The Trump administration’s effort to accelerate data center construction is moving beyond land, energy, and water policy. A new EPA approach is now putting chemical reviews in the spotlight, especially for substances connected to data centers and related infrastructure.
The agency says the review itself will not be weakened. Critics argue that moving some applications to the front of the line could still change the practical level of oversight, particularly for chemicals used in advanced cooling systems.
What the EPA is prioritizing
In September, the EPA announced that it would prioritize regulatory review for new chemicals used in data centers or related projects. The move sits inside a broader Trump administration push tied to AI, including several executive orders and a White House AI Action Plan that were rolled out in July.
The White House has said these actions will usher in a “golden age for American manufacturing and technological dominance.” The Action Plan followed more than 10,000 public comments, including hundreds from industry interests.
The EPA’s new instructions ask companies to show that a chemical belongs to a “qualifying project.” That can include data centers, “covered component projects,” projects that add at least 100 megawatts to the electric grid, projects that “[protect] national security,” or projects deemed applicable by the secretary of defense, the secretary of the interior, the secretary of commerce, or the secretary of energy.
EPA administrator Lee Zeldin framed the change as a response to delays. “We inherited a massive backlog of new chemical reviews from the Biden Administration which is getting in the way of projects as it pertains to data center and artificial intelligence projects,” he said in a statement. “The Trump EPA wants to get out of the way and help speed up progress on these critical developments, as opposed to gumming up the works.”
Why critics see a loophole risk
The EPA has said that eligible chemicals would be moved ahead in the queue, not exempted from review. Agency press secretary Brigit Hirsch said in an email that “No part of the new chemicals review process will be skipped or bypassed for chemicals that meet the criteria for data center or covered component projects.”
Hirsch also said the process would be the same as for other new chemical submissions, with the same level of scientific integrity and the same thresholds for risk determinations.
Greg Schweer, who served as the EPA chief of the new chemicals management branch between 2008 and 2020, is not convinced that the policy is harmless. He told WIRED, “I think they want to impose as few restrictions as possible on chemicals.” He also said, “In previous administrations, political people stayed out of [chemical regulation]—they tried to let science win. Here, the industry has a willing set of ears that wants to listen to their opinions.”
Schweer’s concern is not only the speed of review. It is also the breadth of the qualifying categories and the role that letters from other departments could play in getting a project treated as eligible.
“There are some really big loopholes in here to get chemicals through,” Schweer says. “If you’ve got some friend at the Department of Defense or the Department of Commerce, all you have to do is get that person to send a letter saying, ‘This is a qualifying project.’ There’s no proof involved.”
He also warned that pressure to move quickly could affect the quality of agency review. “If you have to do things quickly, you look for shortcuts, and you don’t always have time to look at all the data very well.”
Data centers may not be the main chemical driver
Experts cited by WIRED said ordinary data center operations are unlikely to be the biggest source of new chemical applications under the policy. Walter Leclerc, an independent health and safety consultant to the data center industry, said many chemicals now used in data centers also appear in other industries.
That includes lubricants, fire suppressants, and water treatment chemicals. Leclerc said those chemicals “are no different from [what’s used in] Suzie and John’s industrial business.”
The more important issue may be cooling. Keeping data center equipment cool is a huge component of operating costs. As AI infrastructure expands, techniques that reduce cooling expenses could become more attractive to operators.
The PFAS concern centers on immersion cooling
One cooling method described in the source is immersion cooling. It involves placing server racks and other machinery in a special liquid that does not conduct electricity. A subtype called two-phase immersion cooling goes further: the liquid boils into gas, reaches a coil, turns back into liquid, and falls back into the tank.
These systems can reduce the need for fans, pumps, and other equipment. They can also save data centers money over time on electricity bills. The source notes that the market for specialty data center cooling liquids has grown sharply in recent years, with Exxon and Shell entering the field.
Leclerc described the tradeoff plainly: “Immersion cooling is the best,” he said. “The problem is it’s got all the environmental effects.”
The PFAS issue arises because some substances used in two-phase immersion cooling largely contain fluorine and carbon. Those elements help create types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals, or PFAS. These chemicals are often called “forever chemicals” because they persist in the environment for a long time.
According to the source, some PFAS have been linked to a wide variety of human health problems, including increased risk of cancer, reproductive issues, and suppressed immune response. They have also faced more regulation in recent years. The EU has proposed working toward what could be a strict ban on PFAS, and several US states are moving to restrict or eliminate them.
The Trump administration has said PFAS regulation is a priority, while also beginning to roll back some Biden-era rules on some of these chemicals.
Industry is already watching the risk
Large companies appear aware that PFAS in cooling systems could create legal and regulatory problems. The source points to legal battles and settlements affecting PFAS producers such as 3M, which has pledged to discontinue manufacturing and using PFAS this year.
A study released in April and coauthored by Microsoft researchers examined environmental life cycles of data center cooling techniques. It noted that “emerging PFAS regulations in the European Union and the United States” could “restrict” the use of two-phase immersion cooling.
That is the core tension in the EPA’s new priority pathway. Faster review may help companies move data center and AI projects more quickly. But if the chemicals at issue include new PFAS or related cooling substances, the speed of the process becomes more than an administrative detail. It becomes a question of how much uncertainty the US is willing to accept in order to build faster.