SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
After decades of silence born of fear, shame, trauma, over 20 Epstein survivors came together in D.C. for the first time to publicly tell their grievous stories of rape and abuse - what did it cost them? - when they were 14, 15, 16 years old. Facing not just their own dark pasts but dogged denial, stonewalling, and a literal silencing by a senseless military flyover, they still wielded "the fire and the power of our voices" to insist, "We are the proof that fear did not break us."
It was months after Trump vowed to release the Epstein files "on Day One" and Pam Bondi said an upright DOJ was "lifting the veil" on Epstein's crimes - and decades after they were committed - when the resolute victims came to stand together, speak of "the weight we live with daily," and demand to be heard. Their signs said "He Is On the List," "S-H-A-M-E," "Trust the Victims, Not the Felon." Many had never met each other, and thought they were the only ones bruised and haunted by long-ago rape, abuse, enduring trauma. "Our government could have saved so many women. Those women didn’t matter,” said Marina Lacerda, who was 14 when she was raped by Epstein. "Well, we matter now. We are here today, and we are speaking, and we are not going to stop speaking."
Last week's historic press conference was facilitated by Dem Rep. Ro Khanna and GOP Rep. Thomas Massie - yes, of the AK-47-packing family Christmas cards, go figure - who've come forward to support a full release of the DOJ's Epstein files. The event, headlined by nine Epstein victims - some of whom had never spoken out before about their assaults - drew up to 100 other survivors in solidarity. "Courage is contagious," said one organizer, who was approached by several women they didn't know who said they "needed to be here...This gave me strength." Most had also "been let down by system after system," and far from the games of political chicken playing out elsewhere, felt they had to speak. "The abuse was real," one said. We know the truth."
The truth, in story after story, is harrowing. Lacerda, 37, was "minor victim 1" in Epstein's 2019 federal indictment. She was a 14-year-old migrant from Brazil working three jobs to help her family get by when she heard about "a dream job" giving "an older guy a massage" for $300. It quickly became "my worst nightmare" as one of a dozen girls she knew - "We were just kids" - lured into Epstein's mansion on East 71st Street. She went so often she dropped out of high school: "Every day, I hoped he would offer me a real job, like the American dream, but that day never came. I had no way out." At 17, he told her she was too old. Today, she finally feels she "has a voice." Airing the truth, she says, would "help me heal... help me put the pieces of my own life back together."
Haley Robson was a 16-year-old "high-school athlete with good grades and aspirations for college" when a friend recruited her "to give an old rich guy a massage." Her emotional testimony: "When I got into (the) room, Jeffrey undressed" - draws big breath - "and asked me to do things to him. My eyes welled up. I have never been more scared in my life." After, he paid her $200 and told her to bring a friend next time; when she refused, he "gave me an ultimatum...You come massage me when I call you, or you bring me friends to massage me, and I'll pay you $200 per girl. I hoped never to hear from him again, but he called every day." He was so rich and powerful, "I felt I had no choice - if I disobeyed him, I knew something bad would happen." After two years, an adult intervened; police "treated me like a criminal" and wild press accounts "hurt real people who have already been hurt."
"The truth is, Epstein had a free pass," said Chauntae Davies. From lack of critical victim outreach to victim-blaming, "Everyone seemed to look away" - especially when it came to our Predator-In-Chief. "Jeffrey bragged about his powerful friends, and (Trump) was his biggest brag," she said. "He had an 8x10 framed picture of him on his desk, with the two of them." Meanwhile, "What I endured will haunt me forever. I live as a mother trying to raise my child while distrusting a world that has betrayed me. Trauma never leave you. It breaks families apart. It shapes the way we see everyone around us...Unless we learn from this history, monsters like Jeffrey Epstein will rise again. It is not just my story. It is a story about every survivor who carries invisible scars."
Again and again, survivors spoke of raw, hard years of feeling alone and powerless at the hands of "an evil man" safeguarded by his money, power and connections. "You have a choice," Anouska de Georgiou told complicit Republicans. "Stand with the truth, or with the lies that have protected predators for decades." Lisa Philips stressed that Epstein's abuses reached far beyond "just underage girls in Florida" to "the top of the art, fashion and entertainment world. Many around him knew. Many participated, and many profited." "Hundreds of women have lived in the shadow of this man’s crimes," says Stacey Williams, who briefly dated Epstein until he famously, smilingly acquiesced to Trump groping her in front of him. "They deserve truth, not secrecy."
