerations in environmental permitting and regulations will be starkly absent at the federal level.

Meanwhile, as a result of the February 19, 2025, executive order, the EPA has until April 20, 2025, to review all of their regulations and identify regulations that, among other criteria, are unconstitutional, impose significant costs that outweigh public benefit, or harm the national interest. This comprehensive regulatory review will likely have broad implications for nearly all environmental regulatory programs. For example, just yesterday, Administrator Zeldin announced the EPA’s plan to eliminate 31 separate major environmental regulations. Among the regulations on the chopping block are the greenhouse gas emissions endangerment finding,  the “Good Neighbor Plan,” and several other climate-related standards. As for enforcement priorities, the same executive order instructed all federal agencies to “preserve their limited enforcement resources by generally deprioritizing” enforcement where such enforcement is not based on the “best reading of a statute,” or it goes “beyond the powers vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution.”

As for staffing, in February, the EPA had to correct a comment from the President that the EPA would be cutting 65% of its workforce; instead, it clarified that the figure was referencing spending cuts. Undoubtedly, much of those cuts will come from reductions to, or wholesale terminations, of many of the EPA’s traditionally successful and highly lauded grant programs. Just earlier this week the EPA announced its fourth round of cuts, including the cancellation of over 400 grants across nine programs. Then, the next day, the EPA announced it was canceling $20 billion in grants for climate and clean energy programs that had already been frozen. These broad cuts, which came with little or no notice, have left loan and grant applicants and recipients confused and concerned. While not tallied yet, there are sure to be thousands of potential brownfield, resiliency, and energy projects put on hold or terminated. It is anticipated that these cuts will also significantly impact on state and local government funding. It is too early to know whether and how much those gaps will be filled on a state or local level.

There is no sign that the pace of change will be slowing down anytime soon. With these changes, regulatory uncertainty will continue. More so than ever, keeping abreast of these developments and how they may impact operations, projects, or transactions is vitally important to businesses.

In putting together our thoughts on this post, it was hard not to think about the elephant in the room (see what I did there?). The change in administration has already brought significant changes in our nation’s environmental priorities. While time will show us all of the specific ways this will play out in 2025, we are already seeing some trends and can expect others to guide manufacturers as to what the Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) landscape might look like over the year.

  1. Rollback of Federal Environmental Regulation and Enforcement

As my partner, Jon Schaefer, reported earlier this month, even before Lee Zeldin was confirmed as the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, the EPA had temporarily frozen its lawsuits, certain communications, and some final and pending regulations. Several freezes impact per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulations. For example, the EPA instituted a 60-day delay for certain imminent Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) PFAS reporting requirements “for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” The EPA noted that it may further delay the effective date beyond 60 days. The EPA also put a stop to Clean Water Act rulemaking to develop effluent limitations for PFAS for the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers point source category. Whether this trend will carry through to the many other rules, both adopted and contemplated, related to PFAS remains to be seen.

In the saga of the on-again, off-again Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Climate Disclosure Rule, the SEC recently requested that the Eighth Circuit delay oral arguments in its case defending the rule. As we previously reported, this rule would require companies to report various climate-related information to the SEC. When it became final last year, it was immediately challenged, and the rule’s fate was placed in the hands of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. While it was once moving forward to defend the rule, the SEC is now requesting additional time “to deliberate and determine the appropriate next steps in these cases.” This could be the first step in the ultimate demise of the rule, at least under the current administration.

We will continue to track developments at the federal level. Given the administration’s overall priorities, we expect to see further enforcement and regulation rollbacks on several EHS issues.

  1. Uptick in State Action

Many states are poised to pick up the slack in the face of decreasing federal action. With regard to climate disclosure laws, California has already passed several requiring climate-related disclosures for entities doing business in the state, with reporting requirements approaching next year. Other states are joining in, with New York and Colorado considering their own climate disclosure laws. And as many of us have already experienced, decision-making related to PFAS is dominated by state law. As the federal government steps back from regulation and enforcement, we can expect many states take up the mantle on various issues. The patchwork of state laws could create a compliance challenge for manufacturers operating in multiple locations around the country. It will be important for manufacturers to remain up-to-date on proposed and final state actions so they can be prepared for new requirements that could pop up in various jurisdictions.

  1. Citizen Suit Action

In addition to increased state activity, we expect an increase in citizen enforcement of federal environmental laws in 2025. Many federal environmental statutes have provisions allowing for citizen enforcement when the federal government fails to do so. These laws also allow citizens to pursue the government for failed enforcement and oversight. Under the first Trump administration, we saw an uptick in citizen enforcement of federal environmental laws, and we expect to see the same during Trump 2.0. These lawsuits could hit manufacturers on various topics, including enforcement related to clean water, clean air, and hazardous waste. Citizens may also target the federal government, which could ultimately cause the federal government to take action of its own, even when it was not planning to do so.

