This is Part 2 of a two-part series, following Part 1, which was published in the May 2025 issue of CEP and shared on ChEnected recently. This article originally appeared in the ChE in Context column in the December 2025 issue of CEP and provides a further update regarding one of the most dynamic and uncertain environments in recent history.
Administration priorities
This administration’s policies continue to support fossil fuels over renewable energy, shifting national project portfolios across the energy and chemical sector away from decarbonization, which conflicts with global climate change mitigation goals.
International trade policies remain in a state of flux. Trade restrictions and tariffs, especially those involving key raw materials and process equipment, are disrupting supply chains and increasing costs. Production costs have risen across all chemical sectors, prompting a need for increased resiliency, such as localizing production, diversifying suppliers, and expanding the use of reclaimed and reprocessed materials. Additionally, recent immigration changes — particularly those affecting student and work visas — pose challenges for research institutions and industry leaders that rely on a global engineering workforce.
Meanwhile, shifts in science funding and research infrastructure have created uncertainty for laboratories and technology developers that are dependent on federal grants. Visa restrictions and consular backlogs have reduced the arrival of new international students into engineering programs by nearly 20% relative to 2024.
Compliance and regulatory landscape
Uncertainty regarding regulatory compliance requirements, particularly around environmental, operational, and safety concerns, is also substantially impacting chemical engineers. Some of the prior administration’s PFAS “forever chemicals” requirements remain in place, including the CERCLA hazardous substance listings and Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFAS (8-carbon-chain molecules), while the MCLs for other PFAS (PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX) have been rescinded. This administration has challenged the basis for all federal Clean Air Act greenhouse gas (GHG) regulation by proposing to rescind the Endangerment Finding, in addition to filing judicial challenges to individual states’ GHG regulations.
New permit-streamlining approaches and reduced program funding will likely shift more burden to delegated state agencies, which are now faced with both more compliance oversight and fewer resources. These trends lead to increased legal and reputational risks, particularly with increasing litigation involving states, the administration, and others. Chemical engineers must remain vigilant, ensuring process safety and environmental stewardship even in periods of reduced oversight.
Administration decisions and court oversight
The appointment of new agency leaders and federal judges has already influenced regulatory interpretations and enforcement priorities. For example, priorities around industrial security and U.S. chemical manufacturing have led to temporary compliance exemptions from air emission standards, assumptions of consistent personal protective equipment (PPE) use in Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk assessments, and postponed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules for chlorinated solvents. At the same time, in City and County of San Francisco vs. EPA (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court limited flexibility built into the federal Clean Water Act, mandating specific permit limits or operational standards to protect water quality.
Funding adjustments for key agencies, including the EPA, Dept. of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Dept. of Education (ED), are reshaping research and compliance capabilities. Discussions about restructuring, downsizing, or eliminating certain agencies, along with high-profile staff departures, have heightened uncertainty about long-term regulatory consistency — factors that directly affect project approval timelines and risk assessments in the chemical sector. Significant budget cuts within these agencies have greatly reduced support for research and development activities that will impact technology development and innovation. The reduction of many of the ED TRIO programs — services that support disadvantaged students — will have a substantial impact on the diversity of the chemical engineering workforce.
Strategies for navigating uncertainty
To adapt to this level of general uncertainty, chemical engineers and their organizations must stay informed about evolving rulemakings while maintaining full compliance with legal obligations, even amid enforcement slowdowns. When exemptions or flexibilities are offered, it is prudent to vet potential citizen suit and other litigation risks with qualified legal counsel before utilizing them, while also seeking written assurances from regulatory agencies to document operational security. Comprehensive risk management frameworks — incorporating legal, environmental, and technical considerations — will help ensure safe, ethical, and profitable operations in an increasingly unpredictable policy landscape.
For individuals, professional resilience and technical adaptability are critical. Follow closely those policy changes that might impact you, your employer, or your career. Information is key, but so too is the recognition that not everything being discussed will be implemented, and that new policies may be overturned following legal review.
This article originally appeared in the ChE in Context column in the December 2025 issue of CEP. Members have access online to complete issues, including a vast, searchable archive of back-issues found at www.aiche.org/cep.
