Category: Environment

EPA’s Steven Cook Reverses PFAS Cleanup Rules Benefiting Polluters

Steven Cook, a former lawyer for the chemical industry, has taken a controversial position at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as he proposes the repeal of a crucial rule aimed at regulating “forever chemicals,” specifically PFAS, linked to severe health risks like cancer and low birthrates. His actions come as a surprise, considering he was previously involved in lawsuits aimed at blocking the very regulation he now seeks to dismantle. This shift could potentially place the financial burden of cleaning up these pollutants on taxpayers while freeing corporations from accountability.

Documents reviewed by The New York Times indicate that Cook’s recent meeting with industry representatives triggered a rapid change in the EPA’s internal recommendations regarding PFAS cleanup. Previously, the internal guidance advocated for maintaining the existing rule, which imposed substantial cleanup costs on polluters. However, following these discussions, the recommendation was altered to support repeal, suggesting that regulatory cons now outweigh the pros, a stark contrast to prior assertions.

This decision aligns with a troubling pattern observed within the Trump administration and its appointees, who often prioritize corporate interests over public health and environmental safety. This conflict of interest is particularly glaring as Cook, now in a position to shape crucial environmental policies, had spent over two decades working with the chemical industry. Critics like Richard Painter, a former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, emphasize that such actions undermine democratic accountability and reflect the pervasive influence of wealthy industries on regulatory bodies.

Forever chemicals, which are pervasive in our environment due to their widespread use in various products, are now detectable in the blood of nearly every American. A recent government study revealed alarming levels of PFAS contamination in tap water across the country, raising significant health concerns. The EPA has acknowledged that these chemicals can cause harm at levels previously deemed acceptable, necessitating stringent regulations to protect public health.

While Cook’s proposed changes are still under consideration, the implications are clear: repealing the cleanup rule could enable companies to evade their responsibility to bear the cleanup costs for lands contaminated by their products. The shift not only jeopardizes public health but also signifies a broader rollback of environmental protections championed during the Biden administration. Environmental advocates warn that without stringent regulations, communities will continue to face the dire consequences of corporate pollution.

(h/t: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/28/climate/steven-cook-epa-pfas-forever-chemicals.html)

Trump Administration Cuts Pollution Monitoring from Future Weather Satellites

**Title:** Trump Administration Cuts Key Pollution Instruments from Weather Satellites

The Trump administration has decided to significantly reduce the capabilities of future weather and climate satellites by eliminating essential pollution monitoring instruments. This decision, revealed by sources to CNN, occurs amidst the impending hurricane season, signaling a broader agenda to undermine environmental protections and reduce data on climate change impacts.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will no longer include instruments that measure air quality and ocean conditions in its upcoming satellite program. This change is particularly troubling as it appears to be a targeted effort to minimize understanding of the atmosphere and oceans, which critics say undermines public health and environmental regulations.

An NOAA official expressed concern that such cuts jeopardize critical data on air pollution and climate changes that could improve public health outcomes, stating that “this administration has taken a very narrow view of weather.” The projected cost savings of the satellites come at the expense of comprehensive data collection, making future forecasting and environmental assessments less reliable.

The budget request for fiscal year 2026 also indicates plans to close key NOAA research facilities and dismantle its greenhouse gas monitoring network, further cementing a regression in U.S. environmental leadership. These cuts stem from the administration’s perceived focus on strictly weather forecasting while largely neglecting climate change mitigation efforts, directly contradicting scientific advice.

As a result of these actions, the advantages of advanced climate monitoring systems and protections for public health through air quality assessments are being sacrificed for short-term financial savings. This approach, which is consistent with the Republican party’s disregard for scientific consensus on climate issues, poses serious long-term risks to both environmental sustainability and public well-being.

Trump’s $4 Billion High-Speed Rail Funding Cut Sparks Outrage in California

The Trump administration’s recent decision to withdraw $4 billion in funding for California’s high-speed rail project has triggered widespread condemnation from state leaders, who argue that the move is “illegal.” This decision was made following a federal compliance review that alleged “no viable path forward” for the high-speed rail plan, which was once envisioned as a transformative transportation project. Governor Gavin Newsom and Ian Choudri, the chief executive of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, have vehemently criticized the administration’s actions, emphasizing the administration’s failure to recognize previously binding commitments.

