There’s No Crystal Ball for Navigating EPA Deregulation Quagmire

Environmental lawyers are navigating a confusing regulatory regime. Besides the shifting priorities inherent with every administration transition, the environmental world is now facing across-the-board reduction in regulation.

This started in March when the Environmental Protection Agency announced its “biggest deregulatory action” in US history—31 actions the agency planned to implement.

The promised regulatory reversals and walk backs have made headlines, but there are even more important changes happening beneath the surface.

Attorneys advising companies how to follow shifting environmental compliance rules must accept and embrace confusion and uncertainty in the short term. Without a crystal ball, it’s impossible for an environmental attorney to predict how a matter or site may transpire.

But this isn’t the time for companies to step back from compliance priorities and initiatives. Doing so will only lead to risks and costs in other areas, especially litigation.

Without knowing what’s coming next, assessing some of the changes that have already taken place can help you prepare for the future.

Disappearing Heads

The foremost problem I’ve faced since January is the number of individuals who have “retired” from the EPA. On one site alone, we’ve had four project managers and three different attorneys in eight months.

More than a dozen times, I’ve spoken with an EPA counsel on a matter one day, only to follow up and learn that person is no longer with the agency. This lack of consistency is making it virtually impossible to reach decisions, negotiate resolutions, and move projects forward.

In one region, a large potentially responsible parties group was told there will no longer be attorneys assigned to sites; instead, a pool of attorneys will be available who can be tapped by technical teams “if needed.”

This approach will delay further progress while each new person gets up to speed, revisits prior decisions, or makes decisions without the history and knowledge essential in these complex matters.

Active Matter Standstills

We started the year with an initial “no communication” directive for both the EPA and the Department of Justice so new supervisors could “get up to speed.” The silence is lingering in many regions. A paralysis seems to have settled at the federal level regarding decision-making.

In one matter, a consent decree was negotiated and executed, and management had approved. Yet, it took more than three months for final signatures, rather than the two or three weeks it would have taken in the past.

It becomes challenging to plan when the “Effective Date” on a document can be six days or six months from now.

Disregard for Standards

In addition to the delays and turnover, several regions are diverging from the standard processes for Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Action clean ups, with the goal of getting to a remedy decision before the process is complete.

Some of this streamlining is likely due to the administration’s prioritization of CERLCA and its outspoken goal to move as many sites off the National Priorities List as possible.

The CERCLA process is lengthy and needs an overhaul, but science is still what drives risk and, therefore, needs to remain the foundation for decisions. Yet, the EPA is eliminating the Office of Research and Development, its scientific research arm.

Some kind of reform to this process is welcome, but skipping or streamlining critical steps—instead of working collaboratively toward true alignment or risk with remedy and site closure—will only lead to more litigation and stand-offs.

Fewer Surprise Inspections

It’s too early to make broad proclamations about inspections, but our team hasn’t seen nearly as many surprise inspections or Notices of Violation as in years past. This is likely the combined result of workforce reduction and the goal of reducing regulation.

As of July 2025, there has been a 23% reduction in the EPA’s workforce, and numbers as high as 65% have been floated in terms of this administration’s goals for further reductions.

Project 2025 outlines plans to eliminate the stand-alone Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and instead disperse the functions across the various program offices.

While no decision has been made about OECA’s future, if this elimination is next, active and new enforcement will only continue to decrease.

Interestingly, EPA regulators are showing up when a release occurs and is reported. While companies may be receiving fewer visits, there’s still a push for compliance related to violations.

PFAS/PFOA Sampling

Despite the deregulation, environmental lawyers’ world remains “all PFAS all the time.” The EPA is continuing to demand testing for these constituents at sites and as part of projects.

In fact, the EPA seems willing to spend its own funds to conduct sampling if relevant parties refuse. While the science of sampling and remediation may not progress because of cuts, the sampling of these emerging compounds is full steam ahead.

Resolving Historical Matters

Now is the time to move stagnant violation matters toward closure. The EPA’s most recent list of resolved matters include cases dating back to 2018.

We have seen a willingness for flexibility to accept business-forward arguments in a variety of situations, including the Clean Air Act context, that may have been rejected by the Biden administration.

An Uncertain Future

Taking stock of what has happened is an imperfect indicator of what lawyers and companies must do going forward.

What’s clear is that businesses should use this opportunity to make sure their internal house is in order. Conduct cross-media audits and address noncompliance proactively. Work on your release policies and procedures. Install the technology needed to track permit compliance, and make sure folks are trained.

Make the changes and apply for the permits you think you need, but be aware that state enforcement could increase, and watch out for a swarm of citizen suits the US Supreme Court may have ushered in last term.

We can’t predict what comes next. Companies and counsel attempting to prepare have no choice but to embrace—and remain exceedingly alert and agile in response to—this inconsistent and often static new realm.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Heidi Friedman is partner in Thompson Hine’s environmental and product liability practice groups and co-chair of its corporate sustainability practice.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines