The 2026 Midterm Elections: What a Changed Congress Could Mean for EPA and the Regulated Community

The results of the 2026 midterm elections may mark an important turning point in federal environmental policy. With Democrats projected to take control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, the balance of power in Washington is changing as President Trump’s administration enters the final two years of its term.

For the regulated community, the election raises important questions about the future direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the durability of its deregulatory agenda, federal environmental enforcement, and the potential for renewed congressional scrutiny of environmental policy.

Although the election does not change the President’s authority to direct executive branch agencies, the change in congressional control introduces a new institutional dynamic. Congressional oversight, appropriations, legislative initiatives, and confirmation authority could all become important mechanisms through which the incoming Congress seeks to influence EPA’s priorities.

For manufacturers, industrial operators, developers, utilities, and other entities subject to federal environmental requirements, the practical consequences could extend well beyond Washington’s political landscape.

1. Congressional Oversight of EPA’s Deregulatory Agenda

One of the most immediate consequences of the election will likely be increased congressional scrutiny of EPA’s regulatory and deregulatory activities.

The Trump administration has pursued an extensive effort to reconsider, rescind, or modify environmental regulations adopted under prior administrations. These initiatives have addressed significant portions of the environmental regulatory framework, including greenhouse gas regulation, air quality standards, water regulation, chemical safety, and federal environmental enforcement.

A Democratic-controlled Congress will have greater capacity to investigate the legal, scientific, economic, and procedural foundations of these initiatives. Congressional committees with jurisdiction over environmental matters may conduct hearings, request agency documents, issue subpoenas, and examine the extent to which EPA’s actions comply with statutory requirements.

Particular attention may be directed toward:

• EPA’s reconsideration of greenhouse gas regulations and the Clean Air Act’s regulatory framework.
• Efforts to revise the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act.
• Reconsideration of existing air quality and emissions standards.
• EPA’s approach to chemical regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
• Changes to federal environmental enforcement priorities and staffing.
• The treatment of environmental justice considerations in federal regulatory decisions.

For regulated entities, increased congressional oversight does not automatically invalidate or suspend EPA rulemaking. It may, however, increase uncertainty surrounding the implementation and long-term durability of regulatory changes.

2. The Future of EPA’s Deregulatory Agenda

The election does not, by itself, reverse the administration’s existing regulatory policies. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the administration retain executive authority to pursue their regulatory agenda.

However, congressional control can influence the resources, statutory authority, and political environment in which EPA operates.

The administration’s deregulatory initiatives will likely face more intensive scrutiny, particularly where EPA has relied upon changes in statutory interpretation, reconsideration of prior scientific determinations, or revised approaches to regulatory cost-benefit analysis.

The regulated community should recognize an important distinction: a proposed repeal or reconsideration of a regulation is not the same as a final repeal. Unless and until a regulation is lawfully amended, rescinded, stayed, or vacated, existing legal obligations generally remain in effect.

Moreover, EPA’s regulatory actions remain subject to judicial review. Challenges to the administrative record, statutory authority, scientific analysis, and procedural compliance may determine whether particular deregulatory initiatives survive, regardless of congressional control.

3. PFAS Regulation: An Area of Particular Uncertainty

PFAS regulation is likely to remain one of the most consequential and closely watched areas of environmental policy.

The administration has pursued a more targeted approach to certain PFAS drinking water requirements, while maintaining federal regulation of PFOA and PFOS. EPA has proposed providing public water systems additional time, potentially until 2031, to comply with the PFOA and PFOS drinking water standards. It has also proposed rescinding drinking water regulatory determinations for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and the associated mixture.

A Democratic-controlled Congress may seek to challenge these changes, increase oversight of EPA’s scientific and regulatory decisions, and consider additional legislation addressing PFAS contamination, reporting, and liability.

The potential for congressional action is particularly significant because PFAS issues extend beyond drinking water regulation. They affect industrial wastewater discharges, manufacturing processes, chemical reporting, contaminated property, remediation obligations, and CERCLA liability.

For manufacturers and property owners, the distinction between regulatory changes and existing statutory liability is especially important. The election does not eliminate CERCLA liability associated with designated PFAS hazardous substances, nor does it resolve the numerous questions concerning the scope of liability, allocation, contribution, and available defenses.

Businesses should not assume that changes in EPA’s regulatory priorities will eliminate existing environmental obligations or potential exposure.

4. Environmental Enforcement: Changes in Priorities, Not Necessarily an End to Enforcement

The election may also affect the direction and intensity of federal environmental enforcement.

The administration has emphasized a more targeted enforcement approach, focusing on substantial violations, statutory requirements, and matters presenting significant environmental or public health concerns.

EPA’s FY 2027 budget proposal reflects this approach, including proposed reductions in civil and criminal enforcement resources. The proposed civil enforcement budget would decrease from approximately $231 million in FY 2026 to $137 million in FY 2027.

A Democratic-controlled Congress may seek to challenge these proposed reductions through the appropriations process and increased oversight of EPA’s enforcement activities.

The practical implications could include renewed attention to:

• Industrial air emissions and Clean Air Act compliance.
• Industrial wastewater discharges and NPDES permits.
• Hazardous waste management under RCRA.
• CERCLA investigations and remediation.
• TSCA reporting and chemical management obligations.
• Environmental violations involving PFAS and other emerging contaminants.

