US Midterm Elections Unlikely To Change Recycled Plastic Market

ICISAnalysts say that Democrats’ unlikely recapture of Congress in this week’s U.S. midterm elections is not expected to immediately trigger shifts in recycled plastic pricing, procurement, or federal policy.Conversely, the market intelligence firm stated that state-level regulation, rather than Washington, will remain the dominant force shaping demand for recycled resin packaging in the United States.

This distinction is crucial for the packaging industry, which continues to base investment and procurement decisions on recycled content, particularly for PET beverage containers, where recycling content mandates and collection systems are already relatively well-developed. As the economics of recycled polymers are being squeezed by virgin resin pricing, trade flows, and feedstock supply, understanding where the true regulatory leverage lies—at the state level rather than the federal level—can help processors, brand owners, and resin buyers across the entire packaging value chain avoid mistaking medium-term outcomes for market signals.

PlasticsTodayWe interviewed Andrea Bassetti, Head of ICIS Plastics Recycling Americas, and Corbin Olson, Senior Analyst at ICIS, to discuss how shifts in Congress could—and could not—affect the recycled plastics industry. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Today's Plastics：With Democrats regaining control of Congress following this week’s midterm elections, what immediate reactions or shifts in sentiment have you observed in the recycled plastics market?

Olson：Interim results should not have any direct impact on the market. The pricing and procurement of recycled polymers remain primarily driven by the economics of virgin resins, trade and logistics, raw material supply, and existing state-level regulations. While elections may improve long-term sentiment toward environmental initiatives and related investments, they will not alter short-term trading dynamics.

Plastic recycling sits at the intersection of two policy agendas that can pull in different directions. It is an industry focused on sustainability, but it is also a manufacturing sector facing challenges related to costs, competitiveness, and trade. A political environment more supportive of circularity does not automatically translate into stronger economics for recycled resins, and the most critical policies are enacted at the state level.

PlasticsToday：Historically, how have shifts in congressional control influenced policy priorities surrounding recycling, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and plastic regulation?

Olson：U.S. recycling policy has historically not been driven at the federal level, so changes in congressional control or the presidency have had little practical impact on federal recycling legislation. The most important EPR, recycled content, and plastics policies have already been enacted at the state level.

Elections have indeed shifted the general sentiment toward environmental policy, which may influence the desire for state-level action and thereby drive demand for recycled plastics. We do not anticipate federal legislation focused on recycling in the short, medium, or long term; therefore, states will continue to send more meaningful signals to the market.

Today's Plastics:Under this new political dynamic, should plastic recycling stakeholders now pay closer attention to the specifics of federal legislation, whether stalled or newly introduced?

Bassetti：Many federal proposals address recycling, including traceability of recycled content, data collection, and labeling, but recycling legislation is not expected to pass at the federal level. Historically, recycling policy has remained under state jurisdiction, and this is unlikely to change.

Even if federal proposals make progress, they will largely address empowerment issues rather than immediately increase demand for physically recycled resin. Stakeholders should focus on state-level legislation and regulations, which are the key drivers influencing demand for recycled plastics.

PlasticsToday：How might this shift affect the pace and scope of state-level EPR programs, particularly in states where federal adjustments or funding are factors?

Bassetti：Regardless of how Congress exercises control, existing state programs should largely proceed according to their established statutory and regulatory timelines. States, rather than the federal government, have led the way in implementing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and recycled content policies, and we do not expect federal support or funding to alter this dynamic. Any impact from elections is likely to stem from shifts in public sentiment, which may influence the desire for new national actions.

Another consideration is consumer cost. EPR and recycled content policies may increase compliance costs across the entire packaging value chain, creating tension between environmental goals and affordability. States considering new programs can assess the costs and operational experience of existing programs before proceeding.

PlasticsToday：From the perspective of ICIS data and market intelligence, have buyers and sellers of recycled resins adjusted their pricing or procurement strategies to cope with regulatory changes?

Bassetti：ICIS has not identified widespread pricing or procurement shifts in recycled polymers that can be directly attributed to the election. Current procurement decisions remain closely tied to virgin polymer prices, imports, freight costs, raw material supply and quality, as well as demand driven by existing national policies or voluntary sustainability commitments.

The distinction between mandated and voluntary requirements remains critically important. Mandates can establish more enduring demand for recycled materials, whereas voluntary purchases are more vulnerable when economic conditions deteriorate. Trade also remains significant, particularly for rPET, as imported materials can supplement domestic supply and influence pricing.

PlasticsToday：Could increasing the Democratic Party’s influence accelerate demand-side policies, such as recycled content mandates? If so, which resin categories are most likely to be affected first?

Olson：Political support for recycled content and circular economy initiatives can boost market confidence, but any demand-side policies are most likely to be implemented through state-level mandates rather than federal legislation. Meaningful changes in demand may take years rather than months, as national legislation must be proposed, negotiated, enacted, and implemented before companies can make corresponding supply chain adjustments.

PET is likely to remain the first and most directly impacted resin, as regulations on recycled content, collection systems, and end-market demand have already developed relatively well around beverage packaging. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) may follow. Polypropylene (PP) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) face greater limitations in terms of collection, sorting, contamination, and the consistent availability of post-consumer feedstock.

PlasticsToday：What are the potential risks or unintended consequences if the pace of recycling-related legislation outstrips the capacity of infrastructure or supply to support it?

Bassetti：The primary risk is that policy-driven demand grows faster than recycling systems can produce suitable materials. This may increase the premium on scarce food-grade, natural, and other specification-sensitive recycled products, without addressing the oversupply of mixed-color or low-quality materials.

The issue is not merely about how much material is collected or the extent of recycling capacity. Rather, it concerns how much available, specification-compliant material enters the market. Therefore, investments in collection quality, sorting, and feedstock preparation may be just as important as increasing nameplate recycling capacity. If demand outpaces these investments, the result may be higher costs, greater reliance on imports, or difficulties in meeting obligations, rather than an immediate expansion of domestic recycling.

PlasticsToday：Looking ahead 12 to 24 months, what structural impacts do you anticipate this shift in Congress will have on investment, infrastructure development, or trade policy?

Olson：Short-term structural impacts are likely to be limited. While the election may gradually improve sentiment toward recycling infrastructure and environmental investment, policy direction and any supportive mandates are more likely to originate from individual states rather than from federal funding or national policies. In any case, collection, sorting, and reclamation projects involve lengthy development, permitting, and construction timelines.

Companies are unlikely to make significant capital commitments based solely on congressional control. Investment decisions will continue to depend on the certainty of national policies, long-term demand for recycled resin, producer costs, recycling agreements, and competitiveness against virgin materials. Trade policies, including tariffs and access to imported recycled materials, may be equally important, as recycled plastic is part of environmental policy discussions andThe broader U.S. manufacturing and trade environmenta part of。

PlasticsToday：Is there anything noteworthy that we haven't discussed?

Olson：A potentially significant development is the shift in sentiment, rather than the legislation itself. Before the new mandate takes effect, the political shift on environmental issues may gradually increase the willingness of brands, investors, and consumers to support recycling programs. This could strengthen voluntary demand or investment expectations, although economic factors will remain a major constraint.

More broadly, expanding demand for recycled plastics requires alignment across policy, economics, collection, infrastructure, brand procurement, and consumer behavior. These elements operate on different timelines. Elections may influence sentiment toward national-level policies, but adjustments in the physical market typically proceed at a much slower pace.