In the wake of this decision, California state officials have asserted that the Trump administration’s conclusions regarding the project are based on outdated information and flawed assessments. They point out the economic and logistical benefits that the high-speed rail project could bring to the Central Valley, including thousands of jobs, in stark contrast to Trump’s portrayal of the project as a misguided waste of federal funds. The funding, which the state has indicated was a legally binding agreement, is crucial for continuing construction efforts.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy assigned blame to California’s leadership, suggesting that “mismanagement” had plagued the project’s progress. He called for a review of other grants related to the endeavor and characterized the California High-Speed Rail Authority as incapable of delivering on its promises. In this cutthroat political framing, Duffy accused state leaders of fostering incompetence and possibly corruption in managing the high-speed rail initiative.

Trump has publicly defended his administration’s decision to terminate the funding, arguing that it saves taxpayers from pouring money into what he has dubbed “California’s disastrously overpriced ‘high-speed train to nowhere.’” His rhetoric plays into a broader narrative of controlling governmental spending while disregarding the significant investment already made into the project and the potential benefits it could yield.

In response to this funding withdrawal, state officials are considering alternative funding methods, including potential public-private partnerships. They remain steadfast in their commitment to the project, which has already sparked significant state investment and community planning. As such, the clash over the high-speed rail project underscores the significant divide between federal and local priorities, further complicating infrastructure development in California amid the contentious political landscape fostered by the Trump administration.

EPA Employees Punished for Speaking Out Against Trump Administration’s Environmental Policies

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has placed approximately 140 employees on administrative leave following their signing of a public letter that criticized the agency and the Trump administration’s detrimental policies on climate and public health. The letter, which was signed by over 270 individuals, expressed grave concerns that the Trump administration was systematically dismantling the EPA’s research and development capabilities, canceling vital environmental justice initiatives, and creating a culture of fear aimed at suppressing dissent among federal workers.

Scarlett VanDyke, an EPA employee from the Research and Development office, recounted her unsettling experience of being escorted out of the building after signing the letter. She highlighted the surreal nature of her termination, especially as she is regarded as a top-performing employee. The overt retaliation against her and her colleagues showcases the chilling atmosphere fostered by leadership under Trump’s administration, which openly punishes those who dare to dissent.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin has categorically defended this punitive action, framing it as necessary to protect the agency’s integrity against what he claims is sabotage. He has stated the agency adheres to a zero-tolerance policy towards employees undermining the administration’s agenda. This aggressive response to employees’ expression of concerns about ethical governance raises serious questions about the treatment of federal workers under an administration that has repeatedly undermined scientific consensus in favor of corporate interests.

Internal communication from the EPA conveyed that the ongoing investigation into the employees’ actions was not disciplinary, despite the public branding of their dissent as an act of sabotage. This contradiction, coupled with a similar incident at the National Institutes of Health where employees faced no repercussions for dissent, further highlights the oppressive measures implemented by Zeldin’s administration to silence critical voices within the agency.

As cautionary tales emerge about the environment of fear that inhibits transparency and accountability, employees like Amelia Hertzberg have expressed disappointment in the perceived failure of whistleblower protections. They assert that the agency’s leadership interprets dissent as hostility rather than constructive criticism, further endangering the fundamental mission of the EPA to uphold environmental and public health standards amidst a landscape characterized by political manipulation and ethical breaches.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/03/climate/epa-letter-employees-suspended-investigation)

Trump’s Plan to Dismantle Climate Regulations Threatens Public Health and Environmental Safety

The Trump administration is moving to eliminate all climate regulations affecting power plants, a move that is expected to significantly worsen air pollution and exacerbate climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed findings declaring that greenhouse gas emissions from power plants do not “contribute significantly” to dangerous air pollution, thereby justifying the removal of critical regulations implemented during President Biden’s administration.

This reckless proposal aims to undo measures that required coal-fired and new natural gas plants to reduce their carbon emissions by at least 90 percent and introduced stricter limits on toxic metal releases from coal plants. If enacted, the changes would potentially allow for the unrestricted pollution of air and water, compromising public health and environmental safety.

According to projections made during the Biden era, the current regulations that Trump seeks to dismantle were expected to prevent approximately 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from 2038 to 2047. This figure is equivalent to removing over 300 million gasoline-powered cars from the roads for a year, underscoring the scale of potential environmental damage if Trump’s proposal is put into effect.

These actions reflect not only an abandonment of environmental responsibility but also an alignment with the interests of fossil fuel corporations at the expense of the working class and the planet. By rolling back protections designed to combat climate change, the Trump administration is prioritizing short-term profits for wealthy elites while undermining public health and future generations.

Ultimately, the decision to dismantle these regulations marks a significant regression in the fight against climate change and public health protections, revealing the administration’s commitment to promoting fossil fuels over sustainable solutions. Trump’s actions echo a broader Republican agenda that consistently prioritizes corporate interests at the expense of the environment and democracy.

