There are some who maintain that Republican administrations do not prioritise the enforcement of US environmental laws and tend to give industry a pass on regulatory compliance, except in the most egregious cases. This view was likely reinforced by several core themes of candidate Trump’s campaign, which assailed "job-killing" regulations that burden American businesses and hurt the economy, coupled with President Trump’s day one executive orders, which included an immediate freeze on new federal regulations.
One might assume that these actions telegraphed a permissive nod towards relaxing US EPA enforcement goals, especially enforcement of compliance with pesky recordkeeping and reporting obligations, long the nemesis of some in the business community. This narrative, however, is fundamentally at odds with the actions of the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), especially regarding the import of chemicals subject to TSCA. The Trump administration has demonstrated a persistent commitment to enforcing TSCA violations – as well as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which is not discussed further here – against chemical importers, with renewed vigour that has caught many off guard.
We have seen this in our own law practice and have commented frequently that this administration is not handing out free passes when it comes to TSCA enforcement. A recent and uniquely compelling illustration of this inconvenient truth is the case the EPA announced on 1 June, involving an administrative complaint against Wego Chemical Group and related companies (Wego) for TSCA violations.
The case is exceptional for three reasons: the stiff penalties the EPA seeks for hundreds of TSCA violations for chemicals imported from China; the fact that some of the violations include late Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) filings made in settlement of an earlier citizen action under TSCA Section 20(a); and the EPA’s meticulous review of the response to Wego’s 2020 and 2024 TSCA Section 8(a) CDR obligations and subsequent rejection of the company's "not known or reasonably ascertainable (NKRA)" claims. Each of these points is discussed below. They all convey the same message – chemical imports under TSCA are being closely scrutinised, and non-compliance will not be tolerated.
Factual summary
Wego is a family-owned business organised under New York and Delaware law, specialising in the import and distribution of speciality chemicals, including those manufactured in and imported from China. The chemicals imported include household and industrial chemicals, lubricants, adhesives and sealants, personal care products, water treatment chemicals, and many others, some of which are only manufactured in China.
According to the EPA, the complaint is the result of Wego’s "years-long" failure to properly report its import and domestic distribution of chemical substances. The EPA states that since at least 2016, Wego imported "hundreds of millions of pounds of hundreds of toxic chemicals, mostly from China, without meeting basic federal reporting requirements".
Wego initially failed to submit its required 2020 CDR report. Once it did submit its CDR data, "it omitted required information on how any of the chemicals will be used, information that EPA needs to evaluate public health risks". The EPA also alleges that at least one chemical Wego imported could not lawfully have been imported at all.
The EPA’s press release quotes Jeffrey Hall, EPA assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, as stating: "Companies must disclose what toxic chemicals they are importing and how they will be used. This civil enforcement complements our broader work to protect our borders and prevent illegal, toxic chemicals and pesticides from entering the US."
According to EPA Region 9 acting administrator Michael Martucci: "EPA is committed to holding companies accountable when they fail to comply with federal chemical import requirements," and it "will continue to enforce these standards for the benefit of our communities".
In stark contrast to the EPA’s aggressive tone in the Wego press release is a 4 June EPA press release announcing settlement of a different TSCA enforcement action, this one against Wilbur-Ellis, a leading marketer of agricultural chemicals, for non-compliance that did not involve import activities. The release emphasises the company’s "return to compliance" with TSCA through a settlement with the EPA in which Wilbur-Ellis agreed to pay $630,737 for failing to report new chemical products under TSCA Section 5, processing an "inactive substance," and failing to submit a Form U for three chemicals during the 2020 CDR reporting cycle. While the penalty is still significant, the press release is decidedly more conciliatory and compliance-oriented than Wego's, suggesting strongly that chemical import TSCA violations will be treated differently and more harshly.
