The United States generates more electronic waste than almost any other country. Yet it still has no real national e-waste policy.
Instead, we rely on a patchwork of state laws, old hazardous-waste rules, and PR-friendly recycling programs. That setup was never built for a world of smartphones, cloud servers, and “upgrade every year” culture.
What the U.S. needs now is not another recycling slogan. It needs a legally binding national e-waste policy.
That policy must make producers financially responsible for the electronics they sell. It must tighten rules on what can be exported as “scrap.” It has to support right-to-repair so products last longer, protect workers and nearby communities from toxic exposure, and treat discarded devices as a domestic source of critical minerals, not just trash.
This article walks through that whole picture step by step:
- How big the e-waste problem really is in the U.S.
- What U.S. policy looks like today, and why it isn’t enough.
- Why a national e-waste policy is strategically necessary.
- The core design principles such a policy should follow.
- The fundamentals that a serious U.S. national e-waste policy must include.
Key Takeaways:
- The U.S. still lacks a true national e-waste policy, even as e-waste becomes a critical global issue and peer countries move ahead.
- This policy gap drives toxic pollution, waste exports, missed critical-mineral recovery, and unequal burdens on low-income communities.
- A credible national e-waste policy must center producer responsibility, right-to-repair design rules, strict export controls, and justice-focused facility standards.
How Big Is the U.S. E-Waste Problem?
Global e-waste has surged to 62 million tons, but only 22.3% is safely recycled, driving toxic pollution and wasting valuable critical minerals.
Electronic waste isn’t just “old gadgets.” It is one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world and a major test case for any serious national e-waste policy.
How Much E-Waste Does America Generate?
The United States is one of the largest generators of e-waste on the planet. According to U.S. data from the Global E-waste Monitor:
- In 2022, the U.S. generated about 5.8 billion pounds of e-waste (about 7.9 million tons).
- That equals about 47 pounds of electronic waste per person in a single year.
- Only around 56% of that e-waste was formally collected through recognized systems.
This means that nearly half of U.S. electronic waste falls outside transparent, regulated systems.
These numbers show why any serious discussion of a national e-waste policy has to start from measurement: the U.S. produces a huge volume of electronic waste, and a large fraction of it is still unmanaged, invisible, or offshored.
What U.S. E-Waste Policy Looks Like Today
U.S. e-waste policy is fragmented: weak federal rules, uneven state laws, and a major export loophole all undermine a true national e-waste policy.
Right now, the United States manages electronic waste through a mix of old hazardous-waste laws, voluntary guidelines, and state-by-state programs. There is no single national e-waste policy that covers the entire lifecycle of electronics across the country.
To see why that matters, we need to look at three layers:
- Federal rules,
- State laws, and
- Export controls.
Federal E-Waste Policy: Minimal, Fragmented, and Mostly Voluntary
At the federal level, e-waste is governed by old hazardous-waste rules and nonbinding guidance, not by a modern, comprehensive national e-waste policy.
At the federal level, U.S. e-waste policy is best described as minimalistic and fragmented.
There is no specific federal law that:
- Requires nationwide recycling of e-waste, or
- Clearly regulates e-waste exports as a distinct waste stream.
The main federal law for waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), only applies when electronic waste meets narrow hazardous-waste definitions. Many devices—especially when still intact—do not qualify, so a large share of e-waste falls into a regulatory gray zone.
In 2011, the federal government released the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship, a policy roadmap from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies.
It set out goals and voluntary actions for better e-waste management, but it did not create binding national requirements or enforcement.
Academic work describes this as “minimalistic federal action and fragmented subnational activities”: no uniform national e-waste law, only scattered landfill bans and general hazardous-waste rules.
State E-Waste Laws: A Patchwork of EPR and Disposal Rules
About half of U.S. states have e-waste laws, but they vary widely, creating a patchwork of rules that still leaves big gaps in access and enforcement.
25 states + Washington, D.C. have some form of e-waste legislation, many using extended producer responsibility (EPR) models (manufacturers finance collection & recycling). These state laws cover roughly 75–80% of the U.S. population, but coverage is uneven and often inconvenient even where laws exist.
Program details also differ widely by state:
- Which products are covered (TVs, computers, printers, small devices, etc.)
- How fees are calculated and who pays them
- What performance standards or recycling targets apply
California’s system, for example, looks very different from those in Maine or Illinois. For manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers, this means:
- Navigating dozens of different regulatory regimes and municipal contracts
- Adapting logistics, reporting, and financing to each state’s specific rules
- Facing entire regions—especially in parts of the South and Midwest—where robust, convenient e-waste collection is still lacking
The result is a patchwork: state laws help, but they do not add up to a coherent, predictable national e-waste policy.
The Export Loophole: Basel Convention and U.S. E-Waste Shipments Overseas
On exports, the situation is even more problematic.
