Overview
The second Trump administration has launched an aggressive deregulatory campaign at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), raising concerns among legal experts, environmental advocates, and public health officials. Central to the deregulatory agenda is a redefinition of EPA’s mission, including a reallocation of enforcement priorities and resources. The potential consequences for environmental enforcement affecting chemical manufacturers under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)1remain uncertain. In response, state authorities are stepping in to protect public health and safety at the state level under state law.
During EPA's reorganization and reallocation of enforcement priorities and resources, companies should not scale back their compliance efforts. In this period of extreme and unpredictable change, businesses will benefit from conducting internal audits, reviewing product stewardship, and evaluating environmental, health, and safety (EHS) practices to help ensure full compliance with FIFRA, TSCA, and other applicable environmental laws. Proactive steps, including voluntary self-disclosure under EPA's self-disclosure policies, can reduce enforcement risk and protect companies as regulatory priorities fluctuate, now and in the years ahead.
The Trump administration's deregulatory agenda has altered EPA’s enforcement capacity to an uncertain extent, potentially representing a shift in the federal role in environmental and public health protection. In response, state authorities are aggressively stepping in to fill a perceived enforcement void, taking decisive action to protect public health and safety. Many states, including California, are implementing innovative and robust strategies to help ensure compliance, assuming part of the enforcement role performed by the federal government up to now. State environmental agencies are adopting cost-effective enforcement methods, such as prioritizing citizen complaints, issuing warning letters instead of formal enforcement actions, and providing guidance to improve compliance.
At the state level, environmental self-audits have become an essential component of due diligence in mergers, acquisitions, or other corporate transactions. These audits serve two main purposes: They help identify potential environmental liabilities associated with target companies, and they demonstrate proactive compliance, which can mitigate enforcement risk under self-disclosure and audit policies. In today's deregulatory environment, self-audits offer critical legal and business protections. Pre-acquisition audits identify legacy violations, cleanup responsibilities, and compliance gaps that could become costly after closing, while post-acquisition audits uncover undisclosed violations, allowing for timely voluntary disclosures under EPA and state policies. Post-acquisition audits, conducted promptly after closing, can identify previously undisclosed violations and enable timely voluntary disclosures under EPA's Audit Policy or analogous state programs providing substantial penalty mitigation—or even complete penalty elimination—for companies that self-disclose and correct violations discovered through qualified audits, particularly when performed in good faith and not under imminent enforcement threats.
Historically, along with EPA, state agencies have provided substantial penalty mitigation—or complete elimination of penalties—for companies that voluntarily disclose, correct, and take steps to help prevent a recurrence of violations identified through good-faith audits. For businesses in highly regulated sectors, such as chemical manufacturing, formulation, and distribution, self-audits demonstrate diligence, reduce transactional and operational risk, establish "good actor" status in enforcement actions or private litigation, and build credibility with regulators, investors, and the public. Whether employed for transactional due diligence or ongoing compliance, self-auditing remains one of the most effective tools for managing environmental risk amid regulatory uncertainty.
The Trump administration's deregulatory agenda has introduced unprecedented uncertainty in federal environmental oversight. In response, state regulatory agencies are stepping in to fill the enforcement void, ensuring continued protection of public health and the environment under state law. Businesses should act proactively by conducting self-audits, strengthening compliance programs, and considering voluntary disclosures at both the federal and state levels. Taking these measures now safeguards operations and transactions, preserves public trust, and positions companies to navigate rapidly shifting enforcement priorities.
The message for businesses is clear: Do not wait for state enforcement to escalate or for federal oversight to resume. Proactive steps reduce the risk of penalties, reinforce public confidence, help ensure compliance, and help avoid enforcement-related business interruptions in a complex and evolving regulatory environment. Companies seeking guidance on next steps or tailored compliance strategies can rely on experienced professionals with deep expertise across multiple administrations and regulatory landscapes to chart an effective path forward.
1 Under FIFRA, EPA regulates the development, import, production, marketing, sale, distribution, use, export, and disposal of pesticides, and the Agency also regulates pest control devices. TSCA authorizes EPA to regulate the import, manufacture, processing, use, distribution, export, and disposal of "chemical substances," as defined, whether alone, in mixtures, or as part of "articles," and in any quantity. Both laws are enforced by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, enforcement staff in EPA's ten regional offices, and the US Department of Justice to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment (FIFRA) and unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment (TSCA).
