The Trump administration will “reconsider” a ban on the use of asbestos in the U.S. that took a decades-long battle to be finalized, sparking concern among health advocates.
“This is another attempt by industry, going back to when they blocked the first EPA asbestos ban in 1989, to allow for continued use of a deadly material responsible for some 40,000 U.S. deaths and some 250,000 worldwide deaths each year,” Dr. Arthur L. Frank, a professor of public health and medicine at Drexel University, told Newsweek.
“We know in some settings as little as one day of exposure can give some individuals cancer,” he added.
Newsweek has contacted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) via email for comment.
Conor Ralph/The Flint Journal- MLive.com via AP
Why It Matters
Asbestos was used by building and construction industries for strengthening cement and plastics as well as for insulation, roofing, fireproofing and sound absorption. Since 2000, more research uncovered the health risks associated with the mineral, and it has been classified by various U.S. departments as a known human carcinogen.
Exposure to asbestos is linked to more than 40,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to the EPA under the Biden administration.
Chrysotile asbestos, also known as white asbestos, is banned in 50 countries because of its association with lung cancer, and in 2024, the Biden administration finalized its own ban, meaning the last type of asbestos used in or imported into the country would be prohibited.
What To Know
According to court documents filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the EPA said that the process of re-evaluating the ban would take about 30 months, delaying the implementation of the ban finalized by the Biden administration.
The move was opposed by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the court filings said.
“Reconsidering the EPA’s 2024 Chrysotile Asbestos Rule is deeply concerning,” Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, told Newsweek.
Reinstein lost her husband, Alan, to a type of lung cancer, mesothelioma, caused by asbestos.
“As a mesothelioma widow, I never imagined I’d hear an administration try to ‘Make Asbestos Great Again,’ she said. “It’s not just outrageous—it’s deadly.”
“While this rule was a landmark step under the Toxic Substances Control Act, it only banned one fiber—chrysotile—in six specific conditions of use,” Reinstein added. “Now, due to litigation and political pressure, the EPA has signaled it may reverse core parts of the rule, including protections for chlorine and caustic soda manufacturing.”
The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, within the EPA, will be investigating whether the Toxic Substances Control Act “went beyond what is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk and whether alternative measures—such as requiring permanent workplace protection measures—would eliminate the unreasonable risk.”
The Toxic Substances Control Act includes the Biden administration’s plan to ban asbestos from use in the U.S.
When the Biden administration announced its finalization of the ban in the summer of 2024, the EPA administrator at the time, Michael Regan said: “The science is clear—asbestos is a known carcinogen that has severe impacts on public health.”
However, Trump, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, said that asbestos is “100 percent safe, once applied.”
“I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal,” he added.
In 2018, Uralasbest, one of the world’s largest producers and sellers of asbestos, put Trump’s face, along with the words “Approved by Donald Trump, 45th president of the United States,” on some of its products, according to the Guardian.
What People Are Saying
Dr. Arthur L. Frank, a professor of public health and medicine at Drexel University, told Newsweek: “Although this partial ban went through proper procedures, to now come and claim, as their document states, ‘no party would be prejudiced by the requested abeyance,’ fails to recognize that putting off this ban will lead to unnecessary disease and death for some Americans going forward. The U.S. has not yet joined some 70 countries in the world, including all developed countries, in banning—and in all other cases totally banning—the use of all forms of asbestos.
“While there is currently little import of much raw asbestos fiber, products containing asbestos such as friction products and roofing materials can still be bought and used. The U.S. should have a comprehensive and total ban on import and use and should see that proper disposal takes place for tons still in place. Because of the long latency to develop disease, even with such a ban, new cases of asbestos disease will still be seen 50 years from now.”
Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, told Newsweek: “This rollback is happening in the context of broader deregulatory actions by the Trump administration. Executive Orders 14303 and 13771, combined with EPA staffing cuts, will severely limit the agency’s ability to evaluate and manage chemical risks. These changes threaten to dismantle science-based safeguards and delay action on a known carcinogen that kills 40,000 Americans annually.
“There is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Only federal legislation can ensure a comprehensive and lasting ban. That’s why the bipartisan 2025 Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act is essential. It would ban all forms of asbestos, close dangerous loopholes and prevent further rollbacks.”
Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, told Newsweek: “The Trump Administration’s ‘Polluters over People’ agenda is once again threatening our health, this time undermining the chance for all Americans to have a future free of asbestos exposure. We know that asbestos is a killer, which is why it has been banned in more than 50 countries around the world.
“The United States was starting to catch up, but the Trump EPA is delaying and rolling back this vital public health safeguard, undermining this progress. I will continue to explore all options—including legislation—to phase out all dangerous asbestos fibers and provide stronger protections for our health.”
Dennis Paustenbach, a chief scientist of toxicology and risk exposure for TRC Companies, told Newsweek: “Chrysotile asbestos does not pose the magnitude of risk as the amphibole asbestos. Indeed, most scientists believe there is no reason why it can’t be handled safely, as we handle hundreds of different hazardous chemicals. So, a ban is not necessary. Functionally, asbestos has not been used for decades in the U.S. due, largely, to the risk of litigation. If the government reverses the ban, that means asbestos could still be used in those few situations where it is needed. The primary impact will be on the litigation because it takes away the sensationalism of lawyers claiming ‘it was so toxic that it needed to be banned.’
“I think it is perfectly fine to lift the ban. However, it would probably be preferable to allow the ban but permit certain users to ask for an exemption.”
What Happens Next
While the EPA said, according to the court filings, it would need 30 months to review the legislation, it has requested that the court extend the suspension of the law for six months, subject to additional extension requests.
