Follow us on social

google cta
Joint-base-lewis-mcchord-scaled

New report finds dangerous levels of 'forever chemicals' around military bases

Women exposed to PFAS in drinking water have reported uterine tumors, birth defects, hysterectomies, and miscarriages.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new health advisories for four different polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl chemicals, more commonly known as PFAS, acknowledging the toxicity of the family of chemicals linked to several types of cancer, reproductive problems, and weakened immunity. 

PFAS are commonly known as “forever chemicals” because once they enter the bloodstream they are virtually indestructible. PFAS are found in a range of commonplace items from nonstick pans to body lotion to pizza boxes. As one New York Times piece put it, “To say that PFAS are difficult to avoid is an understatement.” Even so, that’s more true for some than others.

Defense communities are among the hardest hit, primarily because of the Pentagon’s use of AFFF, an effective but deadly firefighting foam containing PFAS. When it rains, all of those “forever chemicals” wash away, oftentimes entering nearby drinking water sources. Even though internal Air Force reports acknowledged the toxicity of PFAS as early as 1973, the military continued to use AFFF.

Today, at least 400 military sites have confirmed PFAS contamination in their groundwater. Women exposed to PFAS reported uterine tumors, birth defects, hysterectomies, and miscarriages. “Don’t get pregnant,” one 19-year-old airman was warned

The new interim advisories for PFOA and PFOS, the two most notorious PFAS chemicals, were set at .004 and .02 parts per trillion respectively. These new advisories reflect the potency of PFAS chemicals, which can be dangerous even in trace amounts. 

These advisories are, well, advisories — meaning they aren’t legally enforceable. In a press release, the EPA explained that regulations for PFOS and PFOA are likely to come soon, and that they will unveil those plans later this year. Several advocacy groups recommend an enforceable limit of 1 part per trillion for the sum of all PFAS. 

Though the Pentagon, at Congress’ direction, is finally phasing out firefighting foam containing PFAS by 2026, it has dragged its feet in cleanup. Recent testing revealed that Naval Air Station Whiting Field has PFOA levels at 51,500 times above the new interim health advisory. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island is even more stark, with PFOS levels at 236,000 times above the new advisory level.

An analysis of 50 contaminated bases by the Environmental Working Group found that it took an average of six years between the date contamination was first suspected at a base and when the Pentagon started drafting cleanup plans. None of the 50 bases in question had even begun the formal cleanup process. 

Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney at Environmental Working Group, laid out the Pentagon’s negligence during a phone call with Responsible Statecraft: “Any action by DoD is long overdue because they have known since the 1970s that the chemicals are toxic and they waited until really just a few years ago to take action and start addressing this. Community members have every right to be frustrated.” 

While action on the two most well-known PFAS is much-needed, PFAS is a family of thousands of chemicals. Without regulation of the entire PFAS family, there remain loopholes that can be exploited. In the past, the Pentagon has simply replaced one toxic PFAS in its firefighting foam with another. Testing at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island showed there were six separate types of PFAS in its water, including one with an alarmingly high 1150 parts per trillion which the new advisories don’t apply to.  

Mark Favors, an Army Veteran and clean water advocate characterized this approach of going after individual chemicals like PFOS and PFOA as a game of “whack-a-mole” during a call with Responsible Statecraft. In its press release, the EPA said it is “considering actions to address groups of PFAS,” but stopped short of giving further details. For now, it seems the “whack-a-mole” approach is set to continue. 

In addition to the new advisories, the EPA announced it was making $1 billion in funds available for disadvantaged communities to address PFAS contamination, the first of $5 billion through the infrastructure law passed last year. Asked about PFAS contamination cleanup, Favors said that it’s impossible to know the costs ahead because the Pentagon is given impunity and allowed to investigate itself. 

 “We’re talking about 400 bases,” Favors noted. “The bill is going to be high, so from their perspective, it’s easier in the end to simply not deal with it.” 

As he pointed out, the one bill that passes every year without fail is the defense bill. “It's hard to find people in Congress that will ask tough questions to the Pentagon,” he says. Last week’s Senate Armed Services Committee markup for the annual defense bill included $20 million for an ongoing nationwide PFAS study at military installations, a drop in the bucket for the now $847 billion defense bill.

For some, the new announcement is too little too late. Favors, who has testified that he lost several family members to PFAS-related cancer, said that “While this announcement will help protect future service members and families, it will not restore the damages to my family’s health.”


The DoD found high levels of dangerous chemicals in the "PFAS family" around several military bases, including JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash., pictured here. (U.S. Air Force Photo/Abner Guzman)
google cta
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.