Examining President Trump’s agenda for deregulation in the US

Since his inauguration on 20 January, Donald Trump has been following through on many of the promises he made during his election campaign and has already signed dozens of executive orders to this effect. We know that he intends to deregulate – but what does this mean in practice for businesses and their compliance and sustainability efforts in the months and years to come?  

We asked three of our experts from Enhesa Product Intelligence to examine the impact of Trump’s second administration on the regulatory landscape. Kelly Franklin, North America Editor for Chemical Watch News & Insight; Melanie Rybar, Regulatory and Compliance Analyst; and Stacey Bowers, Global Product Compliance Manager, share their thoughts on what we’ve seen so far and what this could mean for businesses manufacturing and selling products in the US. 

The true pace of change – Kelly Franklin

The first weeks of the Trump administration have ushered in tremendous uncertainty in the regulatory space that will be difficult for stakeholders to navigate.  

The news has been moving at a breakneck speed, with dozens of executive orders, Congressional hearings on wide-ranging topics, potential changes to the federal workforce and new leadership appointments across agencies.   

These developments all hint at where the US agenda is going, but they are devoid of specifics. If you are a business or an environmental organization focused on a particular issue, there is no telling whether, how or when changes might be coming. It could be weeks, if not months or years, before the granular details behind broad deregulatory pronouncements come into focus.  

Administrative rules in the United States cannot be undone with the stroke of a pen. Regulations are the product of a law passed by Congress, developed by a regulatory agency tasked with implementing that statute, informed by the feedback of multiple stakeholders and, once adopted, upheld or struck down by the courts. Any effort to change a regulation requires at least some combination of those same ingredients: a change to the law, a formal notice-and-comment rulemaking, or a court order.   

And that’s just the process for revisiting a rule. After that, any new rule adopted in place of a previous one must be supported by the underlying law, adopted in accordance with administrative procedures, and able to survive judicial scrutiny.   

Stakeholders wishing to stay ahead of the curve, or to influence future policy, must stay on top of developments happening across the federal government. And it’s no small task: to predict what lies ahead requires scrutiny of not only regulatory developments from federal agencies, but also an eye on Congressional activities and an understanding of how court decisions can reshape the game.   

And where the federal government steps back, many US states may feel compelled to step into the void and enact requirements they see as necessary to protect residents within their borders.  

The pros and cons for business and environment – Melanie Rybar

Under the new Trump Administration, significant changes impacting chemical regulations are already underway. The new administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been confirmed, two independent advisory bodies that deliver scientific advice to the EPA have been ‘reset,’ and the regulatory freeze issued on the President’s first day in office has already called into question the future of certain Biden-era regulations. In addition, on 22 January, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (E&C) subcommittee on Environment held a hearing focused specifically on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and whether changes to the law are needed.   

While the exact impact of the new administration’s approach is still unknown, these changes indicate a potential rollback of stringent regulations in favor of more industry-friendly policies. The changes are expected to have notable impacts on businesses, but until the changes are finalized regulatory uncertainty can make it difficult for industry to decide where to invest their resources and how to develop their strategies.  

Businesses will want to consider the possibility of their compliance obligations being eased, as this reduced regulatory burden may save them money and resources. Companies in the chemical manufacturing sector may especially benefit by finding it easier to introduce new products to the market. Innovation and competitiveness have always been an argument industry has used against perceived over-regulation.   

However, businesses should also consider the larger environmental and health impacts deregulation could lead to. For years now, consumer awareness of chemicals in their everyday products has increased. This knowledge informs purchasing decisions and brand loyalty. Businesses who choose to fully embrace deregulation and roll back on environmental initiatives, could face backlash from consumers and advocacy groups, affecting their reputation and market position. Even the perception of deregulation at the federal level could drive this backlash.  

In summary, while the new Trump Administration’s approach to chemical regulations may benefit businesses in the short term by easing regulatory constraints, the approach also poses significant risks to public health, the environment and the public’s perception of the safety of chemicals. Companies may need to navigate these changes carefully, balancing the potential for innovation and growth with the responsibility to protect health and safety.  

Escalating change and revoking rules – Stacey Bowers

President Donald Trump recently issued an executive order directing federal agencies — like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) — to identify 10 regulations to eliminate for every new one issued, building on a similar ‘2-for-1’ order in his first term. While this directive may face legal and administrative hurdles, it reflects a clear deregulatory posture from the Trump administration likely to be felt across the federal government. 

From 2017-2020, the Trump administration scaled back major climate policies and reversed rules governing clean air, water, wildlife and toxic chemicals. A 2020 New York Times analysis counted ~100 environmental rules officially reversed, revoked or otherwise rolled back under Trump. 

In Trump’s second term, this trend is expected to continue, if not escalate, as Project 2025’s aim was to “deconstruct the Administrative State” from day one, including cuts to federal budgets and staff of EPA and other agencies responsible for human health and safety and protection of the environment. 

The EPA chapter in particular called for “greatly circumscribing” the agency, to “limit government” and permit states to take “the primary role in making choices about the environment.” 

Environmental Health News reported that under new leadership, rules on chemicals like PFAS and asbestos were weakened.  

As in Trump’s first term, the US states are expected to ramp up legislation to protect their constituents and the environment. 

In 2020, at the conclusion of Trump’s first term, the NGO Safer States published analysis showing that 29 of the 50 states were considering more than 180 “toxics” policies. These bills would establish chemical limits and disclosure requirements, including, but not limited to:  

• Bans on flame retardants in EEE and; 
• Bans on PFAS in food packaging and firefighting foam. 

With regard to PFAS — substances which impact every industry sector, from cosmetics to food contact to EEE to textiles and beyond — Enhesa Product Intelligence’s Melanie Rybar published a 2024 analysis showing that PFAS were mentioned in a third of all new bills introduced at the state level in the year, and anticipated a similar approach in 2025. 

Rybar stated: “…[I]t is likely that we will continue to see states show strong interest in targeting these chemicals in 2025, especially in states such as California, or others that might look to take more protective action if they perceive the new Trump administration as taking a less aggressive approach on chemicals management at the federal level.”