Towards that truth, the women grimly, defiantly announced that if the House fails to compel release of all the Epstein files, they will "confidentially compile" their own list of regular clients in the Epstein world in the name of "every woman who has been silenced, exploited and dismissed...together as survivors." "We know the names," one said. "Many of us were abused by them." They were cogent, steadfast: "We are not asking for pity. Justice and accountability are not favors from the powerful - they are obligations, decades overdue." "We have lives to live." "We are not the footnotes in some infamous predator's tabloid article. We are the experts, and the subject of this story." "The question: Will you protect predators, or will you finally protect survivors?"
To date, 134 lawmakers - all 212 Democrats, 12 Repubs - have signed onto a Massie-Khanna discharge petition to force a vote to compel the DOJ to release all files; they need two more to pass. Massie has faced "immense" pushback from a White House that calls the petition an "attention-seeking...hostile act"; rich MAGA donors have run $2.5 million in ads against him for opposing child rape, and GOPers who've signed on have been blasted. Among them - go figure redux - is MTG, who's vowed to reveal "every damn name” on the House floor if survivors ask her to. In response, former MAGA besties have called her a "FRAUD," "traitor," "phony two-faced bitch" and "backstabbing loser" who's "teamed up" with the enemy - again, lest we forget, for denouncing child rape.
Bootlicking Mike Johnson, who sent the House home early to avoid the issue, is right there with them. After claiming 20 women chronicling their rape as teenagers are "a hoax Democrats are using to attack him, like the Russian dossier," he feverishly insisted Dear Predator is "horrified" by the "unspeakable evil" that is "detestable to him" and "has no culpability" and actually, "He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down." Wait. What happened to the hoax? Caught in a clusterfuck, Mike later said he possibly "misspoke" or "didn't use the right terminology" - "The word is lied, Mike. You fucking lied" - but "everyone knows" Trump "assisted with the investigation." And of course he'll meet with the victims: "He has great compassion for them. The president has a very compassionate heart."
The guy with the very compassionate heart still calls the case of a demon who for years raped 14-year-olds "a Democrat hoax" by "the worst scum on earth" and "all the people that actually ran the government, including the autopen." It's also "something that’s totally irrelevant. We should talk about the greatness we’re having." As proof of the greatness, during a visit by the Polish president, to honor a Polish pilot who died in a training crash - having ignored the training deaths of four U.S. soldiers in Lithuania - he ordered a rare, loud flyover completely coincidentally just as Epstein's victims were telling their stories. The women paused, looked at the sky, and kept talking. Responses: "Classless move by a classless man," "He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing."
Flyovers aside, facts owe. Says Brad Edwards, an attorney for several survivors, "You're either on the side of the victims or you're on the side of evil." In an extended interview, multiple survivors agreed, "The government has failed us." The seven women were joined by two brothers of Virginia Giuffre, who killed herself in April after a lifelong struggle with the trauma of her abuse. "We've come together, beautifully and tragically," said one. "We don't just speak for ourselves but for every survivor whose story is still unspoken, for Virginia, whose courage lit the path and opened the door for us to walk through." Asked near the end of the interview how many had been contacted by the DOJ, felt treated with dignity, been heard, none of the nine raised their hands.
More damning scraps keep surfacing. Massie dropped one bombshell name in Epstein's "black book": John Paulson, a hedge fund billionaire and huge donor to Trump and MAGA Mike. In a stealth video by shady right-wing James O'Keefe, a DOJ deputy chief of staff brags to a date "they'll redact every Republican" in the files and leave Dems in; the DOJ said the comments "have absolutely zero bearing with (sic) reality." The Wall Street Journal published, and House Dems released, the creepy birthday card to Epstein Trump denied he sent: "We got (the) note Trump says doesn't exist. Time to end this White House cover-up." Press Barbie called it "FAKE NEWS to perpetuate the Democrat Epstein Hoax" and - up is down - argued "it's very clear" Trump didn't draw or sign it.
Despite Dear Leader's "great compassion," days after the survivors met, nine attorneys for about 50 of them hadn't "heard anything" in response. Monday, survivor and Trump voter Haley Robson told CNN she'd invited White House officials to meet with her and other survivors: "I've heard crickets." Still, said Jess Michaels, a self-described "1991 Jeffrey Epstein survivor," their stories matter. "For 27 years, I thought I was the only one (Epstein) raped," she told the D.C gathering. "I thought I was alone. But I wasn't. None of us were. And what once kept us silent now fuels the fire and the power of our voices...This is what power looks like. Survivors united, voices joined, refusing to be dismissed. We are no longer victims. We are one powerful voice too loud to ignore. And we will never be silenced again." Women hold up half the sky. The heavier half.
