EPA Under Trump Administration Signals Intent to Reconsider Ban on Cancer-Causing Asbestos

Despite previous administrations touting ambitious goals of making America healthier and safer, the Trump administration has revealed a significant shift in environmental policy. In court documents filed recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), now under the direction of the Trump administration, indicated its intention to “reconsider” a ban on cancer-causing asbestos. This move marks a potential reversal of a long-awaited public health measure and raises concerns among environmental and health advocates.

Last year, the EPA, under the Biden administration, took a monumental step by finalizing a ban on the last remaining type of asbestos still in use in the United States: chrysotile asbestos, often referred to as “white asbestos.” While the overall use of this dangerous mineral had significantly declined over decades, it persisted in specific applications. These included various gaskets, brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes and linings, other vehicle friction products, and certain diaphragms crucial for the production of sodium hydroxide and chlorine.

The 2024 ban brought the United States in line with more than 50 other countries globally that had already prohibited the use of asbestos due to its well-established and severe health risks. Asbestos exposure is unequivocally linked to several devastating diseases, including lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare and aggressive cancer affecting the lining of organs, most commonly the lungs), ovarian cancer, and laryngeal cancer. The EPA itself noted at the time of the ban that asbestos exposure contributes to more than 40,000 deaths in the US each year.

At the time the ban was finalized, then-EPA administrator Michael Regan emphasized the scientific consensus on the dangers of asbestos. “The science is clear—asbestos is a known carcinogen that has severe impacts on public health,” Regan stated in a statement from the EPA. He highlighted that President Biden understood the generational impact of this issue and expressed pride in finalizing the long-needed prohibition on ongoing uses of the substance.

A Decades-Long Struggle: The History of Asbestos Regulation in the US

The journey towards banning asbestos in the United States has been long, complex, and fraught with legal and political challenges. Asbestos, a group of naturally occurring fibrous minerals, was widely used throughout the 20th century in construction, manufacturing, and various industries due to its desirable properties: heat resistance, strength, and insulating capabilities. It was incorporated into everything from building materials like insulation, roofing, and floor tiles to automotive parts, textiles, and even consumer goods.

However, by the mid-20th century, scientific evidence began accumulating, unequivocally linking asbestos exposure to severe and often fatal respiratory diseases and cancers. The tiny, durable fibers, when inhaled or ingested, can become lodged in the body's tissues, leading to inflammation, scarring (asbestosis), and genetic damage that can eventually result in malignant tumors like mesothelioma and lung cancer. The latency period for these diseases can be decades long, meaning exposure in the past can lead to illness today.

The first significant attempt to regulate asbestos in the US came with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. While TSCA provided the EPA with authority to regulate dangerous chemicals, efforts to implement a comprehensive ban faced fierce opposition from the asbestos industry. In 1989, the EPA issued a rule under TSCA that would have phased out most asbestos-containing products. However, this ban was largely overturned in 1991 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which argued that the EPA had not demonstrated that a complete ban was the “least burdensome alternative” to protect human health, as required by the original TSCA.

This court decision created a regulatory vacuum, leaving many uses of asbestos unregulated for decades. While the use of asbestos declined dramatically due to public awareness, liability concerns, and state-level regulations, it was never fully banned at the federal level until 2024. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, signed into law in 2016, reformed TSCA and gave the EPA stronger authority to evaluate and regulate existing chemicals, including asbestos. This legislative update paved the way for the 2024 ban on chrysotile asbestos, addressing the legal hurdles that had stymied previous efforts.

The 2024 Ban: A Step Forward, Still Facing Opposition

The ban finalized in March 2024 specifically targeted chrysotile asbestos, which accounted for virtually all US asbestos consumption in recent years. The rule prohibited the import of chrysotile asbestos and its use in the remaining applications. Recognizing the need for industries to transition, the ban included phase-out periods for different uses, ranging from a few months to up to 12 years for certain critical industrial applications like those in the chlor-alkali industry.