We expect 2025 to be a busy year in the EHS world. We will continue to track these updates and changes here on the blog.

This post is also being shared on our Manufacturing Law blog. If you’re interested in getting updates on legal news and perspectives and related business issues that are facing manufacturers and distributors, we invite you to subscribe to the blog.

On January 29, 2025, Lee Zeldin was confirmed as the 17th Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator. After a week on the job, Zeldin continued to maintain several policies that had been put in place immediately after the Trump administration took office. Some of these policies are summarized below. While these actions are generally expected when a new administration begins, there is a sense that additional, significant changes are around the corner.

Freeze on External Actions

On January 24, 2025, the then acting EPA Administrator ordered a temporary halt on all environmental lawsuits to review and possibly change the agency’s stance on these issues. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Environment and Natural Resources Division, which enforces environmental protection laws, has also been ordered to freeze all activities. This included stopping pending court filings and delaying new complaints, with pending Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act negotiations also on hold for an undetermined time.

This was followed by an internal memorandum instructing EPA staff to halt external communications (e.g., press releases, blog updates, and social media posts), except for discussions with state and federal agencies not related to enforcement, necessary communications regarding imports, and as related to the carrying out of inspections.

The EPA also announced (here and here) delays for several finalized environmental rules from the prior administration. These include rules regarding air pollution, hazardous waste generator improvements, and the regulation of PFAS and trichloroethylene (TCE).

The duration of each of these “freezes” is not clear at this time, but it seems aimed at helping the new administration evaluate what can be changed and likely beginning that change.

Staffing

As federal agencies implement a presidential order to limit telework and remote work, EPA employees must return to the office full-time next month. The EPA stated that regular telework and remote work agreements will be canceled to follow the recent Executive Order on the subject. EPA staff are expected to be in the office daily by February 24, unless they have a disability, medical condition, or other significant reasons certified by their supervisor.

It was also recently reported that the EPA is expected to cut over 1,000 employees who joined the agency within the past year, with a focus on those working on climate change, air pollution, and environmental regulation programs. Additionally, several senior civil service managers in the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resource Division have reportedly been reassigned to focus on immigration matters rather than environmental issues.

Within hours of taking office, President Trump issued a flurry of Executive Orders (EO), including several that will undoubtedly affect a wide range of environmental policies nationwide. While the full implications of these EOs, as well as potential additional actions, are far from clear at this early stage, there are several takeaways for those who are in the environmental-regulated community to consider.

While reviewing the summary below of a limited sampling of recent EOs touching on environmental policy, it is important to remember that a significant portion of environmental policy, regulation, and enforcement occurs at the state level and impacts from federal policies and approaches can take many years to be felt, if at all. In fact, in some instances, the policies and strategies at the federal level can produce the opposite approach at the state level. Therefore, it is crucial for any regulated entity to have a strong comprehension of the federal and state landscape as it may apply or interact with its operations, permits, and compliance.

Environmental Justice

With just one EO—Initial Recission of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions—nearly 80 EOs from the prior administration were revoked. The list included several EOs related to environmental justice, such as the “whole of government” approach and the “Justice40” initiative. Environmental justice was also singled out in “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which ordered federal agencies to terminate all environmental justice offices and positions.

Greenhouse Gases and Energy Resources

An EO entitled “Unleashing American Energy” directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies to review actions “that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources — with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy.” The apparent purpose here is to reverse course on greenhouse gas and other federal rules on various energy sources. Furthermore, EPA has been directed, within 30 days, to provide recommendations on the “legality and continuing applicability” of EPA’s 2009 GHG risk finding, which is the underpinning of EPA’s climate rules. Similarly, this EO does away with the “social cost of carbon” metric that was intended to monetize the benefits of policies that curb emissions.

Hiring Freeze and Return to Office

While not EOs, two executive memoranda will surely influence EPA through workforce impacts, resources, and management of priorities. The first, entitled “Return to In-Person Work,” directs all federal agencies, including the EPA, to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in person on a full-time basis. The second, entitled “Hiring Freeze,” freezes federal civilian employee hiring, including EPA staff. The Office of Management and Budget is tasked with delivering a plan within 90 days to further shrink the federal workforce “through efficiency improvements and attrition.” It is very likely that staffing levels at the EPA will be reduced significantly, which could impact the EPA’s capacity to keep up with permitting and enforcement matters.

The Diamond Alkali Superfund site in Newark, New Jersey, which includes the 17-mile Lower Passaic River Study Area, may be one of the country’s most expensive and hotly contested Superfund Sites. The remedy for the dioxin-contaminated river may cost as much as $2 billion when it is completed. The Newark site has been the subject of litigation for years, most involving the Occidental Chemical Company (OxyChem), the successor to Diamond Alkali, which made Agent Orange and other dioxin-containing materials at the site starting in the 1940s. The latest development in this decades-long saga came on December 18, 2024, when Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey approved a consent decree between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 82 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) that includes a $150 million cash-out settlement, notwithstanding vehement opposition from OxyChem. 

