A coalition of former Environmental Protection Agency officials is sounding the alarm over the Trump administration's decision to roll back environmental regulations to accelerate the construction of AI data centers, warning that the policy shift is exposing Americans to serious and measurable health risks.
The group, operating through an independent organization called the Environmental Protection Network, released a report this week identifying 30 distinct federal actions taken since January 2025 that they say heighten public health risks tied to pollution from data center infrastructure. Of those 30 policy changes, 17 specifically mention AI or directly target data centers.
The report was accompanied by a briefing in which former EPA officials urged President Trump to adopt a "Data Center Health Protection Pledge" — a public commitment that the administration is taking the environmental threat seriously.
The push for such a pledge appears to face long odds. At the outset of Trump's term, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin declared his goal of making America "the AI capital of the world" through deregulation. Since then, the agency has rolled back dozens of rules while also cutting staff and funding.
Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician and former EPA assistant administrator, addressed the contradiction directly at the briefing. "You would think that an industry buildout of this magnitude, billed as a revolution, would mean more vigilance from EPA," Goldman said. "Instead, EPA is doing just the opposite, thinking first about industry's needs and weakening or reconsidering limits on toxic chemicals and harmful pollutants."
Trump released an "AI Action Plan" in July 2025 recommending "streamlining or reducing regulations" under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Superfund law to speed permitting for data center projects and chip factories. The administration has also laid policy groundwork for new natural gas projects — ranging from on-site turbines to dedicated power plants — to supply energy-hungry data centers, even as it curtails renewable energy development.
A separate concern flagged in the report involves semiconductor manufacturing. Surging demand for advanced chips used in generative AI is reviving the production of so-called forever chemicals — compounds that do not break down in the environment and accumulate in human bodies.
Goldman stressed that geographic proximity to a data center is not a prerequisite for exposure. "You do not need to be near a data center to be affected, because the pollution doesn't just come from the data centers themselves," she said.
The report cites a study from UC Riverside, Caltech, and the Rochester Institute of Technology finding that air pollution associated with AI could lead to up to 1,300 premature deaths and more than $20 billion in public health costs by 2028. The Environmental Protection Network says that toll could grow further once the deregulatory actions outlined in its report are factored in.
Marc Boom, EPN's senior director of public affairs, framed the situation as a matter of deliberate choice rather than structural necessity. "A more polluting AI buildout is not inevitable. It depends on the choices government makes now," he said at the briefing. "EPA should be measuring how this buildout is changing pollution, who is being exposed, what it means for their health, and making all of that information public."
In a response to the report, EPA spokesperson Cora Mandy said the agency has "returned regulations to the best reading [of] the Clean Air Act after years of overreach by previous administrations," while reiterating a dual commitment to protecting human health and making America "the AI Capital of the World."
The report arrives roughly a year after hundreds of current EPA employees sent a public letter to Zeldin warning that the agency under his leadership "will not protect communities from hazardous chemicals and unsafe drinking water, but instead will increase risks to public health and safety."
With AI infrastructure investment accelerating across the country and no apparent shift in White House policy, the central question for health advocates is whether independent research and public pressure can move an administration that has framed deregulation as central to its technology strategy.
Disclaimer