Cleanups of Toxic ‘Forever Chemical’ at Hundreds of Military Sites Face Years of Delay

By the Editorial Team · Friday, September 11, 2026

The Pentagon has announced that cleanup of toxic PFAS chemicals at nearly 243 military sites will be delayed by an average of five years, with some postponements extending up to 19 years due to expanded contamination findings and stricter federal guidelines. These delays have drawn bipartisan criticism and heightened health concerns for affected communities, as long-term remediation efforts remain unsettled despite billions spent on assessments and mitigation.

The Pentagon has announced significant delays in cleaning up toxic "forever chemicals"—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—at nearly 243 military sites across the United States, with remediation timelines extended by an average of five years, and some postponements reaching up to 19 years. This comes despite earlier commitments to address the widespread contamination.

An internal Pentagon email to Congress in late August expressed dedication to tackling PFAS releases but acknowledged the extended delays. PFAS, used for decades in firefighting foam at military installations, are persistent in the environment and have been linked to adverse health effects, including birth defects and increased cancer risks. The chemicals have contaminated drinking water supplies at numerous sites, prompting the military to distribute bottled water to personnel and nearby communities.

A senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to lack of authorization to comment publicly, attributed the setbacks to expanding investigations revealing more extensive contamination than initially understood. The official also cited evolving, more stringent federal guidelines on PFAS cleanup as a factor necessitating more comprehensive remediation efforts. Despite the delays, the official maintained that cleanup activities are progressing based on current scientific understanding.

The extended timelines have raised alarm in Congress, with bipartisan calls for the Pentagon to accelerate the cleanup process and provide clearer explanations for the delays. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, described the postponements as “reckless, dangerous, and unacceptable.” Meanwhile, Representative Jack Bergman, a Republican from Michigan, criticized the department for “broken promises” regarding contaminated sites within his district, emphasizing frustration with ongoing exposure risks faced by affected communities.

A recent report by the Defense Department’s inspector general highlighted that cleanup efforts are consistently missing the department’s own deadlines. The report also raised concerns that the department may not have fully assessed PFAS usage or contamination at more than 80 military installations, pointing to gaps in record-keeping and oversight. According to the report, the Defense Department has allocated approximately $2.6 billion from 2017 through 2025 toward evaluating and mitigating PFAS contamination, but no comprehensive long-term remediation has yet commenced.

One notable case involves the city of Newburgh, New York, which declared a state of emergency in 2016 after PFAS from firefighting foam used at Stewart Air National Guard Base polluted Washington Lake, the city’s primary water source. While Newburgh switched to an alternative water supply, local residents and advocacy groups have continued to push for a full cleanup of the contamination. Originally planned to start by 2031, the remediation work in Newburgh has now been postponed to sometime after 2051 under the Pentagon’s revised schedule.

Jennifer Rawlison, a lifelong Newburgh resident and member of a local advisory board on PFAS remediation, expressed frustration over the delays, stating, “The military has a mission, to protect the nation. But instead they’ve done us harm, and there needs to be accountability.” The ongoing challenges underscore the complexity and scale of addressing PFAS contamination at military sites nationwide.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.