Alleged TSCA violations
The Wego complaint alleges eight categories of TSCA violations reflecting, according to the EPA, "a sustained pattern of failing to report, notify and certify as required by law". The EPA alleges that Wego:
- failed to submit timely CDR data for hundreds of chemicals across two reporting cycles;
- never reported required use information for those chemicals in either submission;
- failed to submit a pre-manufacture notification (PMN) before importing a new chemical substance;
- failed to file a required TSCA compliance certification at the time it unlawfully imported that new chemical;
- failed to submit significant new use notices (SNUNs) as required;
- failed to notify the EPA of the export to Canada of two chemicals that were subject to significant new use rules (SNURs);
- filed a notice of commencement (NOC) claiming it had begun importing a chemical when, in fact, it had not; and
- filed a false certification stating it had not imported a chemical under a TSCA risk evaluation during the previous five years, when, in fact, it had.
According to the EPA, it began its investigation into Wego’s TSCA compliance in May 2021. The administrative complaint initiates the formal enforcement process. According to the complaint, the EPA seeks the following civil penalties:
- count one – TSCA Section 8(a), failure to submit 2020 Form U for 209 reportable chemical substances (25,000lbs threshold). The EPA seeks a penalty of up to $49,772 for each of the 209 chemicals listed in the 2020 Form U that Wego failed to timely submit;
- count two – TSCA Section 8(a), failure to submit 2020 Form U chemical data report for five reportable chemical substances (2,500lbs threshold). The EPA seeks a penalty of up to $49,772 for each of these five chemical substances listed in the 2020 Form U that Wego failed to timely submit;
- count three – TSCA Section 8(a), failure to report required information in 2020 Form U. The EPA seeks a penalty of up to $49,772 for each of the 209 chemical substances for which Wego failed to report required information;
- count four – TSCA Section 8(a), failure to report required information in 2024 Form U. The EPA seeks a penalty of up to $49,772 for each of the 247 chemical substances for which Wego failed to report required information;
- count five – seven PMN violations. The EPA seeks a penalty of up to $49,772 for each of the seven alleged PMN violations; and
- count six – failure to provide requisite TSCA certifications for TSCA importations. The EPA seeks a penalty of up to $49,772 for each of the seven alleged certification violations.
If the 684 counts hold and maximum penalties are sought, the EPA’s enforcement matter against Wego could yield a $34m penalty for alleged violations of TSCA – the vast majority of which involve violations for lack of reporting under EPA’s CDR rule.
A prior Section 20 citizen suit
Last July, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) – a self-described California-based NGO watchdog group – announced a legally binding agreement with Wego to address the company's failure to report imports of 104 chemical substances between 2016 and 2019 in violation of the 2020 CDR requirements, the same TSCA violations EPA is seeking penalties for in its enforcement action. The settlement was preceded by a citizen suit brought by CEH under TSCA.
Under TSCA Section 20(a), "any person" is authorised to bring a civil action against a company "alleged to be in violation of this [act] or any rule … under section [4, 5, or 6]". As a prerequisite to filing a civil action, citizen enforcers must file a pre-suit notice to the entity alleged to be in non-compliance and alert the EPA to the action. If the EPA elects to file suit for the same and other infractions, the citizen action is preempted.
The CEH settlement ultimately required Wego to submit late CDR reports for these substances. Citizen plaintiffs can obtain injunctive relief, such as requiring the submission of late reports, but cannot seek civil penalties for TSCA violations, as only the EPA can. Given that the EPA began investigating Wego in 2021, years before CEH brought its action, it is clear that the EPA was aware of the non-compliance asserted in the citizen action but elected not to preempt it.
Why is the Wego case noteworthy?
The Wego case is not your run-of-the-mill administrative enforcement action. We find it noteworthy for three reasons.
First, the case is a vivid illustration of the administration’s commitment to use TSCA enforcement tools to achieve its campaign promise to protect US borders – in this instance, from illegal chemical imports. The EPA announced on 23 December 2025 that under the Trump administration, it "is dramatically expanding its imports investigative capacity and enforcement scope beyond the limited efforts of previous years, launching broader investigations that target illegal pesticide and chemical smuggling operations across multiple sectors to safeguard communities, agricultural integrity, and national security". According to the EPA, this increased enforcement blocked more than 200,000lbs of illegal pesticide imports in 2025.
On 19 December 2025, Jeffrey Hall and his principal deputy assistant administrator, Craig Pritzlaff, travelled to Southern California. Hall met with Los Angeles/Long Beach seaport director Africa R Bell and other officials from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in a visit that "reaffirmed the EPA’s commitment to protecting America while furthering cooperative federalism and cross-agency partnerships". The EPA and CBP officials discussed how to work together, including efforts to further share information critical to inspection, enforcement, and coordination to hold violators accountable.
