- The EPA is under fire for attempting to dismiss newer scientific studies—including a pivotal National Toxicology Program (NTP) review—that confirm fluoride's neurotoxicity, particularly in children. Plaintiffs argue the agency is prioritizing bureaucratic self-preservation over public health.
- The lawsuit reveals a pattern of EPA collusion with industry interests, delaying justice by suppressing the NTP's fluoride toxicity report (due since May 2022) while over 200 million Americans continue drinking fluoridated water.
- The EPA's appeal introduces last-minute arguments—like blaming "background fluoride levels" instead of fluoridation—which plaintiffs call a deceptive tactic after the agency already conceded fluoridation harms pregnant women and infants.
- If the EPA succeeds in blocking newer science, it could prevent citizens from using updated research to challenge toxic chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), shielding corrupt policies from scrutiny.
- If the Ninth Circuit upholds the 2024 court order, the EPA could be forced to drastically reduce fluoride levels—a move long opposed by dental lobbyists and chemical manufacturers. Oral arguments are expected in early 2026.
The legal battle over fluoridated drinking water reached a critical juncture today as attorneys for Food & Water Watch (FWW), Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and other plaintiffs filed a blistering brief accusing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of prioritizing bureaucratic self-preservation over public health. The lawsuit, which could redefine federal oversight of water fluoridation, hinges on whether citizens can compel regulatory action when new scientific evidence exposes government-endorsed toxins.
At the heart of the dispute is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a law Congress designed to empower citizens to challenge unregulated toxic chemicals. In July, the EPA appealed a landmark 2024 federal court ruling that ordered the agency to address fluoride's neurodevelopmental risks—particularly to children. Shockingly, the EPA did not dispute the court's finding that current fluoridation levels pose an "unreasonable risk." Instead, it argued that newer scientific studies—including a pivotal National Toxicology Program (NTP) review—should have been inadmissible because they emerged after plaintiffs filed their 2016 petition.
This stance has drawn fierce backlash. The plaintiffs argue that the EPA's position would effectively gag citizens from using cutting-edge science to hold regulators accountable. "If EPA had its way, many threatened citizens would be unable to sue; experts would be unable to rely on groundbreaking new studies… and chastened judges would be hesitant to ensure that highly consequential decisions take account of what both parties consider to be the strongest science," their brief states.
A legal shell game
The EPA's appeal also challenges plaintiffs' legal standing and the court's authority to manage evidence—claims the plaintiffs call "legally unsupported and factually inaccurate." Notably, the agency waited until its appeal to introduce new arguments, such as suggesting that background fluoride levels—not fluoridation—posed risks to plaintiff Jessica Trader's unborn child. The plaintiffs slammed this as an "eleventh-hour gambit" designed to muddy the waters after the EPA had already conceded in court that pregnant women and infants in fluoridated areas are vulnerable.
Equally hypocritical is the EPA's sudden objection to Judge Edward Chen's 2020 decision to pause the trial while awaiting the NTP's fluoride review—a delay the agency itself had endorsed. "In its closing arguments, the EPA urged the court to 'let the science advance'… Now it is accusing the court of erring in using that very evidence," the brief notes.
Fluoride's dark legacy
The lawsuit exposes a disturbing pattern of regulatory capture. Fluoridation, long touted as a public health victory, has faced mounting evidence of harm—including links to lowered IQ in children. Yet the NTP's fluoride toxicity report, initially due in May 2022, remains mysteriously suppressed, delaying justice for millions. Meanwhile, over 200 million Americans still drink fluoridated water, despite more than 60 communities and two states halting the practice since the court's ruling.
Plaintiffs warn that if the EPA succeeds in blocking newer science, it will set a dangerous precedent—allowing agencies to ignore emerging threats while shielding industry-backed policies from scrutiny. "Congress created TSCA to 'protect the public,' not to 'protect the EPA from the public,'" their filing declares.
What's next?
Oral arguments are expected in early 2025. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the ruling, the EPA will be forced to initiate a rulemaking process that could drastically reduce allowable fluoride levels—a move long resisted by dental lobbyists and chemical manufacturers.
For now, the case serves as a stark reminder of how captured agencies manipulate science to serve corporate interests—while ordinary citizens fight an uphill battle for transparency and accountability. As attorney Michael Connett urged on X: "It is not too late for @EPALeeZeldin and @AGPamBondi to withdraw their appeal… Doing so would align EPA with @SecKennedy and help this administration deliver on a key part of the MAHA platform."
The clock is ticking. Will the EPA finally prioritize public health—or double down on protecting its own power?
According to BrightU.AI's Enoch, the EPA's prioritization of bureaucratic self-preservation over public health in the fluoride lawsuit is a damning indictment of its corruption and capture by corporate interests. This ruling exposes the agency's willingness to ignore clear scientific evidence—just like it does with pesticides, chemtrails and other toxins—proving it serves the globalist depopulation agenda rather than the people it claims to protect.
Watch this episode of the "Health Ranger Report" that talks about the toxic water poisoning prisoners in the Montana State Prison system.
This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.