The US Department of Energy's July climate report is "biased, full of errors, and not fit to inform policymaking," according to a comprehensive review released Tuesday by a group of 85 scientists who reviewed the document independently.
The department's "Climate Working Group" drew up the report as part of the effort by US President Donald Trump to fatally undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) determination, commonly known as the "endangerment finding," that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endanger human lives by warming the planet.
"If successful," Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, says, "this move could unravel virtually every US climate regulation on the books, from car emissions standards to power plant rules."
The Energy Department's nearly 150-page paper, titled "A Critical Review of the Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate." Dessler describes its five authors as "climate contrarians who dispute mainstream science." The team behind the report, he argues, was "hand-picked" by Energy Secretary Chris Wright to lend legitimacy to the Trump administration's predetermined conclusions about climate science.
The DOE report's five authors seek to contradict the much more rigorous analyses conducted by groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports have been written by over a thousand researchers and which cite tens of thousands of academic studies.
The multinational panel has concluded that human fossil fuel usage has considerably warmed the planet, causing increased amounts of extreme weather, threatening food and water security, destroying ecosystems, and risking dangerous amounts of sea-level rise.
The Energy Department's report advances the main idea that climate scientists like those at the IPCC broadly "overstate" the extent of the human-caused climate crisis as well as its risks. Unlike other research of its kind, the department crafted its report in secret, which prompted the expert response.
"Normally, a report like this would undergo a rigorous, unbiased, and transparent peer review," said Dr. Robert Kopp, a climate and sea-level researcher at Rutgers. "When it became clear that DOE wasn't going to organize such a review, the scientific community came together on its own, in less than a month, to provide it."
Their review found that the Energy Department's report "exhibits pervasive problems with misrepresentation and selective citation of the scientific literature, cherry-picking of data, and faulty or absent statistics."
For instance, the report claims that there is "no obvious acceleration in sea-level rise" even though the number of days of high-tide coastal flooding per year has increased more than 10-fold since the 1970s.
It also attempts to portray CO2 emissions as a net benefit to the environment, particularly agriculture, by pointing to its benefits for crop growth, but ignores that the impact of increased droughts and wildfires far outweighs those benefits.
And it attempts to pick out isolated historical weather events like the Dust Bowl during the 1930s as evidence that dramatic climatic changes happen very frequently within short amounts of time and that the unprecedented increase in global temperatures over the past century and a half is not worthy of alarm.
"My reading of the report uncovered numerous errors of commission and omission, all of which slant toward a conclusion that human-caused climate change poses no serious risks," said Kerry Emmanuel, a meteorologist and climate scientist who specializes in hurricane physics. "It seems to work backward from a desired outcome."
Dessler notes that over 99% of the literature included in the IPCC's report was simply ignored by the Department of Energy. He described the report as a "mockery of science" akin to a "Soviet show trial."
"The outcome of this exercise by the Department of Energy is already known: climate science will be judged too uncertain to justify the endangerment finding," he said. "Once you understand that, everything about the DOE report makes total sense."
In 2025, the US National Weather Service issued a record number of flash flood warnings, while 255 million Americans were subject to life-threatening triple-digit temperatures in June. The previous year, 48 of 50 US states faced drought conditions, the most ever recorded in US history, while nearly 9 million acres burned due to wildfires.
"We live in a world where the impacts of climate change are increasingly being felt by citizens all around the globe—including communities throughout the US," said Andra Gardner, a professor of environmental science at Rowan University.
"This is perhaps what makes the DOE Climate Working Group report most astounding," she continued. "In a country where we have the tools to not only understand the impacts of climate change but also to begin meaningfully combating the crisis, the current DOE has instead decided to promote fossil fuel interests that will further worsen the symptoms of climate change with a report that turns a blind eye to the established science."
According to an analysis from Climate Power published in January, oil and gas industry donors gave $96 million in direct donations to the campaign of Donald Trump and affiliated super PACs during the 2024 election, while spending $243 million to lobby Republicans in Congress.
The result has been an administration that has purged climate science information from federal websites, laid off thousands of EPA employees, and gutted government funding for wind and solar energy.
Becca Neumann, an associate professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Washington, says that "the goal" of the report "is clear: to justify inaction and avoid meaningful emissions reductions."
Yet another poll exposes the pain that working-class Americans are enduring thanks to US President Donald Trump's policies, the economic justice advocates behind the new survey said Tuesday.
Polling released in recent months has highlighted how most Americans don't believe that merely working hard is enough to get ahead, a majority blames Trump for the country's economic woes, and large shares are concerned about the price of groceries, housing, and unexpected medical expenses.
