Is Trump’s EPA Planning to Continue the Appeal of the Historic Fluoride Ruling?
The Trump administration appears poised to follow in the footsteps of former President Joe Biden by continuing an appeal of the historic federal ruling on fluoride.
In his final days in the White House, former U.S. President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced they were appealing the historic ruling in the federal fluoride lawsuit. Now Donald Trump’s EPA appears poised to continue the appeal process rather than following the court order calling on the agency to take action against the risks posed by fluoridation chemicals.
The order was issued in September 2024 as a result of a nearly decade-long legal battle between the EPA, and parents of children impacted by water fluoridation, as well as the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). Judge Edward Chen found that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligram per liter “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children”. Chen said the risk is sufficient to require the EPA to enact a regulatory response.
The judge said he only had the authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to direct the EPA to take action against the risk, but not to prescribe the specifics of its response, which could range from a national warning to an outright ban.
Supporters of Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement have hoped that Judge Chen’s ruling would be followed by the new administration, especially in light of Kennedy’s vocal opposition to water fluoridation.
In early April, Kennedy and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency’s decision to expeditiously review new scientific information on potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water. Kennedy also said he would instruct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop promoting water fluoridation.
“Without prejudging any outcomes, when this evaluation is completed, we will have an updated foundational scientific evaluation that will inform the agency’s future steps to meet statutory obligations under the Safe Drinking Water Act,” Zeldin said at the time.
Notably, Zeldin and Kennedy did not mention the fluoride lawsuit in their press release or during their press conference.
Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the Fluoride Action Network and other plaintiffs in Judge Chen’s court, commended Kennedy for ending the CDC recommendation of fluoride, but said the EPA does not need to conduct further reviews of fluoride.
“What we need the EPA to do is follow the court’s order from last year. Where the court ordered the EPA to implement a rule-making proceeding to eliminate the unreasonable risk posed by adding fluoridation chemicals to drinking water,” Connett told The Last American Vagabond. “The court didn’t ask EPA to do another review of the science. The court ordered the EPA to take action.”
Connett said previous EPA reviews of fluoride have been “inadequate and superficial”. He worries that the EPA will take years to conduct another review, but in the end arrive at a “preordained conclusion that will not result in changing current water fluoridation practices in the United States.”
Connett may be correct.
In recent weeks the Trump administration has sought and received two extensions to allow more time to decide whether or not the EPA will continue the appeal process started by the Biden admin.
On May 7th, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a 30-day extension for the filing of an opening brief. This extension came only days before the EPA was due to provide an update on May 12th. The Trump administration now has until June 11th to decide whether to continue the appeal or respect the court’s ruling.
“The Solicitor General has not yet made a decision regarding whether to pursue this appeal. A 30-day extension is warranted to give him sufficient time to provide thoughtful consideration regarding whether and what issues to appeal,” wrote attorney Michelle Melton in her extension filing. She said the government needed more time because the case involves “lengthy trial records, and extensive and complex scientific materials”.
Melton is with the Appellate Section of the Environment & Natural Resources Division within the U.S. Department of Justice. The Appellate Section represents the federal government in federal and State appellate courts, and works closely with the Office of the Solicitor General in determining whether to appeal court decisions.
The Solicitor General Will Make the Decision
As Melton noted, the final decision appears to be in the hands of U.S. Solicitor General. As of April 2025, the U.S. Solicitor General is D. John Sauer, the former Solicitor General of Missouri from 2017 to 2023.
Sauer is most well known for being the lawyer who represented Trump in his successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. United States. In that case, Sauer argued that U.S. Presidents have broad immunity for actions taken while in office, including ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate political rivals.
“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?,” a judge asked Sauer in January 2024. Sauer responded with a “qualified yes”, noting that a President would first “have to be impeached and convicted”.
Sauer has also previously spoken against censorship under the Biden administration.
However, Sauer has not made any public statements regarding his view on water fluoridation, or the federal court’s decision ordering the EPA to take action to prevent harms from water fluoridation.
TLAV will continue to provide updates on the progress of the fight to enforce the federal court’s ruling.