The U.S. has never ratified the Basel Convention (the main global treaty controlling hazardous-waste trade) or the Basel Ban Amendment that forbids hazardous-waste exports from rich to poorer countries.
The Basel parties adopted e-waste-specific amendments, effective January 1, 2025. This puts almost all e-waste under a Prior Informed Consent system – stricter controls on transboundary movement.
Since the U.S. is a non-party, countries that are parties generally may not trade Basel-controlled waste with it.
A 2025 investigation by Basel Action Network tracked at least 10 U.S. companies exporting used electronics to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, often under misleading customs codes. It estimates more than 10,000 containers of potential e-waste shipped from Jan 2023–Feb 2025, worth over $1 billion, with serious pollution and labor abuses at destination.
On the legislative side, Congress has considered but not passed stronger export controls:
- The Secure E-Waste Export and Recycling Act (SEERA) was introduced in 2023 and again in 2025.
- SEERA would restrict e-waste exports unless devices are tested and fully functional, tightening the definition of legitimate “reuse.”
- So far, the bill has stalled in committee and has not become law.
Taken together, this leaves a clear picture:
The U.S. generates a large stream of e-waste, operates under a patchwork of state laws, has limited federal direction, and maintains a significant export loophole.
A serious national e-waste policy would need to address all three layers at once.
Why A National Policy Is Not Just “Nice To Have” But Necessary
A national e-waste policy is essential to close regulatory gaps, cut waste leakage, protect communities, secure critical minerals, and align U.S. rules with global standards.
Efficiency, Leakage, and the Cost of Fragmentation
Fragmented e-waste rules drive waste to weaker states, raise compliance costs, and leave coverage gaps that a national e-waste policy could streamline and close.
Different state programs create regulatory arbitrage: e-waste flows to places with the weakest rules or cheapest processors. Multi-state brands and recyclers juggle conflicting requirements, adding cost without better results.
Many communities still lack convenient drop-off options.
A national framework can:
- Standardize baselines (definitions, reporting, minimum targets),
- Reduce duplication, and
- Focus competition on better performance, not lower standards.
Public Health and Environmental Justice
When e-waste is dumped, burned, or crudely dismantled, it releases heavy metals, dioxins, and brominated flame retardants into soil, air, and water.
It disproportionately harms low-income and minority communities in the U.S. (facilities sited in already overburdened areas) and communities in importing countries in Southeast Asia and beyond.
The Basel Action Network report and related AP coverage describe this as a form of “waste colonialism”: rich-country consumption, poor-country contamination.
Critical Minerals, Industrial Strategy, and National Security
E-waste contains critical rare earth minerals; a national e-waste policy can turn discarded electronics into a strategic domestic resource instead of a lost export stream.
Discarded electronics hold copper, gold, rare earths, and other critical minerals the U.S. now imports from fragile supply chains.
With high, consistent collection and domestic processing, e-waste becomes a strategic feedstock that supports manufacturing and national security. Without a national e-waste policy, that material keeps leaking overseas as “scrap.”
International Credibility and Basel Alignment
With the Basel e-waste amendments now in effect and 190+ parties involved, the global trend is toward tighter controls on e-waste flows.
The U.S. is now:
- The largest developed country that has not ratified Basel or its Ban Amendment.
- A major exporter of “hidden tsunami” e-waste shipments.
- And increasingly out of step with partners who are restricting hazardous waste trade.
A strong national policy—ideally including Basel ratification and full implementation—would sync U.S. practice with global norms and reduce the legal gray zone for U.S. exporters and foreign importers.
Core Design Principles for a U.S. National E-Waste Policy
A strong national e-waste policy should follow clear principles: polluter pays, health-first, circular design, environmental justice, and adaptive performance targets.
If we agree the U.S. needs a national e-waste policy, the next question is how to design it.
Good policy isn’t just a list of rules; it rests on clear principles that guide decisions over time.
Here are five core pillars.
- Polluter pays / Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Those who place electronics on the market (brand owners, importers) should finance and organize the entire end-of-life system.
- Health-first and precautionary: Where risks are uncertain or diffuse, err on the side of preventing exposure—especially for children and workers.
- Circular economy hierarchy: Prioritize reduce → repair → reuse/remanufacture → recycle → safe disposal, not just “recycling” as a catch-all.
- Justice and global responsibility: Don’t shift harms to vulnerable communities at home or abroad. Limit hazardous exports, ensure safe working conditions, and include environmental-justice safeguards.
- Performance-based and adaptive: Set clear, measurable targets (collection, reuse, recycling, toxicity reductions) and review them every few years as technology and markets change.
Together, these principles form the backbone of a modern U.S. national e-waste policy and translate into a concrete policy architecture in the sections that follow.
