The Trump administration is systematically dismantling federal protections against chemical disasters, such as fires and explosions at high-risk industrial facilities across the United States. This move follows pressure from chemical companies claiming that enhanced safety measures are too costly to implement.
Background of the Response Management Program
Established in 1990 under a Clean Air Act revision, the Environmental Protection Agency's Response Management Program (RMP) mandates over 12,500 high-risk facilities to develop protocols for preventing catastrophes and mitigating fallout. The program aims to safeguard workers, first responders, and nearby communities from chemical accidents.
In 2024, the Biden administration finalized a rule, twelve years in development, that significantly strengthened these protections. However, early in 2025, industry groups petitioned the incoming Trump EPA to reverse these enhancements, arguing that the provisions impose excessive financial burdens.
Recent Chemical Accidents Highlight Risks
Between 2004 and 2025, the United States experienced a chemical accident harming humans or the environment approximately every other day on average. Notable incidents include an explosion at a Clairton, Pennsylvania steel plant that injured ten people and a Roseland, Louisiana oil facility blast that dispersed oil up to twenty miles away, affecting residential areas.
These events underscore the real and present dangers posed by inadequate safety measures at chemical plants.
Trump EPA's Regulatory Rollbacks
The Trump EPA, staffed with former industry lobbyists, is now moving to eliminate most of the 2024 rules. This includes dismantling a public website that informed communities and first responders about chemicals used at facilities. Additionally, the White House has targeted the Chemical Safety Board, which investigates accidents and recommends preventive actions.
Marc Bloom, a former EPA policy advisor and senior director with the Environmental Protection Network, criticized the administration for prioritizing industry profits over public safety. He noted that about 180 million people live within several miles of plants covered by the RMP rules, with dozens killed in recent years due to chemical disasters.
EPA's Justification and Industry Influence
In a statement to the Guardian, an EPA spokesperson claimed the proposed revisions aim to strengthen the law by providing clearer and more workable rules. The agency argues it is maintaining core accident prevention protections while removing duplicative or unproven requirements that add cost without improving safety outcomes.
However, public health advocates dispute this, pointing to a pattern of deregulation that increases risks. The original RMP was deemed insufficient after fatal accidents in the early 2010s, such as a Chevron explosion that injured 15,000 people, prompting the Obama administration to develop stronger rules.
Key Provisions Under Threat
The 2024 rules introduced several critical measures, including:
- Requiring hazardous facilities to implement newer technology to prevent disasters.
- Establishing backup systems in case primary defenses fail.
- Mandating the replacement of hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives.
- Developing plans for "double disasters" where natural events like hurricanes exacerbate chemical risks, as seen during Hurricane Harvey in Houston.
Emma Cheuse, an attorney with Earthjustice, emphasized that these are common-sense measures being erased by the Trump proposal, potentially leaving communities vulnerable.
Impact on Workers and Public Access
The 2024 rule also empowered workers by requiring chemical companies to consult with unions on emergency responses, granting stop-work authority, providing training, and enabling hazard reporting. Rick Engler, a former EPA Chemical Safety Board member, accused the administration of shifting power from workers to corporate executives, disregarding past catastrophes that led to layoffs and closures.
Furthermore, the EPA has removed a public data tool mapping hazardous facilities and their chemicals, citing national security concerns. Advocates like Bloom dismiss this as a pretext, arguing it hinders community preparedness and transparency.
As the Trump administration continues its rollbacks, the debate intensifies over balancing economic interests with the imperative to protect millions from chemical disasters.
