Earlier this week, news broke that the Trump administration's EPA is attempting to quietly implement a rule that would alter how chemicals with established toxicity concerns, including some per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are regulated in consumer products. Instead of evaluating a chemical’s overall risk, the rule requires separate assessments for each specific use. For example, PFAS in food packaging would be evaluated separately from PFAS in nonstick cookware or cosmetics. If a chemical is found to pose no “unreasonable risk” for any single use, it is effectively treated as safe under federal law, and that decision blocks states from creating or enforcing their own rules about the chemical, even in different contexts or higher-risk uses.
This would have far-reaching consequences. States like Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Washington, and California have all passed or proposed regulations to reduce exposure to PFAS and similar substances, and would now be blocked from enforcing their own chemical safety standards. Basically, by changing how risk is evaluated and focusing only on narrow, individual uses rather than broader public exposure, the rule sidesteps stronger state protections and makes them unenforceable.
Think about that irony for a moment. The party that consistently champions “states’ rights” is now pushing a rule that strips states of their ability to regulate chemicals, centralizing power at the federal level only when it benefits industry and corporate interests.
Additionally, because each use must now be reviewed in isolation, the process for regulating harmful chemicals is slowed by the need for separate assessments for each product. This is especially alarming when paired with the Trump administration’s push to dismantle the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, which is the scientific division responsible for evaluating environmental and public health risks. These changes limit the EPA’s ability to respond to emerging risks and delay meaningful public health protections. The result is weaker federal oversight coupled with restrictions on states’ ability to act, which is an industry-friendly model that benefits manufacturers, not public health.
The MAHA Contradiction
The MAHA movement ran on a promise to make America healthier again—though I imagine it will always remain unclear exactly what era they’re referring to when they say “again.” The MAHA Action website states that they "focus on five core issues that will shape the health, well-being, and prosperity of all Americans," including “cleaning up our air, soil, and water” (I’m not kidding…that’s the first one listed) and “cleaning up our food system.” And the MAHA PAC site claims to be “leading the charge to transform America’s approach to public health, environmental sustainability, and government accountability.”
It’s all smoke and mirrors.
While MAHA-aligned politicians and influencers are celebrating state bills banning food dyes and removing fluoride from water, moves with no evidence they will be at all useful in improving health and in the case of fluoride, quite harmful, the Trump EPA is:
Slowing down or restarting rulemaking processes that had already been developed by career scientists
This contradiction isn’t accidental. And it’s not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to public health and these issues long before the MAHA political movement existed. One of the most frustrating things to witness is MAHA supporters, many of whom are only now engaging with public health and policy for the first time, and doing so through a MAHA-skewed lens, insisting that MAHA is apolitical or that it represents a “new Trump coalition” that genuinely cares about cleaning up our food and environment.
That narrative couldn’t be further from the truth. While it may be good marketing for the Republican party, the actual actions of the Trump administration tell a vastly different story, one that many of us who care deeply about the health of this country, and who have been engaged in this work long before MAHA emerged, tried to warn about.
The regulatory framework being advanced by the Trump administration is entirely consistent with its broader governing philosophy, which benefits industries seeking to avoid the costs of compliance and oversight. This isn’t a new, health-focused coalition. It’s a continuation of long-standing priorities that favor deregulation, corporate interest, and weakened public protections.
Trump’s Broader Track Record
During his first term in office, Donald Trump’s administration systematically dismantled public health and environmental protections. Specifically with regard to environmental and chemical deregulation efforts, he rolled back Clean Water Act safeguards, weakened air pollution and emissions standards, and stalled or reversed proposed bans on pesticides linked to developmental harm in children.
He appointed lobbyists and corporate insiders to lead the very agencies meant to regulate their industries, including a pharmaceutical executive at the FDA, a coal lobbyist at the EPA, and an oil lobbyist at the Department of the Interior. These appointments helped shift agency priorities away from science-backed regulation and toward industry-friendly deregulation. Whistleblowers later reported that Trump’s appointees pressured EPA regulators to suppress internal science, delay or block chemical hazard assessments, and obscure the risks of known environmental toxins.
That wasn’t incidental. It was the playbook.
And now, we’re watching the same strategy not only play out again, but accelerate. Since returning to office last November, Trump has overseen what was described as the greatest day of deregulation in EPA history. His administration announced plans to roll back a series of environmental protections that would enable increased levels of pollutants and heavy metals to enter our soil and environment, further weakening oversight. He also just signed an executive order to boost coal production—another move that flies in the face of global and domestic efforts to limit air pollution, carbon emissions, and toxic heavy metal contamination, like mercury, arsenic, and lead. Despite coal use declining due to cleaner and cheaper energy sources, this order aims to expand its reach by loosening regulations that were put in place to protect both public health and the environment.
And now, with this newly proposed EPA rule targeting PFAS and other hazardous chemicals, he’s doubling down on the same priorities to delay regulation, disempower scientists, preempt state authority, and remove barriers for industry.
Selective Outrage and Performative Wellness
So where is MAHA on all this? I thought they wanted to make Americans healthier? And I thought the first core issue listed on the MAHA Action website was to "clean up our air, soil, and water?"
They're not saying anything because MAHA was never about science-based health advocacy. For those leading this movement, it was always a distraction. A branding strategy. A convenient narrative.
While MAHA-aligned leaders claim to champion health by banning soda from SNAP and highlighting food dye concerns, they ignore or even support a political project that undermines essential environmental health protections. This isn't about public health. It's about performance. Distracting with sensationalist “toxin” narratives that focus on issues with little to no evidence of harm, while ignoring and even supporting the dismantling of protections against chemicals with well-documented, scientifically established risks. All the while, the scientific institutions equipped to evaluate and mitigate those risks are being defunded and sidelined.
This kind of selective advocacy doesn’t make the country healthier. It leaves the public more vulnerable, less informed, and unprotected from genuine environmental hazards.
Call to Action
This is a critical moment for public health and environmental protection. Stay alert, stay informed, and make your voice heard.
First, talk to your friends and family who support MAHA and say they want cleaner air, water, and food. Share what’s actually happening with environmental protections right now. This isn’t theoretical. These are real policies with real consequences, and they deserve attention from everyone who claims to care about public health.
And call or write your congressional representatives and ask them to:
Oppose the EPA’s proposed rule that would limit states’ ability to regulate PFAS and other harmful chemicals.
Defend the EPA’s scientific infrastructure, including its Office of Research and Development.
Push back on efforts to roll back environmental protections, air quality standards, and oversight on toxic chemical exposures.
Sample Script:
Hi, my name is [Your Name], and I’m a constituent from [Your City, State].
I’m calling to urge [Senator/Representative Name] to speak out against the EPA’s proposed rule that would limit states’ ability to regulate harmful chemicals like PFAS. This rule would undermine public health protections by evaluating chemicals only in isolated use cases instead of addressing their cumulative exposure and known risks.
I’m also deeply concerned about the Trump administration’s broader efforts to weaken the EPA’s authority, including proposals to dismantle its Office of Research and Development and roll back environmental safeguards.
These changes benefit polluting industries while putting public health, especially the health of children and vulnerable communities, at risk. I want [Senator/Rep. Name] to oppose this rule and defend strong, science-based environmental and chemical safety standards.
Thank you for your time.
Hi - this newsletter is free to read, but a paid subscription helps to support my work. If you find it helpful, please consider upgrading to become a paid subscriber. Thanks for being here.
Thank you for all you’re doing to keep us informed and to resist the corruption and greed that threatens our health and safety! Please keep up the good fight!
I’d literally drink straight red dye 40 to keep PFAS regs.