What a U.S. National E-Waste Policy Should Include
A strong U.S. national e-waste policy should define clear scope, mandate producer responsibility, reward durable design, close export loopholes, and protect people and data. To move from theory to practice, a national e-waste policy needs concrete components that can be written into federal law.
Think of the pieces below as the core “chapters” of a modern U.S. electronics law.
Chapter 1: Clear Scope and Definitions for E-Waste
A national policy needs to:
- Define “electrical and electronic equipment (EEE)” broadly: essentially, any product with a plug or a battery, similar to the EU WEEE Directive.
- Define “e-waste” in line with the new Basel e-waste amendments:
- Whole devices,
- Components (e.g., circuit boards, screens), and
- Processing fractions (e.g., shredded material) where electronics heritage is clear.
- Categorize products (large appliances, small appliances, IT/telecom, consumer electronics, lighting, etc.) to enable category-specific targets and strategies, mirroring international practice.
These definitions sound dry, but they are where loopholes live. Without clear, harmonized language, exporters can keep labeling containers of broken gadgets as “metal scrap” or “used goods” to bypass e-waste rules.
Chapter 2: A Federal Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Framework
A national e-waste policy should require producers to register, report, and fund end-of-life systems through a federal Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program.
This is the center of gravity of a serious national e-waste policy.
1. Producer obligations
Any company placing covered electronics on the U.S. market — including importers and online platforms — must:
- Register in a national producer registry
- Report products and quantities placed on the market
- Join an approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) or file an individual compliance plan
2. Financing and eco-modulated fees
Producers pay EPR fees into PROs or a national fund. Fees vary based on:
- Product size/weight and category
- Hazardous substances used
- Recyclability and ease of disassembly
- Durability and repairability (for example, higher fees for glued-shut devices with non-removable batteries)
Design incentive:
The safer, longer-lasting, and more repairable the product, the lower the fee.
3. Collection, reuse, and recycling targets
Federal rules should set national minimum targets that increase over time, including:
- Collection targets (share of e-waste collected vs. generated)
- Reuse targets (share of collected units refurbished and reused)
- Recycling and recovery efficiency targets by product category
4. Harmonizing state laws
States can go further, but their programs must:
- Integrate with the national producer registry
- Accept federally recognized PROs
- Meet or exceed federal minimum standards, not undercut them
In practice, this creates one coordinated national backbone instead of 25+ disjointed systems.
Chapter 3: Design Rules for Durability, Repairability, and Safer Chemistry
The national policy should fit right-to-repair and chemical safety policy together:
Repairability requirements
Covered products should be required to:
- Make spare parts and repair manuals available for a reasonable period
- Avoid design tricks that block repair
- Provide software and firmware support long enough to match the realistic hardware life
Durability and warranties
Policy can push durability by encouraging longer warranties and linking producer fees to declared product lifetimes.
Designs that can be upgraded—storage, memory, modular components—should be rewarded over those that need full replacement when one part fails.
Hazardous substances reduction
Align U.S. rules more closely with RoHS-style restrictions (lead, mercury, cadmium, certain brominated flame retardants, etc.), building on existing chemical regulations but giving them a product-specific e-waste lens.
Chapter 4: Strong Reuse, Refurbishment, and Digital Equity Provisions
Recycling is better than landfilling, but reuse is better than both.
The policy should set separate targets for reuse/refurbishment (e.g., % of units collected that are successfully refurbished and redeployed) and for Material recovery (traditional recycling).
At the same time, the policy should support non-profit refurbishers and social enterprises that bridge the digital divide by providing low-cost refurbished devices to schools, low-income households, and community organizations.
Chapter 5: Export Controls and Basel Alignment
To stop “collect here, dump there,” a national e-waste policy must align with Basel rules, restrict toxic exports, and require transparent, licensed exporters.
Given the scale of U.S. e-waste exports, a national policy has to tackle exports directly.
Basel Convention and Ban Amendment
The U.S. should:
- Amend domestic law (for example, RCRA) to match Basel controls on hazardous and non-hazardous e-waste
- Ratify the Basel Ban Amendment, which restricts hazardous waste exports from richer to poorer countries
Domestic export-control statute
Congress should pass a law similar to, or stronger than, SEERA, to:
- Ban exports of non-functional, untested, or non-repairable e-waste to countries without equivalent environmental and labor protections
- Allow exports only for fully tested, functional devices for genuine reuse, with documentation and pre-processed metal concentrates sent to facilities that meet high environmental and safety standards
Licensing, transparency, and enforcement
A robust export regime should:
- Require licenses for all e-waste exporters
- Mandate public reporting of shipment volumes, types, and destinations
- Use Prior Informed Consent procedures, in line with Basel, for any cross-border movement
- Make third-party certifications (like R2v3 or e-Stewards) mandatory—but back them with federal audits and real penalties, recognizing that certification alone has not stopped abuse
Chapter 6: Facility Standards, Labor Protections, and Environmental Justice
National e-waste policy must require safe facilities, strong worker protections, and environmental justice safeguards so no community becomes a dumping ground.