Despite being decades in the making and widely praised by public health organizations, the ban immediately faced legal challenges. A number of companies and trade groups, including the powerful American Chemistry Council, filed lawsuits against the EPA regulation. These legal actions argued that the ban was overly broad, not scientifically justified for all applications, or that the phase-out periods were insufficient. The litigation has been ongoing, setting the stage for the Trump administration's recent filing.

The Trump Administration's “Reconsideration”

On Monday, the EPA, now operating under the directives of the Trump administration, filed documents in court signaling a significant shift in its stance. The agency stated that it “now intends to reconsider” the ban on chrysotile asbestos. Furthermore, the filing indicated that the EPA “expects that this process, including any regulatory changes, will take approximately 30 months.” The agency requested that the court suspend the ongoing litigation against the ban while this reconsideration process takes place.

The court filing included a declaration supporting the reconsideration from Lynn Ann Dekleva, the new EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Dekleva's background has drawn scrutiny; until last year, she worked as a lobbyist and director for the American Chemistry Council, one of the key industry groups that had sued the EPA over the asbestos ban. This appointment and her role in initiating the reconsideration process raise questions about potential industry influence on regulatory decisions concerning a known carcinogen.

Political Context: Trump's Past Statements on Asbestos

As Ars Technica reported last year and reiterated in its coverage of the reconsideration, there were always concerns among public health advocates that a future Trump administration might seek to overturn the asbestos ban. These concerns stem directly from President Trump's past public statements and writings on the subject.

In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, Trump expressed views on asbestos that are contrary to decades of scientific consensus. He wrote that asbestos is “100 percent safe, once applied.” This statement ignores the well-documented risks associated with disturbing asbestos-containing materials during renovation, demolition, or deterioration, which releases the dangerous fibers into the air.

Furthermore, Trump attributed the negative reputation of asbestos not to its proven health risks, but to what he claimed was the influence of organized crime. He wrote, “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal.” This assertion lacks credible evidence and dismisses the extensive scientific and medical research that has established asbestos as a potent carcinogen.

Trump's stance on asbestos has even been embraced internationally by countries that continue to produce and export the mineral. In 2018, a Russian asbestos company, Uralasbest, began marketing its products with packaging featuring President Trump's face and a seal that read “Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States.” This episode highlighted the alignment between Trump's views and the interests of the global asbestos industry.

The Science of Asbestos and Its Health Impacts

To understand the gravity of the EPA's potential reconsideration, it is essential to grasp the science behind why asbestos is so dangerous. Asbestos fibers are microscopic, durable, and can remain suspended in the air for extended periods. When inhaled, these fibers can travel deep into the lungs and become permanently lodged in the lung tissue or the pleura (the lining surrounding the lungs).

The body's immune system attempts to remove these foreign fibers, but their structure makes them resistant to degradation. This leads to chronic inflammation and scarring. Over time, this persistent irritation and cellular damage can trigger a range of serious health problems:

• Asbestosis: A chronic, non-cancerous respiratory disease characterized by scarring of the lung tissue. This scarring makes it difficult for the lungs to function properly, leading to shortness of breath, coughing, and potentially respiratory failure.
• Lung Cancer: Asbestos exposure is a significant risk factor for lung cancer, particularly for individuals who also smoke. The fibers can cause genetic mutations in lung cells, leading to uncontrolled growth.
• Mesothelioma: A rare and aggressive cancer that affects the mesothelium, the protective lining of internal organs. Mesothelioma most commonly occurs in the pleura (pleural mesothelioma) but can also affect the lining of the abdomen (peritoneal mesothelioma), heart (pericardial mesothelioma), and testes (tunica vaginalis mesothelioma). The only known cause of pleural mesothelioma is asbestos exposure.
• Other Cancers: Studies have also linked asbestos exposure to increased risks of ovarian cancer and laryngeal cancer.

