The Trump administration says it is taking decisive action on PFAS. Critics say the chemicals are still in drinking water across the country and the response still falls short.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a sweeping list of what it calls major first-year accomplishments tackling per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as PFAS. The chemicals, used for decades in products ranging from non-stick cookware to firefighting foam, are often labeled “forever chemicals” because they break down extremely slowly in the environment.

Some PFAS compounds, including PFOA and PFOS, have been linked to health risks when people are exposed to elevated levels over long periods of time. That connection has turned what was once a niche contamination issue into a national political flashpoint.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has made PFAS a stated priority, and the agency’s new summary reflects a broad, multi-pronged strategy: more testing, new detection methods, financial support for utilities, Superfund enforcement, and adjustments to reporting rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Among the headline figures is $945 million released to reduce PFAS exposure in drinking water. The agency also launched what it calls the PFAS OUTreach Initiative, aimed at connecting with public water systems that need upgrades to address contamination, particularly where PFOA and PFOS have been detected.

On the technical front, EPA says it has developed methods capable of detecting up to 40 PFAS compounds in wastewater, groundwater, soil, sludge, sediment, landfill leachate, and even fish tissue. It is also expanding air testing methods to measure PFAS emitted from industrial facilities.

In practical terms, the agency points to actions like installing more than 100 point-of-entry treatment systems, completing treatment projects in southern California that protect roughly 9,500 households, sampling private wells near military facilities, and providing bottled water to residents in New Jersey affected by contamination near a Superfund site.

EPA has also affirmed the hazardous substance designation for PFOA and PFOS under Superfund law, a move that strengthens its ability to pursue cleanups and potentially recover costs from responsible parties.

Supporters argue this demonstrates a balanced approach: science-based detection, direct community intervention, and enforcement when contamination is found above protective levels. They also note that EPA is updating PFAS destruction and disposal guidance more frequently and establishing an internal coordinating group to streamline policy and technical decisions across offices.

But skeptics question whether the overall strategy is bold enough for a contamination problem that spans all 50 states.

While EPA has advanced drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, it has also proposed changes to PFAS reporting requirements under TSCA that are framed as reducing duplicative burdens. Environmental groups worry that loosening reporting requirements could make it harder to track how widely PFAS are used and released.

Critics also point out that while the agency has emphasized testing and treatment, broader restrictions on the production and use of the thousands of PFAS chemicals remain limited. Most regulatory focus continues to center on a handful of well-studied compounds.

There is also the matter of scale. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that PFAS compounds are detectable in the blood of most Americans. Addressing contamination at a few hundred sites, critics argue, is only a first step in a much larger cleanup effort that could take decades and cost billions.

Industry groups, meanwhile, have long warned that overly aggressive regulation could disrupt manufacturing sectors that rely on PFAS for heat resistance, durability, and specialized applications. Balancing public health protection with economic impacts remains a core tension in the policy debate.

The science itself continues to evolve. EPA relies on both targeted testing, which measures known PFAS compounds, and non-targeted testing that can detect previously unidentified variants. That dual approach reflects the complexity of managing a chemical class that includes thousands of substances.

In many ways, PFAS has become a test case for how the federal government handles emerging environmental threats: identify the risk, build scientific consensus, tighten detection, and gradually regulate.

The Trump EPA’s first-year summary suggests the administration wants to be seen as proactive on contamination, even as it promotes a broader deregulatory agenda elsewhere. Whether these actions are enough to meaningfully reduce long-term exposure remains an open question.

For families living near contaminated wells or military bases, progress is measured less in press releases and more in clean water flowing from the tap.

And on that front, the work is far from finished.