Immediately after President Donald Trump’s second term began on 20 January 2025, he began issuing executive orders, several of which will impact the chemical industry. These directives emphasize extensive deregulation, regulatory oversight reduction, and energy production prioritization.
The flurry of executive orders likely will present both difficulties and opportunities. Rob Campbell, a senior chemical business advisor for 3E, anticipates that the Trump administration will enact policies that may challenge the chemical sector in the short term.
“The Trump administration’s view seems to be short-term pain for long-term gain. They are trading inflationary actions for increased domestic output,” Campbell said. “A risky move, and only time will tell if it was the right one.”
Here are some potential policy shifts and recent trends that could affect the U.S. chemical industry based on what Campbell and other experts have seen and what these developments could mean for chemical manufacturers and U.S. product regulation.
‘Uncertainty’ Surrounding Tariffs
Throughout his presidential campaign, President Trump vowed to use tariffs as a key tool to raise government revenue, advance foreign policy goals, and return the U.S. to a system that he claims will make the country “richer and more powerful than ever before.”
Shortly after his inauguration, the president made sure to keep his promise.
On 1 February 2025, he imposed executive orders directing 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% on imports from China. The tariffs were temporarily paused soon after. However, on 24 February 2025, the president said the tariffs “will go forward” on time.
The president has presented the new tariffs as retaliation against unfair trade practices and a way to reduce regulatory trade burdens to ramp up U.S. product production. But 3E’s Campbell feels differently; he says the direct impact of tariffs on the chemical sector is “uncertain.”
“I wish there were a clear and convincing answer,” Campbell said. “Probably higher prices for the U.S. consumer, lower profitability for U.S. companies.”
Tariffs, a tax charged on foreign goods as they pass between one country and another, are typically a percentage of the value of the imported product. The companies that bring foreign goods into the country pay the tax to the government (for example, a product worth $10 would incur an additional $1 charge, with the U.S. government receiving that $1).
Trade policy that imposes tariffs has a large impact on the chemical industry. The industry relies heavily on raw materials and imported components, which increases production costs for chemical manufacturers.
Dr. Tinglong Dai, a sought-after expert on global supply chains who teaches at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University, told 3E that new tariffs on chemical imports may disrupt supply chains and impact the U.S. relationship with its global trading partners.
“I see more uncertainty than reality, and sheer uncertainty can drive out business relationships and become a disruptive force,” Dai said.
However, some industry insiders, like the American Chemistry Council (ACC), see the Trump administration’s plan to lessen regulatory trade burdens as an opportunity to significantly boost the U.S. chemical sector by lowering compliance costs and making American chemical production more competitive globally. The ACC, an industry trade association headquartered in Washington, D.C., represents more than 190 chemical companies.
“As one of America’s most critical industries, we are crucial to helping America compete on the global stage and be a manufacturing superpower. Chemistry powers every corner of the U.S. economy by creating high-paying jobs, infusing new investments into research and development, and providing chemicals vital to everyday life,” the ACC said in a 3 February 2025 statement.
Will Project 2025 Have Any Effect on TSCA?
Ever since the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was reformed in 2016, the way new chemicals are actively reviewed under the law has been set, reset, and then set again. Beveridge & Diamond PC, an environmental law firm based in Washington, D.C., anticipates that will continue and much more after President Trump retook office in January.
The law firm reported that it expects the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration to “reorient” its approach to implementing TSCA. This would include new changes that could be hinted at in the EPA chapter of Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for reshaping the federal government. The president distanced himself from the agenda on the campaign trail, although many early actions through executive orders — such as reducing the EPA’s staff — align with Project 2025.
Project 2025 has several recommended changes that could affect the implementation of TSCA. Among them:
- Limit TSCA’s fee rule to reflect actual costs, not subsidize what the authors believe is the EPA’s inefficiency or overreach.
- Revise the proposed framework rule for risk evaluations.
- Focus risk evaluations on exposure pathways not covered by other environmental statutes.
- Develop a framework for risk management rule-making.
It is also likely that the EPA under this administration will expedite chemical reviews to meet TSCA deadlines, something that was a top priority during his first administration. However, according to Beveridge & Diamond PC, reducing EPA resources will make it challenging to meet deadlines.
The EPA regulates roughly 80,000 chemicals, and those deemed less risky by the agency are typically subject to less rigorous monitoring and regulations compared to chemicals considered highly toxic, meaning they might not face as strict oversight or restrictions. Richard Engler, chemistry director at Bergeson & Campbell PC, said during one of the law firm’s recent webinars that the EPA has already begun speeding up reviews of new chemicals.
“We don’t expect that to change absent litigation or legislative change,” Engler told webinar attendees, adding that the Trump EPA may not prioritize all the chemicals proposed for designation by the Biden EPA.
The Alliance for Chemical Distribution (ACD), an international association of chemical distributors headquartered in the Washington, D.C. area, is actively reviewing legal options to oppose five Biden Administration EPA regulatory initiatives that it says would “place tremendous burdens on chemical distribution,” according to Jennifer Gibson, the ACD’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs.
These projects include the Clean Air Act Risk Management Program (RMP) Final Rule, the Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Facility Response Plan Final Rule, the Toxic Substances Control Act Risk Evaluation Framework Final Rule, and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
“ACD is confident that the new administration will take our concerns seriously and work to scale back the most unreasonable and burdensome provisions, as well as other rules that are higher priorities for different industry sectors,” Gibson told 3E.
Impact of EPA Staff Changes, Firings
The EPA has undergone some significant staff changes, and its not showing any signs of slowing down. It started with the nomination of current EPA administrator and longtime President Trump ally Lee Zeldin. He was confirmed to lead the EPA on 29 January 2025.
Zeldin, who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2013 to 2023, is expected to remain faithful to the president’s campaign promises to cut federal agency resources. The EPA’s environmental justice office was shut down on 6 February 2025, resulting in 168 job losses after an executive order targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Then, more recently, the EPA fired nearly 400 staffers on 14 February 2025 amid mass government layoffs that appear to have been driven by Elon Musk and the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). According to Beveridge & Diamond PC, these staff reductions will “handicap” section TSCA 5 notice processing, which must be submitted to the EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing or importing new chemicals and developing risk evaluations and risk management rules.
In addition to Zeldin, two veterans of Trump’s first administration, Nancy Beck and Lynn Dekleva, were recently appointed to help lead the EPA’s regulation of chemicals. Some critics, including environmental advocates, have voiced concerns that the return of Beck, a chemical industry lobbyist, and Dekleva, a longtime engineer who worked for chemical giant DuPont, to key positions at the EPA could lead to a significant weakening of Biden-era chemical safety regulations aimed at protecting public health, potentially rolling back protections put in place that impact the nation’s air, water, land, and environment.
“Now, more than ever, we need a strong, fully resourced EPA to confront these crises head-on and secure a safer, healthier future for all,” Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous said in a news release following the EPA firings.
___
Editor’s Note: 3E is expanding news coverage to provide customers with insights into topics that enable a safer, more sustainable world by protecting people, safeguarding products, and helping businesses grow. With our 2025 Outlook series of articles, we examine the regulations, trends, challenges, and achievements shaping our companies, our industries, and our world in 2025 and beyond.
About the Contributor: Dolan Harrington is a Data Journalist at 3E. His analytics career has spanned organizations including Delta Air Lines, Pendo (a unicorn product analytics startup), and S&P Global. He has a master’s degree in business analytics from William & Mary.