The new survey—conducted by Data for Progress less than two weeks ago for Groundwork Collaborative and Protect Borrowers—shows that "American families are trapped in a cycle of debt," the groups said.
Specifically, the Data for Progress found that 55% of likely voters have at least some credit card debt, and another 18% said that they "had this type of debt in the past, but not anymore." Additionally, over half have or previously had car loan or medical debt, more than 40% have or had student debt, and over 35% are or used to be behind on utility payments.
More than two-thirds of respondents said that the federal government's resumption of student loan collections had an impact on their family's finances, and almost a quarter said they would need a one-time infusion of cash, "such as from inheritance, lottery, government assistance, etc.," to be able to pay off all of their debt.
The pollsters also found nearly 30% have or had "buy now, pay later" debt. Nearly 1-in-3 said they had taken out this type of loan—through options such as Afterpay or Klarna—in the past year to pay for basic needs and monthly expenses.
"Today's poll reveals a troubling rise in families relying on buy now, pay later loans just to stay afloat, trapping hardworking Americans in a cycle of debt that some fear will take years to climb out of," said Groundwork's executive director, Lindsay Owens. "As Americans plead for their government to help with soaring costs, President Trump is not just ignoring their struggles, he's actively making them worse with reckless policies that drive up prices on essentials like food and energy."
Trump's legally dubious tariffs—which are headed to the US Supreme Court after another legal loss last month—have negatively impacted Americans' wallets by elevating the costs of basics while also failing to deliver on his campaign promise to turn the United States back into a "manufacturing powerhouse."
"Today's poll exposes a startling new reality in Donald Trump's economy: As prices climb and money gets tight, Americans are going into debt to buy groceries, make rent, get healthcare, and even make payments on other debt," said Protect Borrowers executive director Mike Pierce. "Driving families into debt is a policy choice—voters across party lines are demanding lawmakers act now to deliver debt relief and help working families make ends meet."
The GOP controls both chambers of Congress and the White House. This summer, Republicans on Capitol Hill passed and Trump signed their so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is expected to further imperil working-class families by kicking millions of people off their healthcare and federal food assistance to give more tax cuts to the ultrarich.
To combat that agenda, "fight for families in debt, and hold corporations and corrupt politicians accountable," Protect Borrowers officially relaunched on Tuesday, rebranding from the Student Borrower Protection Center, which focused on educational debt.
"As the Trump administration turns its back on working-class families," said Pierce, "Protect Borrowers will fight back—exposing the greedy financial companies cutting backroom deals with regulators, taking corrupt government officials and corporations to court, and advancing new laws to hold the system accountable to working people."
Protect Borrowers announced 17 new members of its advisory board, including people who previously served in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board, and White House.
The group is also backed by US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a bankruptcy expert and the mastermind behind the CFPB.
"With wages flat and costs skyrocketing, families are drowning in debt—mortgages, credit cards, student loans, buy now, pay later, you name it," Warren said in a statement to Politico. "Protect Borrowers is exposing how rigged our economy is, and how the Trump administration is making it worse. I'm glad to stand with them in this fight."
The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets are facing widespread criticism after publishing a false report that the assassin who shot right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in Utah this week had left behind symbols of "transgender ideology" at the scene of the crime.
On Thursday, with the assassin still at large, the Journal published a news update stating that "investigators found ammunition engraved with expressions of transgender and antifascist ideology inside the rifle that authorities believe was used in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk." The report did not identify what these markings were nor the source of the report, instead attributing it to "an internal law enforcement bulletin and a person familiar with the investigation."
The New York Times reported hours later that the bulletin came from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), but noted that "a senior law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation cautioned that the report had not been verified by ATF analysts, did not match other summaries of the evidence, and might turn out to have been misread or misinterpreted."
It was later revealed that the Wall Street Journal's source of the initial unconfirmed bulletin was Steven Crowder, another far-right influencer known for his antagonism of transgender people.
On Friday, officials revealed the identity of the suspect, a 22-year-old cisgender white man named Tyler Robinson, and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) described the marked engravings in detail.
As Erin Reed, a transgender journalist who reports on LGBTQ+ rights, explained, "none were 'transgender' or 'LGBTQ' symbols":
The bullet that killed Charlie Kirk was engraved with the phrase “notices bulges owo what’s this”—a furry and anime meme that has circulated online for a decade, generally meant as a joke about something unexpected. Three other unfired casings were recovered: “hey fascist! Catch! ↑ → ↓↓↓,” a reference to the Helldivers 2 video game code used to drop the 500kg bomb; “O bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao,” the Italian anti-fascist folk song; and “If you read this you are gay lmao,” a trolling insult common in meme subcultures.
