Legislative Update: Global Rift Deepens After Plastic Pollution Talks Collapses Again

Global Rift Deepens After Plastic Pollution Talks Collapses Again

Global negotiations for a United Nations treaty on plastic pollution collapsed once again in Geneva, with deep divisions persisting over production limits, chemical restrictions, and financing mechanisms. The UN’s Environment Programme confirmed that talks would resume at a later date, marking the second extension since the original 2024 deadline. While delegates agreed to keep negotiating, many expressed frustration with a draft treaty text that primarily emphasized voluntary measures rather than binding commitments. High-ambition countries and environmental groups criticized the text as weak and inadequate, with Colombia and Panama issuing particularly strong rebukes.

Saudi Arabia, supported by other Arab states, rejected any production caps, while the United States advanced flexible, industry-friendly approaches. Both countries objected to key elements of the draft, signaling sharp resistance to stricter global rules. Although the European Union and other proponents pushed for enforceable measures with timelines, they were unable to overcome the entrenched positions of larger producers and oil-rich nations. China, the world’s top plastics producer, acknowledged the complexity of negotiations but offered little indication of compromise.

A group of Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), called on the U.S. to step aside if unwilling to support ambitious measures, accusing the Trump administration of aligning with oil-producing nations to block meaningful progress. By contrast, plastics industry associations welcomed U.S. engagement and urged governments to focus on waste management solutions rather than production limits. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the International Council of Chemical Associations praised negotiators’ efforts but emphasized compromise and innovation as paths forward.  Industry representatives further cautioned that many “high-ambition” countries and NGOs are using the UN treaty process to push beyond its original purpose of addressing ocean plastic pollution, seeking instead to impose sweeping restrictions on plastic production. They warned that such efforts risk undermining constructive cooperation and diverting attention from practical, solutions-based approaches.

EPA Embraces AI for Faster Chemical Safety Decisions

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin is moving to modernize the agency’s chemical review process under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by integrating artificial intelligence (AI) tools designed to speed up evaluations and reduce delays that have long slowed innovation. New platforms such as the “AI Chemist Assistant” and “EcoVault” would allow regulators to process vast amounts of data more efficiently, cutting through duplicative and outdated review practices.

Industry leaders have welcomed the effort, noting that faster, more predictable timelines will encourage investment and help American companies bring new products to market. The initiative reflects a broader push by the Trump administration to streamline federal processes, with the EPA now running more than 100 AI projects compared to just 17 in late 2024.

Supporters argue that AI adoption will help the EPA meet statutory deadlines, reduce backlogs, and deliver more consistent, science-based outcomes. The move is significant as toxicology has shifted from data scarcity to data abundance, making it critical to use modern tools capable of handling vast datasets. Agency officials say that while challenges remain around data quality and proprietary trade secrets, these are being addressed within the framework of the administration’s scientific integrity standards, ensuring results are verifiable and transparent.

To mitigate risks, EPA policy prohibits relying on AI-generated outputs without verification, recognizing the dangers of “hallucinations” in model results. Experts emphasize that while AI technologies for chemical risk assessment are advancing, successful deployment ultimately depends on careful management, oversight, and building public trust in the process.

EPA Accelerates Chemical Reviews with Streamlined LVE Process

On August 11, the EPA announced major progress in accelerating reviews of Low Volume Exemptions (LVEs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act, highlighting process reforms introduced by the Trump administration. Between April and May, EPA completed 106 LVE risk assessments—an increase of over 250 percent compared to past averages—raising the monthly rate from 15 to 53. The agency also reduced its backlog of LVEs pending review for more than 30 days by more than 23 percent. This initiative aligns with Administrator Lee Zeldin’s broader permitting reform agenda under the Powering the Great American Comeback plan, aimed at boosting efficiency, supporting innovation, and providing regulatory certainty for U.S. manufacturers while protecting public health and the environment.

To achieve these results, EPA established a dedicated review team, implemented case-grouping strategies, assigned discipline-specific expediters, and adopted just-in-time communication to streamline operations. The agency also improved data tracking to measure assessor timeliness and identify inefficiencies, enabling further productivity gains. By the end of May, 80 percent of the 79 previously backlogged LVEs had received final decisions, with the remainder awaiting additional information from applicants. EPA intends to build on these reforms with the goal of completing all LVE reviews within the 30-day statutory period, ensuring timely market access for new chemistries while upholding rigorous health and environmental protections.

EPA Drops AI Review System for Earmarked Water Infrastructure Funding

EPA confirmed that it will not use an AI tool to review water infrastructure projects funded through congressional earmarks, following scrutiny over its potential application. The tool, labeled “AI Prompt for EO Compliance Review,” was designed to flag project descriptions containing terms such as “climate crisis,” “energy efficiency,” and “environmental justice,” which critics said reflected political priorities rather than neutral compliance checks. Initially, the agency said it was testing AI systems to improve efficiency while aligning with Trump administration policies, but reversed course after reports highlighted concerns about bias and misuse.

