US EPA eyes higher user fees for chemical reviews amid agency budget cuts

The White House released new details May 30 about its plan to gut funding for the US Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 2026, which begins Oct. 1. In a supplement to President Donald J. Trump’s initial May 2 budget request, the administration identifies dozens of programs that it plans to eliminate or curtail to decrease funding for the EPA by $4.9 billion, or 54% compared with the fiscal year 2025 enacted level.

As part of those cuts, 1,274 full-time positions would be eliminated. The EPA also plans to vacate the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC, and a research facility in Chapel Hill, NC, by Sept. 30.

To make up for some of the losses in funding, the EPA plans to increase fees paid by the chemical industry. Under the proposed budget, user fees that help fund the review of the risks of new and existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act would increase from $5 million in 2025 to $11 million in fiscal year 2026.

“The EPA is focused on a back-to-basics approach that will lower the cost of living, remove unnecessary barriers for business and industry, empower states, and return the Agency to administering core statutory obligations as Congress intended,” the agency says in a budget-in-brief document that accompanies the May 30 release of the supplement.

The EPA’s proposed budget calls for a 35% cut to science and technology funding, from $726 million in fiscal year 2025 to $501 million in 2026. Air and energy research would decrease $62 million, or 65%, and research on chemical safety for sustainability would lose $35 million, or 28%. Another program focused on sustainable and healthy communities would lose $74 million, or 56%.

Environmental advocates are sounding the alarm, saying such deep cuts will undermine the EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment. The Environmental Protection Network (EPN), a group of former EPA staff, is particularly concerned about a proposed decrease of $184 million, or 49%, in funding allocated to enforcement at the EPA. 

“This unprecedented rollback would leave polluters unchecked, eliminate critical oversight and signal a dangerous abdication of EPA’s legal responsibility to ensure clean air, safe water, and healthy communities,” the EPN says in a statement. The group also points out that the proposal calls for a 50% cut to the EPA’s Brownfields revitalization program, despite testimony from EPA administrator Lee Zeldin during recent budget hearings asserting support for the program. “The proposed budget abandons that commitment, jeopardizing community efforts to safely redevelop contaminated sites and stimulate local economies.”

The EPA’s plan to zero out government funding for remediation at Superfund sites concerns both environmental groups and industry. The agency intends to make up the loss with taxes on chemicals and money from legal settlements with entities responsible for pollution.

Chemical manufacturers have long been opposed to paying taxes on feedstock chemicals to support Superfund cleanups that often have no connection to them. Congress allowed the tax to expire in 1995 but reinstated it in 2021.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents chemical manufacturers, did not respond to questions about increases in user fees or Superfund taxes. Instead, the group welcomed the EPA’s efforts to reduce backlogs in reviewing the safety of new chemicals. “We support efforts to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and effectively to meet the EPA’s statutory requirements,” an ACC spokesperson says in an emailed statement.

It is unclear whether Congress will go along with the president’s budget request for the EPA. During budget hearings in May, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle questioned the proposed $2.6 billion cut to state revolving funds that are used to help states improve infrastructure for drinking water and wastewater and the $1 billion cut to categorical grants that also help states clean up environmental contaminants.

“EPA is returning the responsibility of infrastructure funding to the states to leverage the strongest return on investment towards these projects per taxpayer’s dollar, while retaining funding to allow for an offramp as states prepare during this transition period,” the EPA says in the budget-in-brief document.