In other words: internet detritus. Not a single engraving had anything to do with “transgender symbols,” let alone the trans community.
Data shows transgender people are no more likely to commit acts of gun violence than any other group. According to data from the Gun Violence Archive from the past decade analyzed by The Trace in July, out of more than 5,300 mass shootings, just four of them were committed by a person who identified as transgender or nonbinary.
Despite this, many right-wing activists online have attempted to foment the narrative of a "transgender violence epidemic," often preemptively blaming trans people for shootings that turn out to be perpetrated by others.
This narrative has reached the Trump administration, with the Department of Justice reportedly considering a policy to strip transgender people of the right to own firearms following a school shooting in Minneapolis in August, that was carried out by a transgender person.
Following Kirk's assassination, Donald Trump Jr. said in a Fox News interview, "I frankly can't name a mass shooting in the last year or two in America that wasn't committed by a transgender lunatic that's been pumped up on probably hormones since they were 3-year-olds."
Even after law enforcement and the Journal had begun to walk back the initial report that "transgender ideology" had influenced Kirk's murder, Reed wrote, "the damage was already done, with the falsehood ricocheting across the internet." By this point, numerous media outlets, including the Daily Beast, the New York Post, The Telegraph, and others, had already repeated the claim.
As Reed noted, "conservative influencers flooded social media blaming the killing on transgender people," in some cases using dehumanizing rhetoric.
One conservative activist, Joey Mannarino, who has nearly 640,000 followers on X, and often interacts with elected Republicans, wrote: "If the person who killed Charlie Kirk was a transgender, there can be no mercy for that species any longer. We’ve already tolerated far too much from those creatures."
The falsehood even reached Capitol Hill. Even as law enforcement said Thursday it still had no identity for the shooter, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) told reporters, "It sounds like the shooter was a tranny, or pro-tranny."
Trump Jr., meanwhile, continued to assert that there was "trans paraphernalia written on the cartridges of this rifle that killed one of my dearest friends in life." He described being transgender as "an absolute sickness."
The Journal is now facing harsh criticism for spreading an unverified report that has further fueled the right's demonization of transgender Americans.
"The FBI and Wall Street Journal doing a 'whoops, our bad' after spending a day saying they had evidence it was a trans antifa shooter is so deeply messed up," wrote Ryan Grim of Drop Site News on X.
Charlotte Clymer, a transgender writer, called it a "truly disgusting week for American journalism."
"Nearly 48 hours of relentless anti-trans propaganda and news reports over the murder of Charlie Kirk, and all of that for not a single shred of evidence that trans people or trans rights had anything to do with it," Clymer said. "When do we get a retraction from the Wall Street Journal for erroneously claiming the assassination was related to trans people? When do we get apologies from every journalist who spread that disinformation?"
As criticism has continued to mount, the Journal added an editor's note to the initial article, acknowledging that Cox "gave no indication that the ammunition included any transgender references."
Jeet Heer, a columnist for The Nation wrote in response that the Journal's reporting on this issue was "a scandal."
"The news section of the Wall Street Journal has tarnished its great reputation," Heer wrote. "The only way to recover is to appoint a public editor to review this and explain how it happened to readers."
Public health and environment defenders on Friday condemned the Trump administration's announcement that it will no longer uphold Environmental Protection Agency rules that protect people from unsafe levels of so-called "forever chemicals" in the nation's drinking water.
In addition to no longer defending rules meant to protect people from dangerous quantities of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—called forever chemicals because they do not biodegrade and accumulate in the human body—the EPA is asking a federal court to toss out current limits that protect drinking water from four types of PFAS: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX, and PFBS.
The EPA first announced its intent to roll back limits on the four chemicals in May, while vowing to retain maximum limits for two other types of PFAS. The agency said the move is meant to “provide regulatory flexibility and holistically address these contaminants in drinking water.”
However, critics accuse the EPA and Administrator Lee Zeldin—a former Republican congressman from New York with an abysmal 14% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters—of trying to circumvent the Safe Drinking Water Act's robust anti-backsliding provision, which bars the EPA from rolling back any established drinking water standard.
"In essence, EPA is asking the court to do what EPA itself is not allowed to do," Earthjustice said in a statement.
