Uncertain U.S. Foreign Policy Implications For Chemical Regulation And Trade

Current gyrations in foreign policy under the Trump Administration raise potential unintended impacts on the U.S. chemical industry, particularly at the intersection of international regulatory cooperation, global toxics governance, and trade policy. While chemical regulation is often viewed as a domestic exercise, it is shaped materially by international alignment, mutual recognition, and trade-related obligations. Fractures in U.S. relationships with allies and multilateral institutions could have downstream consequences for regulatory predictability and market access.

During President Trump's first term, U.S. relationships with traditional allies, including the European Union (EU), Canada, and key Asian trading partners, were marked by skepticism toward multilateralism, open disputes over trade, and reduced participation in international standard-setting bodies. From a chemical regulatory standpoint, these tensions matter because modern chemical governance increasingly depends on coordination: harmonized classification systems, aligned data requirements, and shared approaches to risk assessment. The current Administration's policies are having a decidedly more significant impact.

The EU's continued expansion of its chemicals framework — through initiatives such as Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) reform, the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, and aggressive restriction timelines — has relied heavily on coordinated scientific processes and precautionary approaches that the United States has historically influenced, even when not fully aligned. A U.S. retreat from cooperative engagement risks accelerating regulatory divergence, forcing companies to navigate parallel — and sometimes conflicting — compliance regimes. For multinational chemical manufacturers, this raises costs, complicates product stewardship strategies (particularly when data generated for one jurisdiction is not readily accepted in another), and invites regulatory uncertainty.

International chemicals policy is also shaped by multilateral environmental agreements governing hazardous substances and waste. Key examples include the Stockholm Convention, the Rotterdam Convention, and the Minamata Convention on Mercury. These agreements influence domestic regulation by driving restrictions, bans, and information-sharing obligations related to chemicals of global concern.

The U.S.' uneven engagement with these conventions, ratifying some, signing but not ratifying others, and in some cases participating only as an observer, creates uncertainty for industry. A foreign policy posture that further deprioritizes or otherwise weakens international agreements could reduce U.S. influence over future listings and technical guidance, while still leaving U.S. companies subject to the practical effects of those decisions abroad. In other words, disengagement does not insulate industry from global norms; it simply shifts rule-setting authority to others.

This dynamic is particularly salient as parties to these conventions increasingly consider substances that remain lawful in the United States but face heightened scrutiny internationally. Absent active U.S. participation, there is an increased risk that international decisions will be made without meaningful input from U.S. regulators or stakeholders.

Trade policy is an area where foreign policy decisions can directly affect chemical markets. The Trump Administration's willingness to impose tariffs, invoke national security justifications, and challenge the authority of the World Trade Organization has altered long-standing assumptions about trade stability. While tariffs are the most visible tool, non-tariff barriers, such as divergent regulatory requirements, can be just as impactful — and might be used as part of a not-so-subtle retaliatory response.

As the EU and other jurisdictions increasingly embed chemical and environmental standards into trade policy — through mechanisms like carbon border adjustment measures, sustainability-linked import requirements, and deforestation or supply-chain due diligence laws — U.S. exporters may face additional hurdles if U.S. policy is perceived as misaligned. Retaliatory measures or reduced willingness to grant equivalency determinations could disproportionately affect chemical products, which are often heavily regulated and data intensive.

Uncertainty around U.S. trade commitments may also discourage long-term investment decisions. Chemical companies operating globally depend on predictable access to markets and stable regulatory expectations. A foreign policy that oscillates between bilateral deal-making and disengagement from multilateral frameworks complicates strategic planning and increases compliance risk for companies or customers with a global presence.

For the chemical industry, the implications of U.S. foreign policy extend well beyond diplomacy. Regulatory alignment, participation in international toxics governance, and stable trade relationships are foundational to predictable chemical regulation and market access. Whether under this Trump Administration or otherwise, continued uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy posture underscores the importance of proactive engagement by industry, regulators, and policymakers alike.

Companies should closely monitor developments in international chemicals policies and agreements, anticipate further divergence between U.S. and allied regulatory systems, and factor geopolitical risk into compliance and supply-chain strategies. In an increasingly interconnected regulatory environment, foreign policy is no longer a background consideration — it is a central variable shaping the future of chemical regulation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.