New Mexico environment officials and national advocates say congressional Republican proposals to overhaul federal regulation of toxic chemicals would undercut state laws, including those currently under review by New Mexico.
Drafts of the legislation, which has not been formally introduced in the U.S. Congress, indicates sweeping changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act, which guides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical reviews, rolling back some of the stronger protections adopted 10 years ago and creating a new regulatory review process. Republican sponsors contend the changes would rebalance “chemical safety and support American innovation.”
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee held a Jan. 22 hearing on the House version of the discussion draft. The Senate Environment and Public Works committee will review the draft Senate bill Wednesday.
Critics of the proposed legislation, including New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney, call the bill a “significant step backwards” for chemical regulations, including those of per-and-polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
New Mexico is currently in the process of rulemaking to phase out and limit thousands of synthetic chemicals present in everyday items such as makeup, upholstery, cooking gear and more, following a 2025 law approved by the state Legislature. Adoption of the PFAS Protection Act has prompted pushback from national chemical industry groups.
“This draft bill would create a cataclysmic hole in the fabric of what states can do to protect people from consumer products with intentionally-added PFAS,” Kenney told Source NM.
Kenney noted that the current draft rules for New Mexico presented to the state’s Environmental Improvement Board defer to the U.S. EPA’s determinations on the safety of pesticides, herbicides and pharmaceuticals. If the proposed legislation Congress is considering is adopted, federal reviews determining a chemical safe could override a state’s stricter rules, he said.
“It’s making it harder for states like New Mexico to actually protect people’s drinking water to protect people’s health, to protect the land where we farm and ranch,” Kenney said. “And it’s entirely frustrating that we spend so much of our time reacting and dealing with federal government failures as opposed to the federal government working with us.”
Kenney told Source NM that he had alerted the governor’s office about the proposed federal legislation and would be lobbying the New Mexico delegation to oppose the proposal if it’s introduced.
At a minimum, the proposed reforms create barriers and uncertainty for how New Mexico can govern toxic chemical exposure, said Gretchen Salter, the policy director for Safer States, a nonprofit seeking to limit exposures to toxic chemicals based in Portland, Oregon.
She noted that 250 environmental nonprofits, several unions and health care organizations signed onto a joint letter opposing the proposed legislation in January.
“If these proposals are adopted, it is easier to put toxic chemicals onto the market and more difficult to remove them. States like New Mexico are going to be left holding the bag to try to clean up and control these chemicals as best they can,” Salter said. “This proposal is really completely unacceptable and takes chemical regulation completely in the wrong direction, completely backwards.”