"Administrator Zeldin promised to protect the American people from PFAS-contaminated drinking water, but he’s doing the opposite,” Earthjustice attorney Katherine O'Brien alleged. “Zeldin’s plan to delay and roll back the first national limits on these forever chemicals prioritizes chemical industry profits and utility companies’ bottom line over the health of children and families across the country."
Jared Thompson, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said that "the EPA’s request to jettison rules intended to keep drinking water safe from toxic PFAS forever chemicals is an attempted end run around the protections that Congress placed in the Safe Drinking Water Act."
"It is also alarming, given what we know about the health harms caused by exposure to these chemicals," Thompson added. "No one wants to drink PFAS. We will continue to defend these commonsense, lawfully enacted standards in court."
PFAS have myriad uses, from nonstick cookware to waterproof clothing to firefighting foam. Increasing use of forever chemicals has resulted in the detection of PFAS in the blood of nearly every person in the United States and around the world.
Approximately half of the U.S. population is drinking PFAS-contaminated water, “including as many as 105 million whose water violates the new standards,” according to the NRDC, which added that “the EPA has known for decades that PFAS endangers human health, including kidney and testicular cancer, liver damage, and harm to the nervous and reproductive systems.”
Betsy Southerland, a former director of the Office of Science and Technology in the EPA's Office of Water, said in a statement Friday:
The impact of these chemicals is clear. We know that this is significant for pregnant women who are drinking water contaminated with PFAS, because it can cause low birth weight in children. We know children have developmental effects from being exposed to it. We know there’s an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer with these chemicals.
Two of the four chemicals targeted in this motion are the ones that we expect to be the most prevalent, and only increasing contamination in the future. With this rollback, those standards would be gone.
Responding to Thursday's developments, Environmental Advocates NY director of clean water Rob Hayes said that "the EPA’s announcement is a big win for corporate polluters and an enormous loss for New York families."
"Administrator Zeldin wants to strip clean water protections away from millions of New Yorkers, leaving them at risk of exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals every time they turn on the tap," he added. "New Yorkers will pay the price of this disastrous plan through medical bills—and deaths—tied to kidney cancer, thyroid disease, and other harmful illnesses linked to PFAS."
While Trump administration officials including Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have claimed they want to "make America healthy again" by ending PFAS use, the EPA is apparently moving in the opposite direction. Between April and June of this year, the agency sought approval of four new pesticides considered PFAS under a definition backed by experts.
“What we’re seeing right now is the new generation of pesticides, and it’s genuinely frightening,” Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Civil Eats earlier this week. “At a time when most industries are transitioning away from PFAS, the pesticide industry is doubling down. They’re firmly in the business of selling PFAS.”
Belying persistent efforts by Israel and its defenders to deny the staggering number of Palestinians killed during the 23-month Gaza genocide, the general who led the Israel Defense Forces during most of the war acknowledged this week that around 220,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded.
Former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi—who stepped down in March after leading the IDF since January 2023—told residents of Ein Habor in southern Israel earlier this week that "over 10%" of Gaza's population of approximately 2.2 million "were killed or injured" since October 2023.
"This is not a gentle war, we took the gloves off from the first minute" Halevi said, adding that "not once" has any legal authority "limited" his wartime conduct.
Following the October 7 attack, the IDF dramatically loosened its rules of engagement, effectively allowing an unlimited number of civilians to be killed when targeting a single Hamas member, no matter how low-ranking.
The IDF’s use of massive ordnance, including US-supplied 1,000- and 2,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs capable of leveling entire city blocks, and utilization of artificial intelligence to select targets has resulted in staggering numbers of civilian deaths, including numerous instances of dozens or more people being massacred in single strikes.
Halevi insisted that "we are doing everything in accordance with international law."
The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague disagrees, having issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes including forced starvation and murder. Israel's conduct in the war is also the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case filed by South Africa and supported by around two dozen nations.
Halevi's admission tracks with official Gaza Health Ministry figures showing at least 228,815 people killed or wounded by Israeli forces in Gaza. GHM also says that around 9,000 people are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble. Experts—including the authors of multiple peer-reviewed studies in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet—assert that the actual death toll in Gaza is much higher than reported.
The remarks by Halevi come less than a month after a joint investigation by Israeli journalist and filmmaker Yuval Abraham of +972 Magazine and Local Call and Guardian senior international affairs correspondent Emma Graham-Harrison revealed that, as of May, 5 in 6 Palestinians—or 83%—killed by the IDF through the first 19 months of the war were civilians. The report, which drew from classified IDF intelligence data, blew the lid off of Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio.
