State bans on toxic chemicals – including cancer-causing formaldehyde in children’s products and the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in clothing and other consumer products – are under threat from a House bill.
The legislation, recently introduced by Republicans, would overhaul the nation's chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. The changes could allow federal officials to override stronger state protections by reviewing and regulating chemicals themselves. If the officials claim a chemical poses less risk than some states claim, state rules could be quashed.
If this bill becomes law, it would effectively gut Congress’ bipartisan compromise from 2016 that strengthened TSCA to better protect families and workers from hazardous substances. In place of those reforms, undertested chemicals could then be clear to flood American homes, schools and workplaces.
These sweeping changes to TSCA would undermine federal regulation of the toxic chemicals used in consumer and industrial products and could restrict states from taking action.
Because the Environmental Protection Agency is already moving quickly to slash chemical protections, these state protections are more important than ever.
At a time when states are leading the charge to protect communities from harmful exposures, the proposal could halt that momentum and hand the chemical industry new tools to challenge state laws.
States and the federal government share power when it comes to regulating the toxic chemicals in our products. Often states are able to move more quickly than the federal government.
Sometimes a federal law takes precedence over a state law, blocking states from enacting their own rules or even overturning existing state rules – known as preemption.
It’s true the 2016 TSCA reform law gave the EPA the power to preempt states under some circumstances. But the new proposal could make it much more likely that hard-won state chemical protections may be wiped out, because of the ways that the legislation would significantly weaken the agency’s powers.
Weakening the EPA means weakening states
The proposal would fundamentally alter how the EPA evaluates and regulates chemicals. Among other changes, it would:
- Force the EPA to quickly approve new chemicals even when safety data is missing
- Require the EPA to ignore certain risks when assessing chemical safety like the cumulative risks from exposure to multiple similar chemicals
- Make it harder for the EPA to consider all uses of a chemical when determining a safe level of exposure for people
- Make it harder for the EPA to restrict all potentially harmful uses of chemicals
- Limit the EPA’s ability to address foreseeable but unintended uses of a chemical
- Prevent the EPA from protecting workers, who often face the highest risks
- Restrict EPA authority to require companies to provide safety data
- Require the EPA to give greater weight to industry costs when choosing restrictions
Together, these provisions would weaken federal oversight of harmful chemicals. In some cases, the EPA could be obligated to declare chemicals safe, even where data gaps or ignored potential exposures suggest otherwise. That could open the door to federal actions threatening state laws targeting the same substances.
How federal action can block state laws
Under current law, certain EPA actions can prevent states from enacting or enforcing their own protections for the same chemicals and uses. The House Republican proposal does not change TSCA’s current preemption rules, but by pushing the EPA toward narrower, weaker determinations, it increases the likelihood that federal actions will block stronger state rules.
Some EPA actions that could trigger preemption include:
- Requiring companies to test a chemical’s safety
- Determining through a post-market assessment that a chemical or specific use is safe
- Issuing a rule limiting a chemical’s use after a safety assessment
- Requiring notice to the EPA before a chemical can be used in a new way
Preemption is specific to individual chemicals and their uses. But when the EPA addresses a particular use of a substance, states can be blocked from regulating that same use, even if the agency's analysis was flawed or incomplete.
Here are a few hypothetical examples of how this might play out:
PFAS in textiles
PFAS are a family of toxic forever chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harms, and immune system harms. For decades, they have been widely used in textiles like outdoor apparel, furniture and carpets for their water-, oil-, and stain-resistant qualities.
The EPA could decide to evaluate some PFAS used in textiles but not all the thousands of different forever chemicals that exist. As it assesses the safety of these chemicals, the EPA could ignore the cumulative risks from the other PFAS that people are likely exposed to. The EPA could also ignore potential risks from combined exposures to PFAS through food, air, water and thousands of other consumer and industrial uses.
By looking only at a narrow set of uses of only some PFAS, the EPA may see those chemicals and uses as being safer.
For example, if the EPA cannot show that these PFAS in textiles are “more likely than not” to cause harm – an extremely high bar for regulation created by the proposed bill – it will not be able to limit PFAS in textiles. This could lead to overturning bans on PFAS in textiles such as apparel, carpeting and furniture. California, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington have banned the use of PFAS in textiles.
PFAS in firefighting foam
PFAS have also been used in firefighting foam at airports and military bases for decades, despite the availability of effective alternatives.