A credible framework must make sure that U.S. e-waste facilities are safe places to work and live near.
That requires strict permits for shredders, smelters, and dismantlers; limits on heavy-metal and dioxin emissions; and robust controls for air, water, and dust.
Workers need PPE, training, and health monitoring.
Dangerous practices like open burning or acid stripping should be banned outright. Contracts that depend on poorly protected prison labor should be banned or tightly limited.
Environmental-justice tools, like EPA’s EJScreen, should prevent clusters of hazardous facilities in already overburdened communities and require consultation, monitoring, and transparency.
This chapter is not just about how much we collect—it’s about who bears the risk.
Chapter 7: Data Security and Privacy Standards
E-waste isn’t just metal and plastic; it’s also hard drives, phones, and servers full of sensitive data.
A national e-waste policy should:
- Mandate data sanitization standards for any device that previously held personal, health, or financial data, referencing frameworks like NIST SP 800-88.
- Require recyclers and refurbishers to:
- Maintain chain-of-custody documentation for devices from high-risk sectors (government, healthcare, finance).
- Undergo periodic audits for data-destruction compliance.
This connects national e-waste policy with cybersecurity and privacy, reducing the risk of breaches and identity theft tied to discarded devices.
Chapter 8: Federal Procurement as a Market-Shaping Lever
The federal government is one of the world’s largest electronics buyers. Policy should make it a model customer.
Rules can:
- Require federal agencies to buy electronics that:
- Meet eco-design, repairability, and chemical-safety standards
- Come with a clear, supplier-funded take-back and end-of-life plan (EPR embedded in contracts)
- Mandate that all federal e-waste is handled by certified, audited recyclers and refurbishers
- Use long-term contracts to give recyclers predictable volumes, encouraging investment in advanced recycling and refurbishment technologies
If federal procurement rules change, big vendors will adapt their product lines and logistics nationwide—not just for federal sales.
Chapter 9: Funding Mechanisms and Incentives
Besides EPR fees, the policy can deploy complementary economic tools:
- Deposit-refund systems for small electronics (phones, tablets, peripherals):
- Consumers pay a small deposit at purchase
- They get it back when they return the device for proper take-back
- Experience from container deposit laws suggests this can dramatically increase return rates
- Tax credits or grants for:
- Facilities that recover critical minerals domestically from e-waste
- R&D into high-recovery, low-impact recycling technologies
- Local repair and refurbishment hubs that keep devices in use longer
The goal is to align profit with public interest so that responsible handling is not just a moral choice, but a good business decision.
Chapter 10: Governance, Data, and Ongoing Evaluation
A national e-waste policy needs a dedicated office, strong data systems, and regular reviews so it can adapt and avoid quiet failure.
A policy that doesn’t measure itself is set up to fail quietly.
Key governance elements:
A National E-Waste Office (likely within the EPA) to:
- Run the producer registry and data systems
- Coordinate with states, tribes, and international partners
- Publish regular E-Waste Reports tracking collection, reuse, recycling, exports, and health indicators
Standardized reporting formats for:
- Producers (electronics placed on the market)
- PROs (what is collected, reused, recycled, by category)
- Exporters (waste vs. used products and destinations)
Five-year policy reviews to:
- Compare performance against targets
- Adjust scope (for example, adding IoT devices, e-cigarettes, EV batteries)
- Respond to new international obligations and technologies
Global experience shows that many countries struggle due to weak data and weak enforcement. A U.S. national e-waste policy should explicitly avoid that trap by baking measurement and accountability into the law from day one.
Conclusion: What a U.S. National E-Waste Policy Must Deliver
A real U.S. national e-waste policy needs producer responsibility, export controls, better product design, justice safeguards, and strong federal data and buying power.
Boiled down, a serious national e-waste policy has five non-negotiables.
- Federal EPR framework: Producers—not cities or taxpayers—finance and manage nationwide collection, reuse, and recycling, with eco-modulated fees and rising performance targets.
- Export rules aligned with global norms: The U.S. must stop pushing its problem offshore by aligning with Basel and/or passing strong laws like SEERA so non-functional “scrap” can’t be dumped abroad.
- Design, repair, and toxics reduction: Durable, repairable, less-toxic electronics become the default through eco-design, right-to-repair aligned rules, and tighter limits on hazardous substances.
- Protection for workers and communities: Strict facility, emissions, and labor standards plus environmental-justice safeguards ensure no community becomes the path of least resistance.
- Federal procurement and data as levers: The federal government buys only circular, take-back-ready electronics and runs a robust national data system with regular public reporting.
Everything else—critical-minerals strategy, innovation support, bolder reuse goals—sits on top of these pillars. Without them, “national e-waste policy” is just a slogan.
