WASHINGTON – The Trump administration promised to combat toxic “forever chemicals,” while conversely canceling nearly 800 grants aimed at addressing environmental injustices, including in communities plagued with PFAS contamination.
In a court filing, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed for the first time that it intends to cancel 781 environmental justice grants, nearly double what had previously been disclosed.
Environmental justice advocates say the EPA’s pledge to combat PFAS rings hollow as it simultaneously slashes its budget, shutters key offices, and cancels hundreds of grants aimed at addressing pollution in low-income and vulnerable communities.
“I think it’s ironic that [the EPA] is positioning itself as justly enforcing its mission of protecting human health and the environment when they’re doing the antithesis of that,” said Amanda Cronin, a staffer in the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. “Environmental justice is truly about uplifting individuals, organizations and communities that experience environmental threats and disasters aggravated by the climate crisis.”
Cronin is one of roughly 450 EPA officials who were fired or reassigned by the Trump administration for working on environmental justice issues or diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“By cutting our office, they are directly harming their own voters,” she said. “Many people who voted for him and who support Republican members of Congress live in environmental justice communities and were either currently benefiting from or were about to benefit from the unprecedented grants our office provided.”
Despite this, the agency outlined a series of actions to combat per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which are synthetic chemicals used in everything from non-stick cookware to water-resistant clothing. These toxic chemicals have been linked to cancer and other serious health issues. PFAS have been detected in the blood of 97% of Americans.
“I have long been concerned about PFAS and the efforts to help states and communities dealing with legacy contamination in their backyards,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in a statement.
The plan includes enhanced scientific testing, holding polluters financially accountable, and appointing a new official to oversee these PFAS efforts. However, the announcement lacked key details such as enforcement mechanisms or a timeline, adding to environmental advocates’ skepticism.
“I'm worried that it's a lot of talk without a lot of action,” said Corinne Bell, a senior attorney at the National Resources Defense Council. “I’d like to hear about how they plan on funding the plan they've released. What resources are they going to put behind creating additional science and testing methods? How will they ensure that drinking water plants have the money they need to install filtration?”
The same court filing that disclosed the number of canceled grants also noted that 377 grantees had already received termination notices.
“The EPA has already sent out formal notices to approximately 377 grantees,” Daniel Coogan, EPA deputy assistant administrator for infrastructure and extramural resources, said in the filing. “For the remaining approximately 404 grantees, EPA plans to issue notices within the next two weeks.”
The canceled grants were originally awarded under the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act through the EPA’s Environmental and Climate Justice Program. The program aimed to fund community-driven projects tackling pollution and health disparities. Many of these grants could help the communities dealing with the legacy pollution that Zeldin promised to help.
The cuts are part of a broader effort by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, to eliminate what it calls ideologically driven federal spending.
Adding to advocates’ concerns about the Trump administration’s PFAS initiative: the administration has not committed to defending a major Biden-era PFAS drinking water regulation in court. Finalized in April 2024, the rule set enforceable limits on six PFAS compounds. Utility companies sued to block the rule, arguing they shouldn’t bear the financial burden of cleanup.
Court records show the EPA twice requested delays in the case while the administration decides whether to defend the rule.
“New EPA leadership is in the process of reviewing the PFAS drinking water rule and the issues presented in the litigation in the current case around it, and developing its position on how to proceed,” said the EPA press office in an email to Medill News Service.
Finya Swai is an energy and environment reporter for Medill News Service, covering Capitol Hill and the White House. She is also a graduate student at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, specializing in politics, policy and foreign affairs.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.