Fluoride Lawsuit Plaintiffs Push Back Against Trump EPA In Ongoing Litigation

December 11, 2025 trump

The nine-year battle to remove fluoride from Americans’ water continues as plaintiffs attempt to pressure the Trump administration to comply with a landmark 2024 federal ruling that found water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to children’s neurodevelopment.
On November 17, 2025, attorneys representing Food & Water Watch (FWW), Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and individual plaintiffs filed its response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) appeal of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen’s September 2024 ruling, which held that fluoridation at the current U.S. level of 0.7 mg/L “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.”

The response comes nine years after the plaintiffs first filed a civilian petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in November 2016. After the EPA denied the petition, the groups sued, triggering a nearly decade-long legal saga between the EPA, and parents of children impacted by water fluoridation, the FAN, and FWW. In September 2024, Judge Chen ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor and ordered the EPA to take regulatory action.

In the final days of the Biden administration the EPA filed their appeal, and now, under leadership appointed by President Donald Trump, the EPA has decided to continue fighting the judge’s ruling.

Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs, responded to the three main arguments made by the EPA in its July 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.

The EPA contends that at least one plaintiff’s water contains naturally occurring fluoride and that the plaintiffs therefore cannot prove injury caused by community water fluoridation. The agency also claims that the Judge’s decision to admit studies which were published after the original 2016 TSCA petition violated the act.

Regarding the question of standing, the EPA claimed in its appeal that plaintiff Jessica Trader cannot establish standing because her drinking water in Leawood, Kansas, “naturally contains fluoride at levels 0.4 mg/L, and her water utility adds only as much fluoride as necessary for her tap water to reach a concentration of 0.7 mg/L”. Essentially, the EPA is stating that the naturally occurring fluoride could be to blame for any harm caused to Trader.