Trump’s Budget Bill Opens Protected Lands to Mining for Billionaire Luksic Despite Environmental Risks

President Donald Trump’s budget reconciliation bill includes a last-minute provision that would benefit Chilean billionaire Andrónico Luksic, a former landlord to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. This provision permits Luksic’s company, Antofagasta, to begin mining operations on protected federal lands in Minnesota, an action that poses serious environmental risks to surrounding freshwater bodies, as detailed in a federal environmental review.

Antofagasta, owned by Luksic’s family-run conglomerate, is set to conduct a nearly $2 billion nickel and copper mining operation in an ecologically sensitive area adjacent to Superior National Forest. This project, known as Twin Metals, has been pursued by Luksic since 2012 amid rising concerns from local Native American tribes and conservation groups about the potential toxic runoff negatively impacting water sources and ecosystems.

Despite significant opposition, the Trump administration reversed an earlier decision by the Obama administration that blocked the mining project due to its potential ecological harm. Under Trump’s leadership, the Department of the Interior expedited preliminary permits for Twin Metals, a decision criticized for disregarding environmental standards mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act.

The current budget bill not only lifts a Biden-era ban on mining leases near these protected areas but also reflects extensive lobbying efforts by Antofagasta and other corporate interests. In the last quarter alone, Antofagasta’s lobbying expenditures reached $200,000, with additional investments aimed at influencing federal lease approvals. Right-wing groups like Americans for Prosperity also played a role in pushing for expedited mining operations, showcasing the intertwining of corporate greed and political maneuvering in Trump’s agenda.

This latest move exemplifies Trump’s ongoing alliance with wealthy elites and the disregard for environmental protections, threatening the integrity of crucial ecosystems while enriching his allies. The implications of such actions extend beyond immediate profits, signaling a dangerous trend towards prioritizing corporate interests over public health and environmental stewardship.

(h/t: https://jacobin.com/2025/06/chile-mining-trump-luksic-environment?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR5efzZAtOmrJTaoURjqxHFjbVK5vo85anHceD5Oo9PfRq69EenAWV39Cdd3rg_aem_S46WY66tluDU0ClO9oYwtA)

Trump Administration Cuts EPA Workforce by 733, Threatening Environmental Protections and Justice

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has seen a significant workforce reduction of at least 733 employees since President Donald Trump took office, representing a decrease from 17,080 to 16,347 staffers as of May 30, 2025. This alarming attrition reflects an aggressive agenda targeting environmental oversight, with 280 staffers dedicated to environmental justice already removed, primarily affecting initiatives aimed at protecting marginalized communities.

Since January 1, 2025, the agency has reportedly lost an additional 450 employees due to various factors, including a buyout program designed to push staff toward early retirement. The current numbers may not fully capture recent departures, indicating potential further cutbacks as Trump’s administration seeks to implement drastic reductions in government size.

Adding to the already precarious situation, Trump’s proposed budget threatens further slashing payroll by up to 35 percent for essential scientific and environmental program personnel. This move signals a broader contempt for environmental protections, aligning with the administration’s history of devaluing governmental roles that safeguard public health and the environment.

Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, emphasized during a recent communication that the agency aims to enhance operational efficiency, despite laying off essential personnel crucial in combating pollution in poorer communities. Esteemed former EPA employee Stan Meiburg noted that such a high attrition rate in such a short span of time deviates from norms, raising red flags about the agency’s capacity to fulfill its mission effectively.

The ongoing dissolution of the EPA’s workforce under Trump not only dismantles vital environmental initiatives but also undermines governmental accountability. This pattern is consistent with a broader narrative of Republican leadership actively hostile to regulatory frameworks that serve the common welfare, jeopardizing the integrity of American democracy and public health in favor of corporate interests.

Trump Administration Expedites Uranium Mining, Ignoring Environmental Risks and Community Health

The Trump administration has greenlit the reopening of the Velvet-Wood uranium mine in southeastern Utah, utilizing a newly expedited environmental review process. This approval marks a concerning trend under the Trump administration, as it prioritizes rapid exploitation of natural resources over environmental safety and community well-being. The Canadian firm Anfield Energy will take charge of the mining operations, which also include vanadium—used in steel production for various industries.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum hailed the decision, claiming it represents a “turning point” for America’s mineral future and a method to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers. However, such measures reflect an alarming shift towards prioritizing corporate interests over environmental concerns, with critics denouncing the fast-tracking of the environmental assessment process as reckless and potentially harmful to adjacent communities.

