The Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network North America have sued the Trump administration regarding the registration of trifludimoxazin. The lawsuit, filed on Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, challenges the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) June 2026 approval of the chemical.

Trifludimoxazin is a potent perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) pesticide that breaks down into long-lived byproducts over years or decades. The EPA approved its use on widely consumed crops, including corn, wheat, oats, soybeans, oranges, apples, peanuts, and almonds. This marks the fifth PFAS pesticide approved under the second Trump administration.

Health and Environmental Risks

Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety, stated that trifludimoxazin is a likely human carcinogen. Animal studies indicate it causes reproductive harm, birth defects, and neurological deficits. The EPA acknowledged thyroid tumors in rodent studies but did not assess cancer risks for farmworkers or consumers exposed via food or water.

The herbicide poses significant drift risks. It is 10 times more toxic to plants than dicamba, an herbicide that caused widespread crop damage since 2017. Runoff threatens wetland plants, while spray drift can stunt crops hundreds of yards from sprayed fields.

Regulatory History

The EPA originally approved trifludimoxazin nationwide in 2021. Following a lawsuit alleging violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Endangered Species Act, BASF voluntarily stopped manufacturing and selling the pesticide in 2022. The EPA had previously found the herbicide could cause cancer and likely severe harm to endangered species, including Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, Atlantic sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.

Despite the voluntary withdrawal, the Trump administration’s EPA proposed re-registering the chemical in 2025 and issued final approval in June 2026. Two approved products combine trifludimoxazin with saflufenacil, another PPO inhibitor, creating simultaneous exposure risks for workers.

What the Numbers Show

The data reveals a divergence between regulatory action and scientific risk assessment. While the EPA acknowledged trifludimoxazin’s potential to cause cancer and severe harm to endangered species, it proceeded with approval without conducting a cumulative risk assessment for PPO inhibitors as required by law. Furthermore, the chemical’s toxicity profile—being 10 times more toxic to plants than dicamba—suggests heightened environmental risk compared to previously regulated herbicides, yet no additional mitigation measures were disclosed in the filing.

Environmental and community groups filed a lawsuit on Friday against the Trump administration, challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of two chemicals for use in semiconductor manufacturing. The legal action highlights a conflict between regulatory safety standards and the accelerated push to expand U.S. artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Health Risks Flagged in Consent Orders

The EPA’s consent orders, attached to the lawsuit, did not disclose the names of either chemical. However, the documents revealed significant health concerns that the agency acknowledged before granting approval.

For the first chemical, the EPA cited reproductive and developmental risks associated with exposure through drinking water and air. The agency approved the substance despite stating it had "insufficient information" to determine the exact level of risk.

For the second chemical, the EPA identified potential health risks to the general public and specific reproductive risks for workers exposed through skin contact.

The EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the lawsuit.

Legal Challenge Cites Rushed Review

Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest law organization, filed the suit on behalf of the Sierra Club and CHIPS Communities United. Senior attorney Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz stated that the EPA is "rushing dangerous chemicals to market without the review or the protection that the law requires."

The lawsuit emerges as the Trump administration pushes to expand the U.S. AI industry, a major consumer of semiconductors. In 2025, the EPA announced it would expedite reviews of new chemicals for data centers and related infrastructure, including semiconductor manufacturing.

What the Numbers Show

The core divergence in this filing lies between the EPA’s internal risk assessment and its final regulatory action. The agency explicitly cited "insufficient information" to quantify the risk of the first chemical yet proceeded with approval. This disconnect suggests that the expedited review process prioritized speed over comprehensive data collection, directly contradicting the plaintiffs' claim that required protections were bypassed.