Posted on February 27 2026 

For more than two decades, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) has worked to prevent asbestos exposure and eliminate asbestos-related disease through evidence-based advocacy, public education, and strategic legal action. In 2026, that work continues across multiple fronts: defending federal authority to regulate asbestos, enforcing statutory deadlines, pursuing transparency in federal demolition projects, and advancing bipartisan legislation to finally end asbestos use in the United States.

This moment reflects both progress and urgency. Updates and key case milestones are now featured on ADAO’s homepage to ensure the public, policymakers, and stakeholders have direct access to timely developments as they unfold.

EPA Part I: Oral Arguments Before the Fifth Circuit

In June 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear oral arguments in Texas Chemistry Council v. EPA, a case challenging EPA’s Part I risk management rule addressing chrysotile asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Chrysotile asbestos remains a known human carcinogen, with no safe level of exposure. EPA’s rule, issued under the strengthened authority Congress provided in the 2016 TSCA amendments, represents the most significant federal asbestos regulation in decades. The Fifth Circuit’s review is therefore a pivotal moment for prevention, regulatory authority, and public health accountability.

Notably, this is the same court that vacated EPA’s 1989 asbestos ban. Today, however, the legal framework has changed. TSCA now requires health-protective standards grounded in scientific evidence. The Court’s decision will shape the future of federal asbestos regulation and determine whether statutory mandates designed to protect workers and communities are upheld.

ADAO is actively defending EPA’s authority to regulate chrysotile asbestos based on clear scientific evidence and congressional intent.

EPA Part II: Missed Deadline and ADAO’s 60-Day Notice

While Part I proceeds in court, EPA has failed to meet a nondiscretionary statutory deadline to propose a risk management rule addressing legacy asbestos under TSCA (Part II).

When an agency misses such a deadline, Congress provides a specific remedy: citizens may issue a formal 60-day notice of intent to sue. ADAO has exercised that right and transmitted a lawful statutory notice to EPA.

A 60-day notice is not adversarial; it is a compliance mechanism embedded in the statute. The mechanism is intended to provide civilians the opportunity to advocate for public health. When deadlines are missed, communities remain exposed to legacy asbestos in aging buildings, contaminated sites, and deteriorating infrastructure. Delay in rulemaking prolongs preventable risk.

ADAO’s notice seeks timely compliance with TSCA and implementation of long-overdue protections.

White House East Wing Demolition: FOIA and the Right to Know

As demolition activities connected to the White House East Wing have proceeded, ADAO has submitted multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking records related to asbestos surveys, abatement procedures, contractor compliance, and air monitoring.

These requests remain unanswered.

Asbestos is currently present in many pre-1980 structures, and abatement activities are governed by federal standards under TSCA, NESHAP, and OSHA regulations. When agencies fail to respond to lawful FOIA requests, the administrative record is incomplete and public confidence is undermined.

ADAO has therefore taken its unanswered FOIA requests to court to compel disclosure. Transparency in federal building projects, particularly those involving legacy asbestos, is essential to protect workers, federal employees, surrounding communities, and the integrity of environmental governance.

Growing Support for the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act

In parallel with regulatory and judicial engagement, bipartisan support continues to grow for the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act (ARBAN).

While EPA’s regulatory authority under TSCA is critical, legislation remains the only durable mechanism to permanently ban asbestos. Regulations can be challenged, delayed, or narrowed. A statutory ban provides clarity, permanence, and enforceability.

ARBAN reflects decades of scientific consensus and public health evidence. It would close remaining regulatory gaps and ensure asbestos is no longer imported, processed, or used in U.S. commerce.

The 21st Senate Resolution: Reaffirming the Science

The forthcoming 21st Senate Asbestos Awareness Resolution will once again reaffirm established scientific conclusions:

  • Asbestos is a known human carcinogen.
  • There is no safe level of exposure.
  • Prevention is the only cure.

These statements are grounded in decades of peer-reviewed research and global medical consensus. Each year, approximately 40,000 Americans die from preventable asbestos-caused diseases.

Although resolutions do not create binding law, they formally recognize the continuing public health crisis and reinforce the need for sustained prevention and policy action.

A Unified Legal Strategy: Science, Law, and Prevention

ADAO’s 2026 legal advocacy is coordinated and strategic:

  • Defending EPA’s Part I rule before the Fifth Circuit.
  • Enforcing statutory deadlines under TSCA Part II.
  • Compelling transparency through FOIA litigation.
  • Advancing bipartisan legislation through ARBAN.
  • Reaffirming scientific consensus through the 21st Senate Resolution.

For more detailed information, visit the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization’s Timelines and Documents landing page.

Each action serves a single objective: preventing exposure and eliminating asbestos-related disease.

Legal advocacy is not pursued for its own sake. It is pursued because asbestos continues to cause disease decades after its hazards were conclusively established. When deadlines are missed, when transparency falters, or when regulatory authority is challenged, prevention is delayed.

ADAO remains committed to ensuring that science guides policy, statutory mandates are enforced, and the public’s right to know is protected. The law provides tools for accountability and ADAO will continue to use them to protect public health. 

Linda Reinstein