For the past year, we have been watching to see how the Trump Administration approached protecting families from lead exposure as part of its Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) effort. Would it continue the impressive progress we saw in 2024 or roll those successes back as part of its deregulatory and budget-cutting efforts? Nine months in, we examine the signals and actions in a series of blogs.
In October 2024, EPA, with strong support from the Biden White House, finalized its Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), turning years of talk about “no safe level of lead exposure” into policy and action. We praised the rulemaking, especially when effectively coupled with $15 billion in funding provided to states through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) to support Lead Service Line (LSL) replacement programs by drinking water utilities. Congress provided these funds in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law1 (BIL) in 2021 to be distributed over five years.
The bottom line is that Trump’s EPA is sending mixed signals regarding its commitment to protecting families from lead in drinking water. The agency is defending the LCRI and claiming that preventing lead exposure is a top priority. But it missed an important deadline to provide funding to states to replace LSLs, possibly because of political calculations regarding Florida.
Decision to Defend the LCRI is a Positive Sign
On August 5, EPA announced it would defend the LCRI against American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) lawsuit challenging the rule. In its September opening brief, AWWA claimed that EPA violated the law because: 1) the deadline requiring utilities to replace the vast majority of the LSLs by 2037 was not feasible, primarily because there were insufficient workers; and 2) that a property owner granting access to an LSL on private property was not sufficient control of the line to trigger responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
EPA’s decision is important since these cases often result in a consent decree where the new agency leadership agrees to propose a rulemaking to consider specific changes sought by the plaintiff. EPA’s decision signaled that AWWA’s demands went too far. The case is scheduled for briefing to be completed by the January 30, 2026, for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel to decide. Three NGOs have intervened to ensure that the public’s interest is represented.
In the meantime, the LCRI remains in effect, including the 2027 deadline for utilities to begin replacing their LSLs over 10 years, unless their state grants an extension. They must also use the 10 parts per billion (ppb) Lead Action Level—down from 15 ppb—to assess whether more aggressive action, including public education, is required.
Missed Important Deadline to Allocate $3 billion to States for LSL Replacement
Every year, usually by the end of May, EPA publishes its annual allocation of SRF money to states so they could secure their funds and begin awarding it to utilities. This allocation includes the annual appropriations from Congress. In fiscal years 2022 to 2026, it also includes BIL funding.
EPA’s allocation of the $3 billion/year from BIL to states for LSL replacement programs has been challenging from the start because EPA did not have a credible estimate of the number of LSLs in each state. For FY23, EPA had a better estimate based on a survey2 it had done, but serious reporting problems in Florida and Texas inflated the number of LSLs in those states. As a result, they got much more funding than they should, effectively depriving states with more actual LSLs such as Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania of critical resources.
For FY24, EPA fixed some of the problems with Texas and several other states, but Florida was still getting much more funding—as much as $200 million more—than it deserved.
Thanks to 2021 revisions to the LCR by EPA under the first Trump Administration, EPA expected to have a credible LSL inventory for its FY25 and FY26 allocations because it would be based on service line inventories submitted by utilities to states in October 2024. States were required to compile the information and report it to EPA in April 2025.
In May 2025, EPA released the allocation for FY25 for all but the LSL replacement funding. The agency said it would release that information “when they are finalized in the coming weeks.”
Six months later, EPA still has not published the allocation, leaving states in limbo. Some have begun to suspend distribution of LSL replacement program funding to utilities. The shutdown has only aggravated the problem.
EPA has not provided an explanation for the delay. We suspect that EPA leadership is wrestling with the political implications of trimming Florida’s share by $200 million, even though the state does not deserve, much less need, that funding.
EPA’s Says Lead is a Top Priority But …
In July, EPA Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi sent a letter to agency leadership stating that “[r]ecognizing the need to ensure continued progress in reducing lead exposure, the Trump Administration is reconstituting the Senior Lead Leadership Coordinating Committee … and a parallel operational Lead Coordinating Committee.” He said, “EPA is continuing to work under the government-wide 2018 Federal Lead Action Plan,” affirmed the four goals3 in that plan, and directed headquarters and regional offices to designate “Lead Leadership Champions” and operational and communications contacts. In addition, S. Xiah Kragie would continue as the agency’s action lead coordinator. For drinking water, the 2018 Action Plan includes calls for assisting schools and child care centers and distributing SRF and other funding to states.
In an August meeting of EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC), the agency’s new leadership in its offices4 talked about their priorities. The message was that reducing lead exposure was a top priority. Peggy Browne, Acting Assistant Administrator and Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water emphasized her commitment to reducing lead in drinking water.
In an October decision that weakened the agency’s soil-lead cleanup guidance, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said “protecting children from harmful lead exposure is a top priority for the Trump EPA.” The decision was a red flag that EPA’s talk is inconsistent with its actions in other areas of lead prevention.
- Also known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). ↩︎
- EPA’s 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment (DWINSA). ↩︎
- Goal 1: Reduce children’s exposure to lead sources; Goal 2: Identify lead-exposed children and improve their health outcomes; Goal 3: Communicate more effectively with stakeholders; and Goal 4: Support and conduct critical research to inform efforts to reduce lead exposures. ↩︎
- See agenda. The panelists were Becky Keogh, Associate Administrator, Office of Policy; Teresa Booeshaghi, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, Office of Land and Emergency Management; Peggy Browne, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water; Lynn Dekleva, Deputy Assistant Administrator for New Chemicals, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention; and Kyle Kunkler, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticides, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Abbie Tardif, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation was scheduled to attend but was pulled away. ↩︎