This is what the EPA says in their filing:

> Now, after further reviewing the statute pursuant to a publicly announced reconsideration process, EPA agrees with petitioners that parts of the rulemaking process were unlawful and parts of the Rule are thus invalid.

This does NOT preclude lawfully making the same ruling later. It also does mean that Zeldin thinks we shouldn't reduce PFAS in our water.

It does mean that:

- had the EPA held to its previous position the court could have found the rulemaking process illegal and forced the EPA to start over

- the EPA retains the ability to restart this rulemaking and this time comply with the applicable acts of Congress.

TFA says:

> Separately, EPA previously announced that it will seek to extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS standards by two years from 2029 to 2031.

Well, yes hello!! Take these two bits of news in combination and what do we have? We have this:

- the EPA concedes that the previous rulemaking was illegal

- the EPA indicates that it wants to restart the process and get to roughly the same rules with compliance deadlines in 2031, and this delay is presumptively due of the delay in rulemaking due to the previous rulemaking process having been illegal.

And TFA and the commenters here are all screaming their heads off that Zeldin (and Trump) are trying to kill us all or something.

Maybe look at the details first? TFA certainly doesn't mention the details! After a fairly obscure first two paragraphs it launches into a diatribe.

Fortunately TFA did link the EPA filing, and the very first paragraph of that filing tells us the first half of the story: that the Biden EPA did not follow lawful process. Surely one could debate the lawfulness of the process followed by the Biden EPA, but if the court was on its way to ruling as much then the EPA getting ahead of it was a good thing. The second part of the story is less* clear from just TFA and this filing, but TFA gives us a clue that the EPA apparently intends to restart the rulemaking process, which presumably will lead to roughly the same rules.

I'm not at all surprised that the majority of top level comments are saying things in the spirit of "Trump is trying to kill us to make money!" when if you were following along this _multi decade long regulatory battle_, and knew about the not-so-recent Chevron Deference rulings you could have predicted this. You wouldn't even need to leave HN to keep up, it gets posted here all the time!

And these comments have an air of erudite smugness about them that can only come from a person completely without doubt of their convictions - even while being completely devoid of any value to the conversation.

The title is at best hyperbolic and at worse at outright lie - in any case the pattern of the title was intended to stoke whatever mental illness we see at play here: "I speculate endlessly on my own world view to the theme of the article title so I can signal to my peers that I'm doing righthink.".

But this is what makes the article get engagement, so to hell with communicating ideas, let's stoke division and get those clicks!