*The Natural Resources Defense Council’s latest report details a concerted effort by the Trump administration to dismantle decades‑old safeguards against cancer‑causing chemicals, a move that coincides with a sharp rise in early‑onset cancers across the United States.*
—
A systematic roll‑back of cancer safeguards
Since taking office, the Trump administration has enacted more than 500 regulatory changes that collectively weaken protections against carcinogens, according to an October 2026 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The document, compiled by NRDC lead author Erik Olson, argues that the actions amount to a “pro‑cancer” agenda, eroding protections that once limited public exposure to hazardous substances. The report highlights a series of high‑profile decisions—such as delaying new asbestos rules and supporting Bayer’s bid to keep glyphosate on the market—as well as a broader, less visible strategy that targets the very scientific processes used to assess risk.
Olson described the scale of the effort as “shocking”. “The vast majority of people have no idea that this is happening because the Trump administration is mostly doing it without a lot of fanfare, so it’s hard to piece together this jigsaw puzzle, but we did and it shows a stark and shocking picture,” he said. The NRDC’s analysis points to a coordinated push across multiple agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The timing is particularly concerning. Cancer rates among younger people are climbing. Data from the National Cancer Institute shows that colon‑cancer diagnoses in individuals under 50 have risen by roughly 3 % each year between 2013 and 2022. Overall, 14 common cancer types have increased in prevalence, with childhood leukaemia climbing by 35 % over recent decades. Health experts warn that the loosening of federal safeguards could accelerate these trends, exposing a generation to higher levels of carcinogenic substances in air, water, and everyday products.
Science reshaped to downplay risk
One of the most consequential shifts is the abandonment of the “no safe level of exposure” principle that has guided EPA science for years. This approach assumed that any dose of a carcinogen carries some risk, with danger increasing as exposure rises. The Trump EPA has introduced a “threshold” model that declares certain exposures safe, effectively raising permissible limits for chemicals such as formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium.
EPA official David Fotouhi, the agency’s second‑in‑command, wrote in a memo earlier this year that the EPA had been overly cautious in estimating health risks, including carcinogenicity. He suggested that those risk values should be revisited and relaxed. The memo signalled a broader intent to overhaul the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the EPA’s office responsible for more than 500 risk assessments dating back to 1985. Former EPA water office director Betsy Southerland warned that these changes could “kill any emerging contaminant work” and weaken regulations that protect people from carcinogens in consumer goods and the environment.
The agency has also moved away from long‑term human or animal studies, which are considered the gold standard for risk assessment, toward short‑term “new approach methodologies” (NAMs). NAMs are quicker and cheaper but are widely regarded as less reliable and more susceptible to manipulation. A NAM study was used to reduce the risk classification of p‑DCB, a chemical labelled a carcinogen by most regulatory bodies worldwide.
In addition, the EPA has loosened guidance on how children’s heightened vulnerability to chemicals is factored into risk calculations. This change could diminish protective measures for the most susceptible populations, leaving them exposed to higher levels of toxic substances.
Impact on communities and the environment
The practical consequences of these regulatory shifts are already evident in several sectors. At Superfund sites—designated as the nation’s most polluted locations—weakened cleanup requirements could leave toxic, cancer‑linked substances in the soil and groundwater for longer periods. Communities living near these sites, often low‑income and minority, face heightened health risks as a result.
Air quality has also been affected. The administration has increased the use of “presidential pardons” for carcinogenic air pollutants, a mechanism that the NRDC report claims will boost emissions of arsenic, ethylene oxide, and similar chemicals. While the exact legal basis for these pardons is debated, the effect is an increase in exposure for people living in industrial corridors and near highways.
The EPA’s decision to delay industry‑provided cancer data for chemicals such as benzene, bisphenol A, and vinyl chloride—key ingredients in plastics—has left regulators without crucial information needed to update safety standards. Officials have not indicated when these reviews will resume, creating a regulatory vacuum that leaves the public unprotected.
A former EPA employee, who asked not to be named for fear of retribution, described the situation as “horrifying to watch it all play out”. “It is coming from the top [of the agency], and they are being methodical, and doing a lot of damage to these very critical protection points, which is exactly what the chemical industry has wanted,” the employee said. “There is no way to sugarcoat what is happening.”
The human cost of weakened protections
The human toll of these policy changes is reflected in the rising cancer statistics. The US now expects more than two million new cancer diagnoses this year alone. The surge in early‑onset cancers—those occurring before the age of 50—mirrors a broader global trend that researchers link to increased environmental exposures.
Dr. Maya Patel, an oncologist specialising in gastrointestinal cancers, notes that the 3 % annual increase in colon‑cancer rates among younger adults is “alarming and likely multifactorial, with environmental carcinogens being a significant contributor”. She stresses that the loosening of federal safeguards removes a critical layer of defence that could have mitigated exposure to known carcinogens like formaldehyde, found in many building materials and consumer products.
The NRDC’s report also highlights the psychological burden on affected communities. When residents learn that the very air they breathe or the water they drink may contain higher levels of cancer‑causing substances, trust in governmental institutions erodes. This distrust can discourage people from seeking medical care or participating in public health programmes, compounding the health crisis.
Moreover, the systematic dismantling of protections threatens to reverse decades of progress in public health. The United States once set a global example by prioritising cancer prevention through stringent regulation of hazardous chemicals. The current trajectory, if unchecked, could see the nation regress, placing its citizens at greater risk of preventable cancers.
Why it Matters
The erosion of federal carcinogen protections is not merely a policy dispute; it is a direct threat to public health that cuts across demographic, economic, and geographic lines. By dismantling scientific safeguards, delaying critical data collection, and favouring industry interests over citizen safety, the Trump administration is accelerating exposure to substances known to cause cancer. This shift comes at a time when cancer rates, especially among younger populations, are already climbing sharply. The long‑term consequences will likely include higher diagnosis rates, increased healthcare costs, and a loss of public confidence in the agencies tasked with protecting health and the environment. The stakes are too high to ignore—swift, evidence‑based action is needed to restore and strengthen the protections that safeguard every American from preventable cancers.