An EPA spokesperson clarified on August 11 that the tool had not been approved by agency leadership and would not be applied to Congressionally Directed Spending projects. The system was deleted the same evening, according to an EPA staff member. This reversal came after public attention raised questions about whether AI was being used to influence or censor specific project applications.

Critics cautioned that such a tool could slow the timely and fair distribution of federal funds for critical water infrastructure, including drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems. Cliff Villa, a former EPA attorney and senior official, noted that it would be unprecedented for the agency to police the wording of local grant applications. Such an approach could create new bureaucratic hurdles, delay much-needed projects, and undermine confidence in the EPA’s grant-making process.

House Democrats Press EPA for Records on Endangerment Finding Repeal as Public Comments Process Begins

House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Democrats are ramping up attacks on EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s proposal to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding, which serves as the legal foundation for greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. In a letter led by Ranking Member Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI), Democrats accused Zeldin of favoring industry over public health and called his July 29 announcement one of the most damaging of his tenure. They also questioned whether EPA has already predetermined the outcome, citing a since-removed White House regulatory agenda that suggested a September timeline for finalization. Zeldin has pushed back on these claims, reiterating that EPA will follow all legal requirements and carefully consider public comments before any decision is made.  Democrats are demanding information about how the repeal was drafted and requested records by September 2, including internal communications between EPA, DOE, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Trump transition team.

The inquiry comes as the EPA is facing public hearings on the endangerment findings, which will continue throughout the week.  The majority of speakers, who consist mostly of environmental advocates, public health organizations, and state officials, are urging the agency to abandon its proposal. Industry voices were limited, though Michael Geller of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association testified that EPA’s historic greenhouse gas standards have boosted innovation and global competitiveness in U.S. manufacturing. Geller urged the agency to maintain the regulatory framework rather than dismantle it, suggesting that new standards should continue to drive technological advancement while broadening compliance options, including for internal combustion engine vehicles.

The Department of Energy has also entered the debate, soliciting comment on a report challenging the consensus on climate science. That process has drawn lawsuits and allegations of flawed methodology and inadequate public participation. In their letter, Reps. Lofgren and Amo also pressed for details about the report, asking Zeldin whether EPA plans to rely on this report in finalizing its decision.

Trump Administration Threatens Tariffs and Travel Bans Over Global Shipping Climate Plan  

The Trump administration is preparing to retaliate against countries that support an international agreement to impose fees on shipping emissions, with measures including tariffs, visa restrictions, and port levies. The effort, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and several Cabinet members, reflects a departure from previous U.S. withdrawals from climate accords toward more aggressive use of economic leverage to shape global environmental policy. At issue is the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Net-Zero Framework, which would gradually tighten emissions standards and establish a carbon tax on cargo vessels, generating up to $13 billion annually to fund cleaner fuels and technologies. While the U.S. initially backed the IMO’s 2023 decarbonization strategy, it later withdrew and began warning other nations of reprisals if they moved forward.

The administration argues that the plan would disadvantage U.S. liquefied natural gas producers, but experts counter that it could eventually expand opportunities for American leadership in advanced fuel markets. The strategy underscores the administration’s broader willingness to extend tariff policy into climate diplomacy, raising concerns of heightened geopolitical friction. Should the IMO adopt the measure in October, two-thirds approval by member states and participation by at least half of the world’s shipping fleet by 2028 would be required for implementation. This provides the U.S. with a two-year window to continue pressuring nations and potentially hinder enforcement, leaving the future of international maritime decarbonization highly uncertain.

As August Recess Comes to a Close, September Shutdown Politics Threatens Bipartisan Progress on Fall Legislative Priorities

September’s legislative agenda on Capitol Hill will be dominated by the looming fight over government funding and the possibility of a shutdown, but several significant policy efforts may still advance if partisanship does not derail them. Chief among these is the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a must-pass bill that has been enacted annually for more than six decades. The Senate plans to vote on its version when it returns September 2, proposing nearly $925 billion in defense spending compared to the Trump administration’s $893 billion request, while the House has adhered to the administration’s figure. Both chambers’ versions cleared committee with strong bipartisan backing, and the NDAA is expected to serve as a vehicle for additional policy riders. However, committee leaders intend to keep it narrowly focused to ensure passage.

In addition to defense policy, Senate lawmakers will focus on confirming nominations.  Lawmakers are also planning on considering bipartisan health care legislation focused on reforming transparency and pricing reforms for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and the regulation of college athletics.

All of these legislative efforts face uncertainty as the shutdown fight unfolds. The contentious atmosphere may stifle bipartisanship and limit lawmakers’ willingness to compromise. The NDAA remains the most likely to advance, given its longstanding bipartisan tradition, but political battles over government funding and continuing resolutions could overshadow and delay progress on the broader agenda.