2025 Mid-Year Update: Industry Challenges – and Opportunities – Under the Trump Administration

Uncertainty has been the overarching theme so far in 2025 for the chemical industry. A continuously weak market, fluctuating trade policies, and regulatory changes have presented challenges throughout the year for an industry that banks on long-term investments.

Compounding this uncertainty is the Trump administration's push to roll back Biden-era environmental policies in favor of a deregulatory environment. These efforts, while welcomed by some industry stakeholders, have also introduced a new wave of ambiguity around long-term investment and compliance planning. As companies weigh the risks and rewards of growth in the U.S., they are looking to advocacy groups for guidance, clarity, and leadership.

At the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Responsible Care Conference in May, 3E Industry Reporter Sheridan Wood sat down with ACC President and CEO Chris Jahn to discuss challenges and opportunities for the industry in 2025, and how the ACC is advocating for the industry in this time of uncertainty.

In his role with the ACC, Jahn leads efforts to promote chemistry's contribution to innovation and manufacturing in the U.S. Recognized as one of Washington, D.C.'s top lobbyists and most influential figures, he has driven key initiatives, including expanding air quality monitoring in Houston, founding the Future of STEM Scholars Initiative to support Historically Black College and University (HBCU) students, and enhancing industry safety and security standards through the ACC's Responsible Care program. Before joining the council in 2019, Jahn held leadership roles in several industry organizations.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Could you give me a [2025] check-in of the chemical industry? What have been some of the challenges with the new administration so far, and what are some wins?

I think there have been a lot of nice opportunities to push back against the regulatory overreach that we dealt with from the previous administration. But I would say the new administration, and especially the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is headed in the right direction on a lot of issues, particularly in regard to chemical regulation, air regulation, and water regulation to drive it to more of a science-based, risk-based approach to those issues.

We feel good about a more common-sense approach to regulation. As you and I have discussed in the past, it's appropriate to be regulated, but it needs to be based on sound science, sound process, and that leads to good policy results. We think we're headed in the right direction.

[As far as challenges], our members invest in 30-, 40-, and 50-year assets. They need to know what the rules of the road are in regard to environmental policy, tax policy, and trade policy in order to make long-term investments. Because of the present energy in the United States versus other places the world, we're globally competitive. We're the second largest national producer of chemicals and plastics in the world. For us to be able to continue to make those investments and to continue to grow in the United States, you’re going to need that regulatory certainty.

With any new administration, they go in different directions; they have course corrections, so providing that regulatory certainty is the big challenge. And again, I think on the environmental side, I feel very good about where that's going. I think trade is a little more challenging, and as we go forward, I'm hopeful that will provide more certainty on the big picture of these trade issues. [We] fully support addressing some of the trade challenges we have, but [we want to make] sure that we understand what the rules of the road are going to be and how we engage going forward. A little more clarity there would be helpful.

How are you advocating for that clarity for both regulatory uncertainty and trade uncertainty?

It's really education. I'll give you a specific example on it. So, look at trade. They're experts in that area, but they're not experts on our industry, any more than they're experts on automobiles or farming or anything else. So, look at the shipbuilding proposal that they originally put out that was going to be a million and a half to 3 million dollars'-worth of fees for every ship in every port coming into the United States. [It's] huge because we literally have no capacity here in the United States, and such fees would impact our exports, which we need to remain competitive. Should we have [additional] capacity long term? Yes, and we're very much aligned with the administration's views on that. But in the short term, we were able to get not one, but two exemptions from those rules.

The Trump Administration has also long recognized the importance of chemicals in the context of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and other trade negotiations for our industry to remain competitive. Recent changes in global chemical production and trade provide a unique opportunity to adopt new targeted trade measures that will advantage U.S. chemical as well as other manufacturing and agricultural production, investment, and jobs for years to come.

This year we've seen a rise in scientific misinformation, including from the Make America Healthy Again movement. What does education and advocacy to combat that scientific misinformation look like?

It's exactly what you said. It's, “Here are the facts. Here's a scientific basis for information,” and then let's have an appropriate policy to capture that, and then make a decision. Whether it's the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sound science, sound process will lead to good policy outcomes.

Adding to that, [there is a need for] a risk-based approach. The Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) in Europe is a hazard-based approach. We don't support that, the idea of “that is dangerous; therefore, it can't be produced.” That's a hazard-based approach.

A risk-based approach is the hazard of the substance, but the exposure as well. It's both of those; you can't look at just one or the other. Making sure we're taking that risk-based approach is super important, and making sure that any government decision-maker, whether it's FDA, HHS, EPA, understands that. That's really what we're focused on.

