Groups sue Trump’s EPA over fast-track approval of toxic datacenter chemicals
The Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency has approved two new chemicals for use in datacentre and semiconductor manufacturing despite acknowledging they could cause "sudden death" and serious harms including cancer, eye corrosion, neurological damage and reproductive harm. Environmental group Earthjustice has filed a lawsuit arguing the approvals breach the Toxic Substances Control Act, which requires the EPA to restrict chemicals found to pose an "unreasonable risk" — a standard the agency itself admits these compounds meet, yet it imposed only minimal safeguards. The case matters because it highlights concerns that the administration is weakening chemical safety oversight to accelerate the build-out of AI and data infrastructure.
The two compounds are photoacid generators, used in the highly complex process of imprinting circuit patterns onto semiconductor wafers, and may also be Pfas "forever chemicals" — though heavy redaction of EPA documents, including the manufacturer's identity, makes this uncertain. Pfas are used at up to 1,000 steps in chip production and do not naturally break down, accumulating in the body and environment; 2022 testing at one US plant found wastewater Pfas levels as high as 78,000 parts per trillion, far above the EPA's 4ppt drinking water limit. It remains unclear whether the approvals were fast-tracked under a controversial late-2025 Trump executive order intended to speed up datacentre chemical approvals, which critics said signalled an intent to bypass safety review laws; the EPA has not yet responded to requests for comment.
- EPA approved two datacentre chemicals despite acknowledged "sudden death" risk
- Earthjustice lawsuit says approvals breach US toxic chemicals law
- Chemicals may be Pfas "forever chemicals"; key documents heavily redacted
New here? Start with this
Datacentres rely on semiconductor chips, which are made by imprinting tiny circuit patterns onto silicon wafers. Photoacid generators are chemicals used in that process; some may also be PFAS, a group of substances that can persist in the environment and build up in people and wildlife.
In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency assesses chemical risks under the Toxic Substances Control Act. If a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, the law requires the agency to address that risk, including through restrictions. The lawsuit raises questions about how those duties apply when chemicals are used in chip and datacentre production.
The dispute sits alongside efforts to expand AI and data infrastructure, which require more computing capacity and chips. It also concerns what information is available to the public: redactions in the EPA documents have left the chemicals’ manufacturer and whether they are PFAS uncertain.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for the lawsuit argue that the Toxic Substances Control Act sets a clear legal bar: once the EPA itself concedes a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, including cancer, sudden death and reproductive harm, the law requires meaningful restrictions rather than token safeguards. They see the heavy redaction of supporting documents, including the manufacturer's identity, as undermining the public's ability to judge whether protections are adequate, echoing past PFAS contamination episodes that proved costly and slow to remedy once such chemicals were already in wide use. From this view, workers at fabrication plants and communities near wastewater discharge points bear immediate, concrete health risks so that the wider economy can benefit from faster AI infrastructure build-out, and caution should prevail when the potential harms are severe and hard to reverse.
The case against
Defenders of the EPA's approach argue that the statute does not require banning every chemical with hazardous properties, only that risks be managed to an acceptable level, and that modern semiconductor fabrication already relies on rigorous engineering controls, such as closed handling systems, protective equipment and wastewater treatment, that can render intrinsically hazardous substances safe in practice. They note that photoacid generators are essential to advanced chip lithography with few, if any, viable substitutes, and that unnecessary delays in approving them could hand a competitive and national-security advantage to rival chip-producing nations. From this perspective, streamlining chemical review to match the pace of AI and semiconductor investment is a legitimate policy goal, since prolonged regulatory uncertainty itself imposes real economic costs and discourages domestic manufacturing.