Regulating 'Forever Chemicals': Federal Retreat, State Advance
What is PFAS, and why is it a "forever chemical"?
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made compounds that have been widely used in industry and consumer goods since the 1940s: non-stick cookware, waterproof textiles, food packaging, firefighting foams, cosmetics and electronic components can all contain them.
What they have in common is the strong carbon–fluorine bond, which gives them exceptional resistance to heat, water and chemicals. But it also means that PFAS do not break down in nature – they persist for decades in soil, water and living organisms. That is why the group became known as "forever chemicals".
When they accumulate in the human body, certain PFAS are linked to cancer, thyroid problems, immune disorders and developmental effects. According to the scientific consensus, even long-term exposure at low concentrations poses a health risk – which makes protecting water quality particularly important in this context.
At federal level: unwinding the Biden-era rules
In 2024 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced the first comprehensive package of drinking water limits for PFAS: 4 nanograms per litre each for PFOA and PFOS, and a combined limit of 10 nanograms per litre for four other compounds (PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA).
In early 2026 the Trump administration's EPA moved to rescind the drinking water limits for the latter four compounds while keeping the limits for PFOA and PFOS. In January a federal court rejected the EPA's request to vacate the limits immediately, so the existing rules remain in force for now, until the proceedings are concluded.
The EPA also intends to ease PFAS reporting obligations under TSCA, particularly for imported articles such as textiles, cookware, electronics and car parts. Industry welcomed this as "relief", but the picture is far from simple: states are creating their own reporting obligations, which partly take the place of the federal requirements.
The question of how to define PFAS is not settled either. Thousands of compounds may belong to the group, but there is no scientific or legal consensus on which of them the rules should cover.
At state level: a legislative tsunami
While federal regulation has stalled, states keep passing new PFAS laws one after another – and the pace is not slowing in 2026.
In the 2025 legislative season nearly 350 PFAS bills were introduced in 39 states, producing 27 laws in 13 states. The laws point in two main directions: product bans and mandatory reporting.
Product bans
Maine, Washington and New York have banned PFAS in children's products, cosmetics and textiles, while Minnesota, Colorado and Maine are introducing bans on cookware during 2025 and 2026. Illinois has passed a comprehensive ban taking effect in 2026 covering cookware, cosmetics, children's products and food packaging. In Connecticut, outdoor apparel for extreme weather containing PFAS must carry a visible label from 1 January.
Reporting obligations
Minnesota has launched a mandatory PFAS reporting system: manufacturers must report via the state's PRISM portal by 1 July 2026. The requirement is particularly strict: manufacturers must work their way up the supply chain until all the necessary information is known – well beyond the federal "known or reasonably ascertainable" standard. New Mexico will introduce a similar system from 2027, with mandatory warning labels – including a cancer warning.
The drinking water sector in the firing line
PFAS regulation is not just an industrial issue – it directly affects water utilities and drinking water safety. Between 2023 and 2025, public water systems in the United States had to monitor for 29 PFAS compounds under the UCMR 5 programme.
Tackling PFAS contamination of the Cape Fear River in North Carolina took years and costly investment before the authorities and courts could deal with it meaningfully. It is an emblematic example of what regulatory experts have long stressed: preventing pollution is always cheaper than cleaning it up afterwards.
Litigation between water utilities and chemical companies shows no sign of easing. Settlements reached in PFAS lawsuits between chemical manufacturers and public water systems are already in the billion-dollar range.
The challenge for industry: a regulatory patchwork
For industry, the real difficulty is that PFAS regulation is increasingly becoming a state-by-state patchwork. A multinational company selling its products in Minnesota, Connecticut and Illinois has to comply with three different – and partly conflicting – legal regimes, while the federal framework remains uncertain.
According to lawyer and industry expert Lynn Bergeson, "every single state at some point is going to be enacting, if it has not already, reporting obligations and/or product restrictions on PFAS." The message for industry is clear: a strategy that relies on federal deregulation alone is not enough.
Companies are placing growing emphasis on supply chain transparency: they need to know which component of a product contains PFAS, and that information must be traceable back to the earliest point in the manufacturing chain.
Conclusion: one chemical, two Americas
The 2026 picture of PFAS regulation reveals a deeply divided regulatory reality. At federal level, the direction towards deregulation is clear – at least under the current administration. At state level, however, things are moving the opposite way: legislative activity is increasing, not decreasing.
In 2026 PFAS is no longer a narrow environmental issue for specialists – it has moved to the centre of public health, regulatory compliance and product liability, directly affecting the daily business of industry, water utilities and consumers.
The crucial question is whether a patchwork of state rules is enough to keep drinking water safe – or whether tackling the PFAS problem properly requires a comprehensive, science-based framework at federal level.
In 2026 the regulation of PFAS – commonly known as "forever chemicals" – in the United States shows a stark divide. Under the Trump administration, the federal EPA is rolling back some of the drinking water limits introduced in the Biden era and easing reporting obligations for manufacturers. Meanwhile, individual states are filling the perceived federal vacuum with increasingly aggressive legislation: product bans, mandatory labelling and strict reporting requirements. The result is an unpredictable legal patchwork that varies from state to state, posing a serious challenge for industry – and raising concerns about drinking water safety.
In 2026 the regulation of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in the United States is marked by a deep contradiction. Under the Trump administration, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving to rescind the drinking water limits introduced in 2024 for four PFAS (PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA and HFPO-DA) while keeping the limits for PFOA and PFOS. The EPA also intends to ease manufacturers' reporting obligations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), particularly for imported products.
State legislation, however, has not slowed down – it has accelerated. In 2025 nearly 350 PFAS bills were introduced in 39 states, 27 of which became law in 13 states. Minnesota, Colorado, Maine, Illinois and other states are banning PFAS in household products, food packaging and firefighting equipment, while Minnesota and New Mexico are introducing mandatory manufacturer reporting systems.
The legal picture is further complicated by the disputed definition of PFAS: thousands of compounds fall into the category, and there is no regulatory consensus on which of them restrictions should cover. Litigation is not letting up either – lawsuits between water utilities and chemical companies have already produced billion-dollar settlements.
A study of 10,826 Chinese treatment plants finds that big centralised systems are reaching two limits at once, on easing water scarcity and on paying their way, and that a hybrid model could do the job for up to 37% less.
FAO has published draft principles on who may use water and on what terms, a quiet piece of international work that speaks directly to this year's fights over drought, wells and free irrigation.
A new report projects data centres' water footprint reaching 9.32 trillion litres by 2030, but the number is only meaningful once you know what it counts, and who is making the case.
An English coalition has costed what it would take to keep every drop of wastewater out of England's largest lake, £3.6–3.7 billion, and its modelling says nothing less ends harmful algal blooms.