The USDA’s approval follows a 14-day assessment, intended to expedite projects deemed critical to U.S. mineral security. This is part of a broader agenda to increase domestic mining capabilities. Yet, the short review period raises red flags regarding the adequacy of environmental protections. Environmental groups have vehemently opposed this initiative, warning that it poses real risks to local ecosystems and public health.

As the mining project aims to extract already-known mineral deposits, the claims of job creation and infrastructure improvements appear to be a smokescreen. The potential for long-lasting damage to surrounding environments cannot be overlooked, particularly as the U.S. grapples with increasing environmental challenges. Real prosperity should not come at the expense of the health of communities and their inhabitants.

Overall, the Trump administration’s push to expedite uranium mining is emblematic of a broader, troubling trend in governance that favors corporate profit at the cost of environmental integrity. As these policies unfold, it becomes essential to remain vigilant about their impacts on both local populations and the global environment.

Trump Administration Weakens PFAS Regulation, Endangering Public Health and Favoring Chemical Industry

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unveiled plans to significantly weaken regulations surrounding “forever chemicals,” also known as PFAS, which have been linked to severe health issues like cancer and thyroid problems. Despite previously imposing limits under the Biden administration that were designed to protect approximately 100 million Americans, the current Trump administration is rescinding conditions that require public water systems to filter out four of the six specific PFAS chemicals established in 2024. This marks a stark deviation from their claimed goal to “Make America Healthy Again.”

The new policy extends the timeline for filtering the remaining PFAS—PFOA and PFOS—by an additional two years, pushing the deadline to 2031. Additionally, the EPA has dismissed filtration requirements for other harmful chemicals such as GenX, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA. Critics, including environmental advocates, have characterized this move as a surrender to the demands of the chemical industry and a blatant disregard for community health.

Emily Donovan, an advocate from a PFAS-affected community in North Carolina, condemned the EPA’s decision, stating it is disrespectful to those enduring the health consequences of PFAS contamination. She emphasized that rolling back these standards represents a clear triumph for corporate interests rather than public health. The dissonance between the administration’s promises and actions echoes Trump’s larger track record of prioritizing industry over safety.

While some water industry representatives welcomed the additional time to comply with lower standards, others, like the American Water company, reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining timely compliance regardless of the regulatory rollbacks. This showcases a divide between companies willing to accept lower standards for health and those striving to uphold them for the benefit of public safety.

The Trump administration’s decision to weaken PFAS regulations adds to its history of undermining environmental protections, thereby favoring the chemical industry and initiating a harmful precedent for public health. As communities grapple with ongoing contamination and health risks, it becomes essential for citizens to rally against these regressive policies that cater to corporate elites at the expense of vulnerable populations.

Trump’s Attack on Endangered Species Act Harms Wildlife

The Trump administration has proposed a drastic change to the Endangered Species Act, looking to redefine “harm” in a way that would significantly weaken legal protections for vulnerable species. This move seeks to narrow the definition so that only direct actions causing the killing or injury of endangered species qualify as harm. This shift would disregard a pivotal 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which established that harm includes substantial habitat modification or degradation. Conservationists insist that this proposal would threaten the survival of many species, including those dependent on specific habitats.

The redefinition under consideration would remove the current prohibition against habitat destruction, which is critical for species like the northern spotted owl and red-legged frog. Under the proposed rule, actions like logging in old-growth forest areas or filling wetlands would not be considered harmful unless they involve direct harm to the animals themselves, such as shooting or injuring them. This change aligns with the Trump administration’s ongoing agenda to prioritize economic growth over environmental protections, effectively catering to corporate interests while jeopardizing biodiversity.

Noah Greenwald from the Center for Biological Diversity stated that the proposal could “fundamentally upend how we’ve been protecting endangered species in this country.” The implications are alarming; if finalized, this shift would create an environment ripe for exploitation by industries such as timber, thereby accelerating the decline of already threatened species. With the northern spotted owl facing a perilous decline, the new regulation could act as a final blow, hindering recovery efforts and endangering their future.

The proposed change also appears to be part of a broader Trump administration strategy aimed at increasing resource extraction on public lands. Recently, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins mandated the opening of roughly 112.5 million acres of national forest land for increased logging. Coupled with other aggressive actions to expand energy production, this move demonstrates a blatant disregard for environmental stewardship.

(h/t: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-04-16/trump-administration-moves-to-reduce-scope-of-endangered-species-act-by-redefining-one-word)

1 2 3 … 13