What are the top three things that ACC is hearing from members as areas of concern in 2025?

First of all, the market. That's first and foremost for any company: What does the market look like? And unfortunately, that's been true for the last couple of years. It's been soft. We had a big dip in COVID, a big bounce back, and then we've been stuck in this trough.

Number two is trade and uncertainty in terms of what the rules look like. Again, [we are] supportive of the administrative efforts to address unfair trade practices, [we need to] understand how this is going to work and what it looks like and our view of how to approach trade strategically. [That would be] working with Mexico and Canada, working with the UK, working with the EU to try to address those trade barriers and those trade challenges and do more with them over the long term. We're the second biggest manufacturing exporting industry in the country, so there's a tremendous opportunity for us to grow that even further and we are working with them to try to seize those opportunities.

So, one is the market, two is trade. And then I think what number three would be is the regulatory environment. Again, there are a lot of opportunities in chemicals on plastics, on energy, on permitting, on tax. [In having] that regulatory certainty, we know what the rules are going to be going forward, and we can make smart investment decisions. Those are the big boxes to me.

Going back to trade, the constantly shifting trade policies are creating a lot of supply chain vulnerability. How is ACC supporting its members in navigating some of this supply chain concern?

In regard to the supply chain, this is not new to us. Our industry is used to, unfortunately, having to deal with supply chain shocks. COVID is by far the biggest one in recent memory. But we have rail strikes, we have port closures, the Panama Canal was at significantly reduced capacity for a long time. You have shipping channels in the Middle East, which are subject to various attacks on vessels. There's always something going on in the world, unfortunately. Our members are really good at and used to having to navigate that in a global market environment and in dealing with their supply chain challenges.

But in regard to trade, some folks are trying to get products ahead of tariff deadlines and trying to navigate around that. It's not their first rodeo. I think they'd like to see a process that they can understand and plan around with more notice so they can be more efficient.

Particularly when times are tough, you want to make sure you can be as efficient as possible and not pass on additional costs to consumers. [The] cost of living is the most important thing for American consumers. [According to] our public opinion research, Americans want a more affordable country, and we're part of the solution to be able to provide that. If we could smooth out some of these supply chain waters, we could help do that.

Switching to Responsible Care, you have mentioned that the ACC is working with the Trump administration and Congress to “unleash a new era of domestic innovation, manufacturing growth, and global competitiveness.” How do Responsible Care and sustainability initiatives fit into that “unleashing”?

It's all intertwined in our strategy. It's leading with Responsive Care. We are focused on educating policymakers in state capitals, at the EPA, and on the Hill on the value of Responsible Care and the impact it has on our safety and environmental performance. I can tell you we are three times safer than all manufacturing, we're four times safer than non-members, our greenhouse gas intensity is going down, our sulfur dioxide (SOx) and nitrogen dioxide (NOx) emissions have gone down. Our members have made huge progress.

When we're talking to elected officials and regulatory decision-makers, that's a key part of our advocacy strategy, and that's where that's directly aligned. We say, what we do is important, but how we do it is equally important. We are good neighbors, we're good stewards, we're good partners in communities in which we operate, and we continue to get better and better. We've never been cleaner, healthier, and safer, and that's going to get better over time.

When you talk to an elected official about it, they're like, “Oh, I didn't know that! These guys have some credibility when they walk in the room. They take their responsibility seriously, even when the government doesn't make them do that.” So then whatever issue we happen to be talking to them about, whether it's taxes, it's trade, it's environmental policy, they know. We have a good working relationship with a lot of elected officials, and I think that might surprise some people. We have credibility with those folks. That's directly related to that Responsible Care agenda, where we enable better environmental performance by so many other industries because of what we do.

What are some expectations or projections for the industry for the rest of the year? What are some trends you're watching?

First and foremost, an eye on the economy and hopefully that we'll come out of this little lull that we're in right now and that would make things better for members and better for just Americans in general in terms of economic growth and lower cost of living. So that's first and foremost. Second, for us as an advocacy organization, [key priorities are] focused on moving the needle in regard to environmental policy, tax policy, energy policy, permitting reform. And then third is Responsible Care. We're in the middle of that strategic review. We try to hold ourselves accountable too. It's not just our members and their accountability to the American public, but in terms of the program, how do we continue to improve that as well? That's something we will really focus on going forward. I think by the end of the year, we’ll have some good things to show on that as well.