The MAHA movement ought to celebrate that the harms associated with fluoride are finally being debated, but it should not turn a blind eye to the EPA’s efforts to sidestep the 2024 federal ruling that ordered the agency to take regulatory action.
On Thursday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans for an “accelerated review” of the risks posed by fluoride in public drinking water. The move has been celebrated by some within the so-called Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, but criticized by others who argue that the EPA is ignoring a 2024 federal court ruling, which found fluoride to be harmful to the neurodevelopment of children.
As part of the announcement, the EPA released a document titled “Fluoride Human Health Toxicity Assessment: Preliminary Assessment Plan and Literature Survey” that detailed the agency’s plans for reviewing the science on water fluoridation.
The document states that the EPA will draw conclusions regarding the “harmful human health effects of fluoride” or determine the levels of fluoride exposure associated with harmful health effects as part of a forthcoming draft human health toxicity assessment. The agency states that it will consider sensitive populations, including infants and children.
“Every American should be able to count on safe, healthy drinking water when they pour a glass to drink or use it to cook a meal, especially for a child,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. ”The Trump EPA is working in lockstep with Secretary Kennedy and following gold standard science to guide our next steps to protect drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.”
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. noted that, “A growing body of evidence indicates that ingesting fluoride can cause neurological harm, and other adverse effects. By contrast, fluoride’s benefits to teeth come almost entirely from topical contact, not from ingestion.”
However, while the EPA’s new announcement focuses on investigating the risks posed by water fluoridation, the agency made it clear that it believes the evaluation should be conducted under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) rather than the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This contradicts a September 2024 federal ruling by Judge Edward Chen, which concluded that fluoridation at the current U.S. level of 0.7 mg/L “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.” That ruling came nine years after plaintiffs first filed a civilian petition under TSCA in November 2016. After the EPA denied the petition, the groups sued, triggering a nearly decade-long legal saga between the EPA, parents of children impacted by water fluoridation, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and Food & Water Watch (FWW). In September 2024, Judge Chen ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor and ordered the EPA to take regulatory action and implement a rule to reduce the harm posed by water fluoridation.
The EPA’s January 2026 press release explicitly states that “rather than conducting a fluoride risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),” the agency believes “a review under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the most appropriate regulatory pathway for addressing fluoride as a drinking water contaminant.” The EPA says this decision is based on the SDWA’s “specific statutory framework for protecting public health from contaminants in drinking water systems.”
EPA Continues to Fight Federal Ruling on Fluoride
Coincidentally, on the same day the EPA announced the next steps in its review of the science on water fluoridation, Department of Justice attorneys representing the EPA in the TSCA lawsuit filed a reply brief as the agency continues to fight the 2024 federal ruling.
In the final days of the Biden administration, the EPA appealed the federal ruling. In 2025, under leadership appointed by President Donald Trump, the EPA decided to continue the appeal of the judge’s ruling.
Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs in the TSCA lawsuit, told The Last American Vagabond that the EPA’s new announcement does not follow the court’s 2024 order.
“This review—to determine IF there is a risk—is fundamentally different than what the court ordered. The court ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate risk. If EPA thinks it can launch a new review instead of implement a rule to address fluoridation’s risk, it is mistaken. But, because EPA is appealing the court’s order, it does not yet have an obligation to abide by the court’s order.”
Connett also stated on Twitter/X, “The time has come for action to reduce the public’s exposure to fluoride; not just another government review. That is what the court ordered EPA to do, and what the MAHA movement should insist upon—especially since EPA’s review will likely take 2 or more years to complete.”
The EPA’s latest appeal brief continues to argue the same points made in its July 2025 appeal: that the plaintiffs lack standing, that the judge improperly considered new evidence, and that the district court went beyond its authority in its management of the case.
Connett and attorneys representing the plaintiffs filed their response to the EPA in November 2025.
At that time Connett said, “It is not too late for EPA’s Lee Zeldin and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to withdraw their appeal and to comply with the court’s order to protect the public from the health risks posed by fluoridation. Doing so would align EPA with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and help this administration deliver on a key part of the MAHA platform.”
A MAHA Bait and Switch?
While the EPA under Trump claims to be interested in updating the science surrounding water fluoridation, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin seems perfectly content to ignore the 2024 federal ruling. Nearly two years have passed since Judge Chen ordered the EPA to act and prevent further harm to Americans, especially pregnant women and children.
The MAHA movement ought to celebrate the fact that the harms associated with fluoride are being debated in public for the first time in decades. However, health freedom advocates should not turn a blind eye to the fact that the Trump administration is refusing to comply with the court’s order and instead choosing to appeal the decision. This could result in more costly, taxpayer-funded legal battles that will continue to put Americans at risk for years to come.
If Trump, Zeldin, and HHS Secretary RFK Jr. are truly serious about improving the health of Americans, they ought to immediately suspend the appeal of the federal court’s ruling and get to work on implementing a new rule on fluoride that will prevent further harm to the American public.
