PEORIA, Ill. – Less than 24 hours after the inauguration of the 47th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump’s potential deregulation of recent restrictions on production practices used to produce crops was a topic of much discussion during the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association (IFCA) 2025 Convention at the Peoria Civic Center. Many IFCA input dealers and growers are counting on an even more aggressive deregulatory approach from Trump 2.0 than during his first term, when the then-45th president slowed new regulations and strove to eliminate two regulations for every new rule enacted. Trump’s second-term regulatory rescission plan includes a suggestion he will scuttle 10 regulations for every new rule issued.

Should farmers and industry expect Trump to honor his campaign promise and instruct his administration to act quickly to undo Biden-era regulations related to agriculture and the environment?

“In a word, yes,” according to Harrison Pittman, director of the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas, who was in Peoria to speak to IFCA members about regulation in the ag input industry. “As far as action, there will be an immediate push to, on the one hand, issue executive orders on rules they don’t like, followed by activities to go through the formal process of rescission to remove federal rules. I also think that there will be a significant slowdown in regulatory activity, new rules and proposals.”

Pittman questioned how effective an executive order or presidential directive can be in undoing some U.S. EPA policies enacted under Biden, such as the agency’s Final Herbicide Strategy for the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which seeks to regulate conventional herbicides for agricultural uses in the lower 48 states.

“This is a strategy, not a rule, which has to go through a notice and comment rulemaking, with a new rule published in the Federal Registry and Code of Federal Regulations. This is different; these are policies based on existing statutes from agencies such as EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,” he said.

“This can matter maybe more long term; right now, they will be treated as rules, in effect, but they are not technically rules. This could raise some interesting questions as we go through the administration. I could be wrong here, but I don’t foresee the type of changes where you would not have these mitigation strategies in the ESA. The reason for that is that motion from the EPA was effectively forced on them through decisions in the court system.”

While court-mandated, EPA-led strategies and recommendations may not be easily undone by the Trump administration, an initial lessening of enforcement activity could likely be in the cards, Pittman noted.

“From there it will be wait and see. You could perhaps see some rulemaking on the ESA to maybe define some terms, but ironically those too could be subject to some of the legal challenges over agency deference,” he said.

As for Waters of the United States (WOTUS), Pittman said that ongoing litigation will continue to play out separately and distinct from any new recommendations. “Now that you have the Sackett decision by the Supreme Court, there is a pretty clear definition of what is and isn’t a wetland under WOTUS. In the Trump administration I think you definitely could see a move toward having a federal rule ultimately in place that, in their mind, is honed in more to what the Supreme Court ruled in the Sackett decision,” he said.

Pittman said he would also be interested in whether Trump’s EPA would continue the level of resources devoted to detect and measure PFAS (or “forever chemicals” whose components break down very slowly) in air, water, soil, and fish and wildlife. Currently, EPA is examining how biosolids such as fertilizer from wastewater treatment plants used on agricultural lands can affect ground and surface water and animals that graze on the land.

Pittman declined to speculate on how Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA, former New York Congressman Lee Zeldin, might fare in the position. “I haven’t worked with Lee Zeldin, but I can tell you he’ll have his work cut out for him and I wish him the best of luck,” he said.

Upon his nomination, Trump said Zeldin would “ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions” to “unleash the power of American businesses.” In addition, his administration will maintain “the highest environmental standards, including the cleanest air and water on the planet” while also pursuing deregulation of onerous rules.

During his recent Senate confirmation hearing, Ag Chair John Boozman asked Zeldin if he’d work closely with USDA on “predictable, science-based” and “timely” pesticide rules.

“That must be our goal. That should be the relationship between all agencies, including the interaction between the EPA and the USDA,” Hoosier Ag Today reported Zeldin as responding. 

Pittman, an active member of the American Agricultural Law Association and the Arkansas Bar Association, where he founded the Agricultural Law section, said that for now he will be watching with interest how the new Congress and administration’s movements unfold over the next few weeks and months. “I’ll be watching the next phase of the congressional process with the budget and reconciliation, and how that sets the stage for hopefully a farm bill process later in the year,” he said. 

“And, of course, tariffs. I’m very interested in what is done from a U.S. perspective and what could be the reaction to that from other countries in terms of retaliatory tariffs. It looks like there are going to be some kinds of tariffs, in part (to pay for) the tax cuts (expected to be extended by the 119th Congress). There must be fairly significant tariffs to make this a justifiable position. I’ll be very interested in watching how this plays out and how our trade partners react.”