The risk of developing these diseases is generally related to the level and duration of exposure. However, there is no known safe level of asbestos exposure. Even brief or low-level exposure can potentially lead to mesothelioma decades later. This long latency period means that individuals exposed in the past may only develop symptoms many years later, making diagnosis and treatment challenging.

The Implications of Reconsideration

The EPA's announcement that it intends to “reconsider” the ban does not automatically mean the ban is lifted or will be overturned. However, it signals a clear intent to revisit the regulatory decision-making process. The stated 30-month timeline suggests a thorough review, which could potentially lead to several outcomes:

• Modification of the Ban: The EPA could propose changes to the existing rule, potentially altering the scope of the ban, extending phase-out periods, or exempting certain uses based on new risk assessments or economic considerations.
• Partial Repeal: The agency could seek to repeal the ban for specific uses or altogether, arguing that the risks are manageable under existing regulations or that alternatives are not feasible or cost-effective.
• Delay or Stalling: The reconsideration process itself, spanning 30 months, effectively delays the full implementation and enforcement of the ban, providing a reprieve for industries still using chrysotile asbestos.

Public health advocates and environmental groups are likely to strongly oppose any weakening or repeal of the ban. They will argue that the science on asbestos is settled and that any continued use, import, or processing of the mineral poses unacceptable risks to workers and the public. They may also challenge the legal basis for reconsidering a rule that was finalized after extensive scientific review and public comment, particularly given the potential for industry influence.

Conversely, industry groups that opposed the original ban will likely welcome the reconsideration. They may argue that certain uses of chrysotile asbestos are essential, that alternatives are not technically or economically viable, and that the risks can be adequately managed through workplace safety regulations without a complete prohibition.

The Role of Industry and Lobbying

The involvement of individuals with ties to industries that use or produce chemicals, such as Lynn Ann Dekleva's background with the American Chemistry Council, raises concerns about the influence of lobbying on environmental policy. Industry groups often advocate for regulations that minimize economic impact on their members, sometimes clashing with public health or environmental protection goals.

The American Chemistry Council, for instance, represents a wide range of chemical manufacturers, some of whom may have interests in the continued use of asbestos or other chemicals facing regulation. Appointing former lobbyists or industry representatives to key positions within regulatory agencies is a practice that critics argue can lead to policies favoring industry interests over public welfare.

The history of asbestos regulation in the US is, in many ways, a case study in the tension between public health imperatives and industry resistance, often played out through lobbying, legal challenges, and political influence. The overturning of the 1989 ban by the courts demonstrated the power of industry challenges, and the current legal battle and the EPA's decision to reconsider highlight the ongoing nature of this struggle.

Global Context and Future Outlook

The US remains one of the few developed nations that has not implemented a comprehensive ban on all forms of asbestos. The fact that over 50 countries, including the entire European Union, Australia, Japan, and Canada, have banned asbestos underscores the global consensus on its dangers. Continued use in the US, even if limited, puts American workers and consumers at risk and complicates international efforts to eradicate asbestos-related diseases.

The reconsideration process announced by the Trump EPA will be closely watched by public health advocates, environmental groups, affected communities, and industry stakeholders. The outcome will depend on the scientific evidence presented, legal arguments, and the political will of the administration. A decision to weaken or repeal the ban would be a significant setback for public health and could lead to continued exposure and future asbestos-related illnesses.

The 30-month timeline for reconsideration means that a final decision is unlikely to be reached quickly. In the meantime, the legal challenges to the original ban are suspended, leaving the future of asbestos regulation in the US uncertain. The battle to fully eliminate this deadly mineral from American commerce and environments continues, highlighting the persistent challenges in translating scientific understanding of environmental hazards into effective and durable public policy.

The potential reversal of the asbestos ban serves as a stark reminder of the political nature of environmental regulation and the ongoing efforts required to protect public health from known dangers, even those with a long and tragic history like asbestos.