It is important to distinguish federal enforcement from state enforcement. Even if federal enforcement resources are constrained, authorized state environmental agencies retain substantial independent enforcement authority. In Ohio, for example, Ohio EPA’s regulatory and enforcement responsibilities will continue regardless of changes in federal congressional control.

Consequently, businesses should not interpret a potentially reduced federal enforcement emphasis as a reduction in their underlying compliance obligations.

5. Congressional Appropriations Could Become a Major Battleground

Perhaps the most consequential mechanism available to the incoming Congress will be its control over federal appropriations.

Congress determines the funding available to EPA and can influence how appropriated funds are allocated and used. A Democratic-controlled Congress may seek to restore or protect funding for environmental enforcement, scientific research, climate programs, environmental remediation, and federal-state environmental partnerships.

EPA’s FY 2027 budget request proposed significant reductions in agency funding. Congressional appropriators will have an opportunity to reconsider those proposals and determine whether the administration receives the resources it requested.

Appropriations decisions may have practical consequences for:

• EPA inspection and enforcement staffing.
• Superfund investigations and remediation.
• Brownfield assessment and redevelopment grants.
• State environmental program funding.
• Environmental research and scientific assessments.
• Federal oversight of industrial facilities and contaminated sites.

For the regulated community, these funding decisions may be as consequential as individual rulemakings. EPA’s ability to implement regulations, conduct inspections, process permits, and oversee remediation programs depends in significant part on available personnel and financial resources.

6. The Potential for New Environmental Legislation

Although a change in congressional control creates opportunities for new legislative initiatives, significant environmental legislation will not necessarily follow.

The Senate’s legislative procedures, the potential filibuster, presidential veto authority, and the need for bipartisan support will constrain the ability of a Democratic majority to enact sweeping statutory changes.

Nevertheless, several areas may receive renewed legislative attention:

• PFAS regulation and liability allocation.
• CERCLA amendments addressing emerging contaminants and responsible-party liability.
• Federal environmental permitting reform.
• Clean Air Act emissions requirements.
• Clean Water Act protections and jurisdiction.
• TSCA chemical evaluation and reporting.
• Environmental funding and remediation programs.

Of particular interest to manufacturers and commercial property owners will be whether Congress revisits the allocation of PFAS-related cleanup costs and potential CERCLA liability. Bipartisan concerns about the impact of PFAS liability on municipal water systems, airports, manufacturers, and other potentially responsible parties could provide an opportunity for legislative discussions.

However, regulated entities should distinguish between proposed legislation and enacted statutory amendments. Until Congress passes legislation and it becomes law, existing statutory obligations remain controlling.

7. What Should the Regulated Community Do Now?

The change in congressional control creates a period of potential regulatory transition. Businesses should prepare for the possibility that federal environmental policy will become increasingly contested, with competing regulatory initiatives, congressional oversight, and litigation proceeding simultaneously.

We recommend that regulated entities consider the following steps:

1. Continue complying with existing requirements. Do not assume that proposed regulatory rollbacks, anticipated legislative changes, or shifts in enforcement priorities excuse compliance with existing permits, regulations, and statutory obligations.
2. Reevaluate environmental compliance programs. Review air, water, waste, chemical management, and reporting obligations to identify potential vulnerabilities before regulatory or enforcement priorities change.
3. Monitor PFAS developments. Manufacturers, industrial facilities, water utilities, and owners of potentially contaminated properties should continue evaluating PFAS-related regulatory requirements, contractual obligations, and potential CERCLA exposure.
4. Reassess environmental due diligence. Developers, purchasers, lenders, and property owners should continue incorporating environmental regulatory developments into Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, transaction documents, indemnification provisions, and remediation strategies.
5. Preserve opportunities for regulatory participation. Companies and industry associations should monitor proposed EPA rules, congressional hearings, and opportunities to submit technical and economic comments. Participation in the administrative record may be important if subsequent regulatory actions are challenged.
6. Prepare for continued regulatory uncertainty. Businesses should evaluate environmental compliance and capital investment decisions against multiple regulatory scenarios rather than relying exclusively on the continuation of any particular administration’s policies.

Conclusion

The 2026 midterm elections introduce a new dimension to federal environmental regulation. A Democratic-controlled Congress will have additional tools to scrutinize EPA’s actions, influence agency funding, challenge regulatory rollbacks, and pursue legislative initiatives. At the same time, the Trump administration retains executive authority over EPA, and the agency’s existing regulatory agenda will not automatically disappear.

The likely result is not an immediate reversal of federal environmental policy, but an increasingly contested regulatory environment in which agency rulemaking, congressional oversight, appropriations, and litigation will play interconnected roles.

For the regulated community, the principal takeaway is straightforward: regulatory change does not necessarily mean regulatory relief, and a change in congressional control does not eliminate existing environmental obligations.

Manufacturers, developers, and other regulated entities should continue to monitor federal and state developments, maintain robust compliance programs, and assess how evolving environmental requirements may affect their operations, transactions, and long-term business planning.

For questions about how the midterm elections may affect environmental regulation, enforcement, or compliance for your business, contact Michael Blumenthal or any member of Frantz Ward’s Environmental Practice Group.

This Client Alert is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein is current as of the date of publication and may be affected by subsequent legal or regulatory developments.