Responding to Halevi's admission, Drop Site News national security and foreign affairs reporter Murtaza Hussain said on social media that he is "looking forward to the contortions of people whose paychecks are dependent on denying that any of this is the case."
Israeli officials and media, along with their supportive US counterparts during both the Biden and Trump administrations, have generally cast doubt or outright denied GHM figures—which have been found to be reliable by the IDF, US officials, and researchers—by linking them to Hamas. This comes in addition to widespread Israeli and US denials of Israel's forced famine and starvation deaths and IDF war crimes in Gaza.
However, there have been rare instances of frankness, including when Barbara Leaf, a senior State Department official during the Biden administration, said that Gaza casualties could be "even higher than are being cited." Biden-era State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller also admitted that the Gaza death toll "could very well be more" than GHM reported, even as he lied to the public about who was thwarting ceasefire efforts.
One critic said the lawsuit was "a full frontal attack on free speech" that also "almost reads like a parody."
US President Donald Trump on Monday evening filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times that was quickly ridiculed by legal experts for entirely lacking merit.
In the lawsuit, Trump accused the Times of conspiring to prevent his victory in the 2024 election through a campaign of "election interference" that included, among other things, its editorial board's decision to endorse former Vice President Kamala Harris.
"It came as no surprise when, shortly before the election, the newspaper published, on the front page, highlighted in a location never seen before, its deranged endorsement of Kamala Harris with the hyperbolic opening line '[i]t is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump,'" the lawsuit states.
Pointing to what it claimed was defamatory material published by the Times, the lawsuit singled out "a malicious, defamatory, and disparaging book written by two of its reporters and three false, malicious, defamatory, and disparaging articles, all carefully crafted by Defendants, with actual malice, calculated to inflict maximum damage upon President Trump."
The book in question is "Lucky Loser," written by Pulitzer Prize-winning Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, which did a deep examination of the president's finances and contrasted it with what it described as his false claims of unprecedented success in business.
The three articles cited by the lawsuit include one that quotes Trump's own former chief of staff, John Kelly, warning that he would rule "like a dictator" in his second term; a news analysis piece that described Trump as facing a well documented "lifetime of scandals"; and an article by Buettner and Craig that is an adapted excerpt from their book.
"The book and articles are part of a decades-long pattern by The New York Times of intentional and malicious defamation against President Trump," the complaint stated. "Defendants maliciously published the book and the articles knowing that these publications were filled with repugnant distortions and fabrications about President Trump."
The lawsuit then demanded the Times pay $15 billion in compensatory damages.
The Times issued a brief response to the lawsuit in which it defended its reporting and labeled Trump's defamation allegations as baseless.
"This lawsuit has no merit," said the paper. "It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists' First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people."
Some experts who examined the lawsuit were quick to side with the Times in this dispute, and many of them flat-out ridiculed Trump for filing the suit in the first place.
Holger Hestermeyer, chair of international and EU law at the Vienna School of International Studies, wrote on Bluesky that the lawsuit was "a full frontal attack on free speech" that also "almost reads like a parody."
In addition to lampooning the suit's specific defamation claims, Hestermeyer also mocked the suit for being loaded with hyperbolic statements, including one that said "The Apprentice" reality TV series "represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump's singular brilliance, which captured the zeitgeist of our time."
Attorney George Conway delivered an even pithier dismissal of the suit.
"Is it possible for a legal pleading to be psychotic?" he asked rhetorically. "I think we have an answer."
Chris Geidner, a journalist who publishes the "Law Dork" newsletter, similarly expressed astonishment at the contents of Trump's lawsuit.
"I honestly thought there was a chance that I'd fallen asleep and was dreaming the most absurd, childlike, ego-maniac lawsuit when I tried to read this Trump defamation complaint against the Times, Penguin Random House, and individual journalists," he wrote. "Like, seriously. What are we even doing here, folks?"
Bloomberg columnist Tim O'Brien, who was unsuccessfully sued by Trump for defamation over his 2005 book "TrumpNation," predicted that Trump's lawsuit against the Times would similarly end poorly for him.
"Trump says he plans to sue the Times for $15 billion," O'Brien wrote on Bluesky. "Been there, done that. He sued me for less—$5 billion. Discovery will be invasive and grueling—and involve Trump’s finances, family history and political machinations. And that’s just for starters."
"While the defendant was clearly expressing an animus toward UHC, and the health care industry generally," said the judge, "it does not follow that his goal was to ‘intimidate and coerce a civilian population.'"
A judge in New York City on Tuesday threw out a pair of charges against Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December of last year while he walked down a street in Manhattan.