The EPA could choose to reevaluate PFAS use in firefighting foam and again ignore total exposures from other sources or cumulative exposures from PFAS not used in foam.
The EPA could assume that firefighting foam will be contained after release and accept industry arguments that containing the foam limits environmental and health impacts.
Under the new bill, the EPA could ignore the “reasonably foreseeable” scenario in which the foam is not contained and leads to more exposure. After consulting with the Department of Defense, as the proposal requires, the EPA could decide the foam with PFAS is a “critical use” essential to national security and too costly to replace.
Taking into consideration all of the above, the EPA could find the PFAS in foam do not pose an “unreasonable risk” under the law. It could then overturn state bans on PFAS in firefighting foam in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, Vermont and Washington.
Formaldehyde in children’s products
The EPA finalized a risk evaluation on formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, in January 2025 and found the chemical posed an “unreasonable risk” for all uses considered by the agency, including textiles and home furnishings.
But in December of the same year, the EPA updated its method for calculating risk. The new method nearly doubles the amount the agency considers safe to inhale.
The EPA could revise its formaldehyde safety assessment under the new method. Then that combined with the proposal’s weakened scientific standards for review could lead the agency to a new understanding of this chemical’s risk. The agency could decide that some amount of formaldehyde in textiles, furniture and other children’s products is not “more likely than not” to cause harm.
A rule based on that finding could force New York to scrap its ban on formaldehyde in children’s products, and other states would be blocked from enacting similar bans.
Emerging contaminants with missing data
Imagine the EPA evaluates a chemical used in consumer products but lacks information on reproductive or immune toxicity. The agency suspects harm based on data that similar chemicals have evidence of these harms. But it can’t prove it’s “more likely than not” that the new chemical will also contribute to these harms, therefore posing an unreasonable risk.
Under current law, in this scenario the EPA could require the companies manufacturing the chemical to generate this data.
Under the House Republican proposal, the EPA would not have to show the risk is more likely than not. Without the information it needs to evaluate the chemical properly, the agency determines the chemical is safe. With that decision, the EPA prevents states from restricting it.
State laws that could be at risk
States have enacted dozens of laws addressing toxic chemicals in recent years. Just some of the state laws that could be overturned include:
- A New York law banning children’s products containing heavy metals, phthalates, flame retardants, mercury, bisphenols and PFAS
- The Safer Products for Washington law, which recently banned five chemical classes in 10 product categories
- A California ban on fiberglass in children’s products, mattresses and upholstered furniture
- Laws in California, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island banning or restricting PFAS in firefighters’ turnout gear
- A Massachusetts ban on 12 flame retardants in bedding, carpeting, children’s products, upholstered furniture and window treatments
- A Rhode Island prohibition on flame retardants in residential upholstered bedding and furniture
- A Vermont law requiring manufacturers of certain hazardous household products to implement collection plans
- A Maryland restriction on playground materials such as artificial turf that contain lead or certain PFAS
- A Colorado law restricting PFAS in carpets, rugs, oil and gas products, fabric treatments, juvenile products and furniture
- A Nevada law banning certain flame retardants in upholstered furniture, children’s products, textiles and mattresses
- Maine and Minnesota bans on non-essential uses of PFAS
If the EPA addresses the same chemical in the same uses but reaches weaker conclusions, many of these protections could be gutted or rolled back.
When states might still be able to act
Under current TSCA exemptions, state laws may avoid preemption if they:
- were enacted before April 22, 2016
- regulate uses outside the scope of the EPA’s action
- create reporting, monitoring or disclosure requirements not required by the EPA
- are adopted under another federal law, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act or Occupational Safety and Health Act
- are adopted under state water, air or waste laws under certain conditions
- are identical to federal requirements
But these pathways are limited and case specific. States are also able to apply for waivers, but these can be difficult to obtain. The threat of preemption may also deter state activity, leading some states to decide not to act on chemical risks when they otherwise would.
The bottom line
The House Republican proposal doesn’t need to rewrite TSCA’s preemption clause to undermine state authority. While states might not be preempted immediately, their laws would become much more vulnerable.
By weakening the EPA’s ability to fully assess risks, fill data gaps and impose strong restrictions, the bill could lead to federal determinations that lock in weaker protections and block states from doing more.
At a time when states are driving progress on PFAS, flame retardants, formaldehyde and other chemicals of concern, this proposal could freeze that progress in place or reverse it.
Because the EPA is already moving quickly to slash existing chemical protections, these state protections are more important than ever.