According to the EPA, "Chinese manufacturers and criminal cartels have increasingly exploited regulatory and enforcement gaps to flood American markets with dangerous chemicals, not only poisoning communities but also undermining farmers and businesses who follow federal law". The EPA states that its "revitalised, comprehensive imports enforcement directly supports the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) strategy by prioritising the removal of harmful toxins from American communities and food systems".
Earlier this year, the EPA also announced its enforcement and compliance numbers for fiscal year (FY) 2025, including various actions on imports, touting an "unprecedented commitment to helping secure the border" through collaboration with federal law enforcement agencies and CBP at ports of entry and training of enforcement personnel on the "detection and interdiction of dangerous substances and illegal imports". The Wego case is an unambiguous statement by OECA that it means what it says.
The second reason the Wego case is noteworthy is that it is highly unusual for the EPA to prosecute TSCA violations that were the subject of a prior citizen action. According to CEH, it is unaware of EPA filing suit against any of the other 15 entities that CEH has sued for TSCA violations and eventually settled. It is also unusual for EPA to seek penalties in cases where, as here, part of the injunctive relief required under the settlement of the Section 20 action was the late filing of CDR reports.
Some might claim that since the EPA has the information it seeks, penalising Wego or others similarly situated for late filings is uniquely punitive. The takeaway from the Wego enforcement action is that a citizen suit will not necessarily immunise companies from imposition of additional penalties by the EPA for violations of TSCA, especially violations by chemical importers.
The third reason is that the enforcement action reflects a remarkably meticulous EPA review of the CDR forms that Wego submitted and, in some instances, the rejection of Wego’s NKRA claims. The EPA’s conclusion that the "information was known to respondents or was otherwise ascertainable to them through reasonable effort" demonstrates significant scrutiny. The example also illustrates the need to complete the Form U with care, and to be mindful that the EPA can and will question the appropriateness of the NKRA in circumstances where, as here, the agency believes the submitter has sufficient information to complete the data fields.
A teachable moment
Importers of chemicals (including pesticides) should take note. If you have ever wondered whether it is really "worth it" to invest time and effort into understanding the regulatory requirements and positioning your company for successful compliance, the answer should now be obvious. The EPA has made it abundantly clear that it will come down hard on illegal imports, especially those coming from China. The Wego enforcement action underscores the strength of the EPA’s commitment and offers an opportunity for other importers to learn from Wego's mistakes and avoid them.
Companies that import chemical substances subject to TSCA reporting requirements would be wise to revisit compliance strategies and standard operating procedures and ensure robust documentation to avoid costly penalties and substantial negative publicity. Importers need to ensure their reporting hygiene is thorough and that the information is sufficient to capture all reportable substances and withstand "NKRA" scrutiny.
Importers may wish to cross-check their CDR import quantities against commercially available private import-tracking platforms. These include Descartes Datamyne, Panjiva, and ImportGenius. Citizen plaintiffs use these commercial platforms to identify discrepancies between CDR reporting data submitted by companies and import records maintained by CBP. CEH has announced that it "plan[s] to launch a new enforcement initiative for the 2024 CDR reporting cycle". Companies can beat CEH to the punch by doing their own due diligence now and avoiding unnecessary citizen suits later.
Finally, if companies discover discrepancies between import data and reported CDR data, or other compliance-related shortcomings, they should consider proactively addressing those issues under the protections offered under the EPA’s Audit Policy. Companies that conduct self-evaluations and discover issues that the EPA could find actionable can self-disclose these issues to the agency. If the disclosure meets the Audit Policy criteria, a company may be eligible for 100% penalty mitigation if all conditions are met, or 75% penalty mitigation if most conditions are met. The Audit Policy offers compelling incentives for penalty mitigation that are not otherwise available for companies that simply comply after the applicable deadlines (for example, late CDR reporting).
Lynn L Bergeson, managing partner, Bergeson & Campbell PC, and president, The Acta Group
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch News & Insight.