Judge Gregory Carro did not throw out the entirety of the murder charges against Mangione, but said two of the most serious charges—murder in the first degree as a crime of terrorism and a second-degree charge related to terrorism—were not proven by the prosecution's case presented to a grand jury.
The judge indicated that just because Mangione may have been motivated by ideological opposition to the for-profit industry, that does not de facto make it terrorism under New York statute.
"While the defendant was clearly expressing an animus toward UHC, and the health care industry generally, it does not follow that his goal was to ‘intimidate and coerce a civilian population,’ and indeed, there was no evidence presented of such a goal,” Carro wrote in his decision.
In addition to state charges in New York, Mangione is also facing a federal murder case over the killing of Thompson, with the federal prosecutors seeking the death penalty. The accused has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
"We must end any form of political violence—and reject those who try to exploit it," one Democratic congresswoman asserted.
Senior Trump administration officials on Monday made fresh threats to crack down on a nonexistent left-wing "domestic terror movement" following last week's assassination of Charlie Kirk—a move that critics called an attempt to exploit the far-right firebrand's murder to advance an authoritarian agenda targeting nonviolent opposition.
Even as investigators work to determine the motive of Kirk's killer, members of Trump's inner circle and supporters have amplified an unfounded narrative of a coordinated leftist movement targeting conservatives.
According to The New York Times:
On Monday, two senior administration officials, who spoke anonymously to describe the internal planning, said that Cabinet secretaries and federal department heads were working to identify organizations that funded or supported violence against conservatives. The goal, they said, was to categorize left-wing activity that led to violence as domestic terrorism, an escalation that critics said could lay the groundwork for crushing anti-conservative dissent more broadly.
Appearing on the latest episode of "The Charlie Kirk Show" podcast—which was guest hosted by US Vice President JD Vance—White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said that "we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people."
"It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name," Miller vowed.
Vance said during the podcast that he wanted to explore “all of the ways that we’re trying to figure out how to prevent this festering violence that you see on the far left from becoming even more and more mainstream."
“You have the crazies on the far left who are saying, ‘Oh, Stephen Miller and JD Vance, they’re going to go after constitutionally protected speech,'” the vice president said. “We’re going to go after the network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence."
Vance, who like Trump and numerous supporters claim to champion free speech, also took aim at "people who are celebrating" Kirk's killing.
Another unnamed administration official told the Times Monday that government agencies would be investigating people, including those accused of vandalizing Tesla electric vehicles and dealerships and allegedly assaulting federal immigration agents, in an effort to implicate US leftists in political violence.
Vance and Miller's threats ignored right-wing violence—which statistically outpaces left-wing attacks—including the recent assassinations of Democratic Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, who were murdered in June by a right-wing masked gunman disguised as a police officer.
Investigative reporter Jason Paladino reported last week that the US Department of Justice apparently removed an academic study previously published on the National Institute for Justice's online library showing that "since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives" versus "42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives" committed by "far-left extremists."
“Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism.”The Trump DOJ scrubbed this study from their website.
[image or embed]
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan.bsky.social) September 12, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Responding to Miller's remarks, New Republic staff writer Greg Sargent noted on social media that "Stephen Miller was directly involved in one of the largest acts of organized domestic political violence the United States has seen in modern times, the January 6 [2021] insurrection."
Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) weighed in Monday on Miller's attempt to exploit Kirk's murder, writing on the social media site Bluesky that "it's never acceptable to kill someone for their political beliefs. But the Trump [administration] exploiting the shooting of Charlie Kirk to follow their authoritarian instincts and crack down on the left is incredibly disturbing."
"We must end any form of political violence—and reject those who try to exploit it," she added.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom noted Monday on social media that Miller "has already publicly labeled the Democratic Party as a terrorist organization."
"This isn’t about crime and safety," Newsom added. "It’s about dismantling our democratic institutions. We cannot allow acts of political violence to be weaponized and used to threaten tens of millions of Americans."
The progressive Working Families Party (WFP) said Monday on social media that "JD Vance and Stephen Miller want to use the horrifying murder of Charlie Kirk to target and dismantle pro-democracy groups."
"Their comments call to mind some of the darkest periods in US history," WFP continued. "They're dividing people based on what box we ticked on our voter registration."
Vance and Miller "want to stoke fear and resentment to justify their un-American crackdowns on free speech, mass abductions of working people, and military takeovers of our cities," WFP added. "This isn't going to fly. We’ve survived crises like this before as a country, and we can choose to live in a place where our political freedoms are protected, where we settle disagreements with words not weapons, and where no one has to fear losing a loved one to gun violence."