The Diamond Alkali site has been on the National Priorities List since 1984 after the EPA and New Jersey regulators found high levels of dioxins, pesticides, and other hazardous substances in soil and groundwater at Diamond Alkali’s Newark site and in Passaic River sediments. Over the years, EPA identified OxyChem and over 100 other PRPs, all of whom were allegedly responsible for the discharge of hazardous substances to the Passaic River.  While EPA has identified eight contaminants of concern (COCs) at the site, the Court found that “of those COCs, dioxin is, ‘by an overwhelming margin,’ the most toxic.” This was a significant finding, as very few PRPs could be tied to dioxin discharges.

The EPA initiated a non-binding and voluntary allocation process in 2017 to facilitate settlements and cleanup of the river. While many PRPs agreed to participate in this effort, OxyChem declined. The parties negotiated an allocation methodology, supplied significant material (including briefs and expert reports) for consideration by a neutral, third-party allocator, reviewed Facility Data Reports for themselves and other PRPs, and commented on the Allocation Recommendation Report (the Report). The Report was then considered by EPA as it negotiated the terms of a consent decree with the PRPs. While the Report assigned the overwhelming share of responsibility for the site to OxyChem, during the consent decree negotiations, EPA took several steps which resulted in an increased share of responsibility for the PRPs, thus reducing OxyChem’s potential exposure. These steps included using an alternative allocation methodology, eliminating consideration of culpability and cooperation as allocation factors, and adding a premium of 100% to estimated future costs for cash-out parties. Other revisions were made after the comment period, including removal of certain parties from the consent decree, and adding a reopener if remedy costs exceed a certain amount.

In its 47-page decision, the District Court found that the consent decree was fair, reasonable, and furthered the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act’s (CERCLA) objectives, notwithstanding a massive challenge from OxyChem (The Court noted that OxyChem “spills ample ink” challenging the allocation in its 777 pages of comments and 24,000 pages of exhibits). The Court rejected claims that the settling parties conspired against OxyChem; the neutral had a conflict of interest; the Report was a non-binding allocation report prepared in violation of CERCLA § 122; and the consent decree was substantively unfair.

There seems to be little doubt that OxyChem will appeal, so the saga will continue. But this is an important milestone that, in the Court’s words, will further the cleanup of the Passaic River.

On December 11, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it finalized a revision to the personal protective equipment (PPE) standard for the construction industry. The final rule adds specific language to the existing standard requiring employers to provide properly fitting PPE for construction industry workers. This change aligns the construction industry with the standards in place for the general industry.

According to OSHA, many types of PPE must properly fit workers. Improperly sized PPE can ineffectively protect workers, creating new hazards for them, such as oversized gloves or protective clothing being caught in machinery and discouraging use because of discomfort or poor fit. OSHA stated that the longstanding issue with improperly fitting PPE particularly impacted women, as well as physically smaller or larger workers. 

Starting in January, construction employers will need to give their workers well-fitting safety gear. Among other equipment, this includes gloves, high-visibility vests, goggles, fall protection harnesses, and helmets that “properly fit” the workers. However, the final rule does not provide clear guidance on how employers or workers determine if PPE properly fits. OSHA only provided a limited number of examples of ill-fitting gear, such as long pants legs that could lead to the employee tripping and welding gloves too large for the employee to pick up items.

Publishing this final rule coincides with a post-election push by federal agencies to finalize major agenda items before January. However, the PPE final rule will still be subject to the Congressional Review Act and thus subject to being overturned by the next administration. That being said, the rule has enjoyed support from both industry and labor.

As the Biden-Harris administration draws to a close, EPA has issued its third annual report touting the progress made under the PFAS Strategic Roadmap.

In the report, EPA notes the major legal, technical, and policy developments it has enacted since the PFAS Strategic Roadmap was adopted in 2021. Those developments include the following:

  • Designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances. This final rule will allow EPA and others to pursue potentially responsible parties under CERCLA for PFAS contamination. According to EPA, this designation will ensure that polluters, and not taxpayers, will pay for PFAS cleanups.
  • Creation of Drinking Water Standards for Certain PFAS. This final rule established enforceable drinking water standards for 5 individual PFAS and mixtures of any 2 or more of 4 individual PFAS. These drinking water standards are as low as 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS.
  • Chemical and Product Regulation. EPA has enacted or proposed a number of regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to eliminate and reduce PFAS in commerce. It also is requiring manufacturers and importers of PFAS (including PFAS-containing items) to report PFAS-related information to EPA by (in most cases) January 11, 2026.
  • Issuance of PFAS Enforcement Strategy. EPA issued a PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA, detailing its priorities and plans when it comes to PFAS enforcement. In the policy, EPA makes it clear that it intends to pursue enforcement against manufacturing and industrial entities, and not public entities that operate water and wastewater systems, airports, or fire stations.
  • PFAS-Related Investments. The Biden-Harris administration committed to investing significant funds to address PFAS contamination, including $10 billion to assist communities and water systems impacted by PFAS and other emerging contaminants.
  • Advancing the Science on PFAS. EPA has engaged in a number of initiatives to gather more data about the presence of PFAS in the environment and in products, analyze appropriate test methods, and study potential human health risks associated with a variety of PFAS compounds.

