The Trump Administration’s Push for Data Centers Could Unleash a New Wave of Forever Chemicals—And Here’s Why That’s a Big Deal
November 26, 2025
Imagine a future where the race for technological dominance comes at the cost of long-term environmental and health risks. That’s the concern experts are raising as the Trump administration accelerates chemical approvals for data centers, potentially opening the floodgates for new types of forever chemicals—with limited oversight. But here’s where it gets controversial: While the administration touts this as a step toward American innovation, critics argue it’s a dangerous gamble with our planet’s health. And this is the part most people miss: It’s not just about data centers—it’s about a broader policy shift that could impact industries far beyond tech.
In recent months, the Trump administration has aggressively deregulated to pave the way for more data centers. This includes rolling back clean water regulations and opening public lands to coal mining. Now, the focus has shifted to chemical regulation, with the EPA prioritizing the review of new chemicals used in data centers or related projects. This move is part of a broader overhaul tied to the White House’s AI Action Plan, which aims to accelerate American manufacturing and technological leadership.
The Problem? Speed Over Scrutiny.
The EPA’s new policy promises to fast-track chemical approvals for projects deemed critical, including those tied to data centers, national security, or energy infrastructure. While this might sound like progress, former EPA officials like Greg Schweer, who led the new chemicals management branch from 2008 to 2020, warn of significant risks. “I think they want to impose as few restrictions as possible on chemicals,” Schweer says. “In previous administrations, political people stayed out of [chemical regulation]—they tried to let science win. Here, the industry has a willing set of ears that wants to listen to their opinions.”
The policy allows companies to submit documentation proving their chemicals are part of a “qualifying project,” such as data center cooling systems. But critics argue this process is ripe for abuse. “If you’ve got some friend at the Department of Defense or the Department of Commerce, all you have to do is get that person to send a letter saying, ‘This is a qualifying project,’” Schweer explains. “There’s no proof involved.”
Forever Chemicals in the Spotlight
One area of concern is the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment. These chemicals, linked to cancer, reproductive issues, and immune system suppression, are increasingly regulated globally. Yet, they’re crucial for advanced cooling techniques like two-phase immersion cooling, which data centers rely on to reduce energy costs.
Companies like Chemours have developed new PFAS-based cooling fluids, touting energy savings of up to 90%. But their push for regulatory approvals raises red flags. Chemours, which spun off from DuPont in 2015, has paid hundreds of millions in settlements for PFAS pollution and faces ongoing lawsuits. Despite this, they’ve urged the administration to reform chemical regulations to “swiftly adopt new technologies” that boost U.S. competitiveness.
The Semiconductor Industry’s Role
It’s not just data centers. The semiconductor industry, which produces chips essential for data centers, stands to benefit significantly from expedited chemical reviews. Semiconductor manufacturing relies on forever chemicals at multiple stages, including photolithography. Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a lawyer at Earthjustice, warns, “The administration has this kind of AI-at-all-costs mindset, where you’re rushing to build more data centers and chip fabs without any meaningful plan for dealing with their climate impacts, their natural resource impacts, and the toxic substances being used.”
The Broader Implications
The policy’s scope extends far beyond data centers. Any company can potentially fast-track chemical approvals by linking their products to qualifying projects. This raises concerns about long-term safety. Walter Leclerc, a data center industry consultant, notes, “Making it quicker and easier for chemicals to go through the EPA is a pro-growth move. But there’s definitely long-term safety implications.”
The Debate: Innovation vs. Regulation
Proponents argue that streamlining chemical approvals is essential for U.S. technological leadership. But critics counter that rushing approvals could lead to sloppy oversight and environmental harm. “If you have to do things quickly, you look for shortcuts, and you don’t always have time to look at all the data very well,” Schweer warns.
What’s Next?
As the EPA moves forward with its policy, the question remains: Can we balance innovation with environmental responsibility? Or are we sacrificing long-term health for short-term gains? This debate is far from over, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. What do you think? Is this a necessary step for American competitiveness, or a reckless gamble with our future? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments.