EPA also announced future priorities, which include developing effluent limitations guidelines for the PFAS manufacturing sector. If adopted, these guidelines would restrict PFAS in discharges from potentially a number of industrial entities, including metal finishers and landfills. EPA also continues to invest in collecting data from a variety of sources, including wastewater treatment facilities, to further understand where PFAS are being found so it can develop effective ways to address them.

Of course, with the impending change in administrations could come a change in EPA’s priorities related to PFAS. The change could also impact initiatives and regulations that are already in place or in the works. We will continue to monitor PFAS developments as we head into 2025.

This post is also being shared on our Manufacturing Law blog. If you’re interested in getting updates on legal news and perspectives and related business issues that are facing manufacturers and distributors, we invite you to subscribe to the blog.

On July 30, 2024, the U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General issued a fraud alert to bring attention to an increasing number of companies reporting that they have received fraudulent EPA Notice of Violation letters demanding payment. Businesses have received these fraudulent letters through email and U.S. Postal Service mail. The letters allege that the target business violated an environmental regulation, such as the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. The contact information provided – invoice@epa.services – is not associated with the EPA. Official U.S. government organizations only use the “.gov” domain name.

If you have received a Notice of Violation and are concerned about its validity or have other questions or concerns, consider consulting experienced legal counsel. You can also contact the U.S. EPA’s enforcement office at OECA_Communications@epa.gov with any concerns regarding potentially fraudulent letters.

The U.S. EPA’s Office of Inspector General’s Hotline ((888) 546-8740 or OIG.Hotline@epa.gov) is always available if you believe you have been the victim of fraud or have knowledge of potential waste, fraud, or abuse involving EPA operations and programs.

On July 2, 2024, OSHA released the long-awaited Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings proposed rule. If finalized, the rule would require millions of employers to take steps to protect their workers from extreme heat. However, the proposed rule would not apply to “sedentary” or remote workers, emergency-response workers, or employees at indoor job sites where temperatures are kept below 80 degrees Fahrenheit.

Under the proposed rule, employers would be required to identify heat hazards, develop emergency response plans related to heat illness, and provide training to employees and supervisors on the signs and symptoms of such illnesses. Employers would also have to establish appropriate rest breaks, provide shade and water, and heat acclimatization for new employees and those employees that have been away from the worksite for more than 14 days.

The final regulation will almost certainly face lawsuits from a variety of entities. Several major industries and trade groups, including many in the construction and manufacturing space, had previously raised concerns about the implement ability of several concepts included in the proposed rule. Such legal challenges are likely to be boosted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week eliminating the deference that courts owe to agency rulemaking.

However, before the proposed rule can become a final regulation, it must undergo a public notice and comment period. OSHA encourages the submission of written comments on the rule once it is published in the Federal Register. OSHA also has plans to hold a public hearing after the close of the written comment period. More information will be available on how and where to submit comments when the proposed rule is officially published in the Federal Register.

While we wait for the rule to become final, OSHA has made clear that it will continue to hold employers accountable for violations of the General Duty Clause and other regulations implicated by heat-related injuries and illnesses. This includes the continuation of heat-related inspections under OSHA’s National Emphasis Program – Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards, which began in 2022.

Employers of all sizes and industries would be impacted from a final regulation on extreme heat. While the proposed rule is not yet binding on employers, it can be helpful to review the rule and evaluate whether your workplace is safe, healthy, and free from recognized hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm – such as exposure to extreme or excessive heat.

Below is an excerpt of a legal update co-authored with Real Estate + Development Group lawyer Eden Yerby.

In companion rulings favoring offshore wind developers and federal agencies, the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed rulings issued by the District Court (D. Mass.) and dismissed challenges brought by two Vineyard Wind opponents concerning the project’s potential impact on the endangered North Atlantic right whale.[1] In both cases, a panel of the same three judges addressed challenges to the administrative procedures followed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in issuing a biological opinion and an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) for the project that would directly impact the right whale. In two decisions authored by Judge Kayatta analyzing aspects of the federal permit approval process, the Court ruled that the agencies properly evaluated potential impacts to the right whale and did not violate the authorizing statutes or otherwise act arbitrarily or capriciously. Read the full legal update.