

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.

Michael Oko, NRDC, 202-513-6245
The United States Supreme Court this morning declined to consider a Bush-era rule that would have allowed a cap-and-trade approach to toxic mercury emitted by the U.S. power industry. This decision invalidates the Bush rule and sets a new course that will help protect America's waterways from toxic mercury pollution.
The lower federal court in 2008 held 3-0 that the Environmental Protection Agency rule violated the Clean Air Act by evading mandatory cuts in toxic mercury pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case finally and completely invalidates the so-called "Clean Air Mercury Rule," which would have allowed dangerously high levels of mercury pollution to persist under a weak cap-and-trade program that would not have taken full effect until well beyond 2020.
"Today's good news is due in no small part to the leadership of the Obama administration, in renouncing the harmful Bush administration actions and embracing EPA's responsibilities to protect the American people against mercury and other toxic pollution," said John Walke, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Administrator Jackson has a special opportunity to clean up harmful air pollution from power plants once and for all, and her leadership so far bodes well for the future."
Fourteen states and dozens of Native American tribes, public health and environmental groups, and organizations representing registered nurses and physicians, challenged EPA's suite of rules in 2005. The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rebuked EPA for attempting to create an illegal loophole for the power generating industry, rather than applying the toughest emission standards of the Clean Air Act. The states challenging this EPA rule are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wisconsin.
"The Supreme Court has now confirmed that EPA must follow the law as it is written. We are looking forward to working on rules that reflect the most stringent controls achievable for this industry, as the Clean Air Act requires," said Ann Weeks, attorney for Clean Air Task Force who represented U.S. PIRG, Ohio Environmental Council, Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Conservation Law Foundation in the case. "That's what is needed now, if we are ever to alleviate the problem of mercury contamination in fish and wildlife."
The Supreme Court also granted the Obama administration's request -- made two weeks ago -- to drop the Bush administration appeal.
Among the groups involved in last year's successful court challenge was Earthjustice, who argued the case before the lower court on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation and Sierra Club.
Approximately 1,100 coal-fired units at more than 450 existing power plants spew 48 tons of mercury into the air each year. Yet only 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury is needed to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat. More than 40 states have warned their citizens to avoid consuming various fish species due to mercury contamination, with over half of those mercury advisories applying to all water bodies in the state.
"While we applaud this ruling, mercury contamination from coal-fired utilities continues to grow as new plants are approved for construction," said Chesapeake Bay Foundation Director of Litigation Jon Mueller. "Every year in the Chesapeake Bay region additional fish consumption advisories are issued. EPA must take action quickly to curtail this threat to public health."
Power plants also emit tens of thousands of tons of other air toxics, including hydrogen chloride, arsenic and lead.
"Industry's desperate, last-gasp effort to continue poisoning our waterways and communities with toxic mercury has met a fitting end," stated Waterkeeper Alliance Legal Director Scott Edwards. "We welcome the Court's decision as yet another step in our continuing efforts to put to rest, once and for all, the myth of clean coal."
The EPA rules generated controversy from the moment they were proposed in 2004, when it was discovered that industry attorneys -- from the law firm from which EPA's political management hailed -- had drafted key language that EPA included verbatim in its proposal to let power plant companies off the hook. EPA's internal auditor in the Office of Inspector General later discovered that EPA's senior political management had ordered staff to work backwards from a pre-determined political outcome, "instead of basing the standard on an unbiased determination of what the top performing [power plant] units were achieving in practice."
"We're relieved that the Supreme Court has put the final nail in the coffin of this ill-advised regulation, which left the Adirondacks and Catskills vulnerable to continued mercury contamination," said Neil Woodworth, executive director of the Adirondack Mountain Club. "Ninety-six percent of the lakes in the Adirondack region exceed the recommended EPA action level for methyl mercury in fish. In the Catskills, health officials have advised children and women of childbearing age not to eat fish from six Catskill reservoirs, reservoirs that also provide New York City with its drinking water. With this ruling, we can now move forward with sensible mercury controls that will help reverse these trends."
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700"This contemptible assault on American education must be condemned by everyone who strives towards a prosperous future for our country and our children," said one opponent of the new partnerships.
Teachers union leaders, Democratic lawmakers, and other critics of President Donald Trump's efforts to dismantle the US Department of Education on Tuesday forcefully denounced what the administration is calling "new agency partnerships to break up federal bureaucracy."
Although the Education Department cannot be fully shuttered without approval from Congress, Trump has signed an executive order aimed at starting the process "to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law" and laid off over 1,300 workers.
Shortly after journalists began reporting on the new plans Tuesday, citing unnamed sources, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon confirmed the agreements with the departments of Health and Human Services, the Interior, Labor, and State.
One federal official told Politico that the partnerships are a "proof of concept strategy to show Congress how this can be done," and said that the Education Department will work with lawmakers "on making these agreements permanent."
A succinct description of so much that this administration does: if they don’t like longstanding, duly enacted laws and Congress isn’t prepared to amend them, they’ll just hack them to bits illegally.wapo.st/4i6ZRr5
[image or embed]
— Heidi Kitrosser (@heidikitrosser.bsky.social) November 18, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union representing nearly 3 million employees, noted in a statement that "Donald Trump and his administration chose American Education Week, a time when our nation is celebrating students, public schools, and educators, to announce their illegal plan to further abandon students by dismantling the Department of Education."
"Not only do they want to starve and steal from our students—they want to rob them of their futures," Pringle said. "Ensuring a brighter future for our children should be a top priority for any administration, but this administration is taking every chance it can to hack away at the very protections and services our students need."
"Just last week, they went to the Supreme Court to avoid feeding families. And they're still pushing to gut healthcare programs," she continued. "Now, they're neglecting the basic responsibility to educate our children. It's cruel. It's shameful. And our students deserve so much better."
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, whose union represents 1.8 million people, declared that "this move is neither streamlining nor reform—it's an abdication and abandonment of America's future."
"Spreading services across multiple departments will create more confusion, more mistakes, and more barriers for people who are just trying to access the support they need."
"What's happening now isn't about slashing red tape. If that were the goal, teachers could help them do it, and we invite Donald Trump and Linda McMahon to sit down with educators and hear from the people who actually do this work every day," she emphasized. "Teachers know how to make the federal role more effective, efficient, and supportive of real learning—if only the administration would listen."
"Instead, spreading services across multiple departments will create more confusion, more mistakes, and more barriers for people who are just trying to access the support they need," she warned.
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for nonprofit Protect Borrowers, similarly said that "shuffling certain functions of the US Department of Education across four different agencies is a political stunt that will only lead to more chaos and confusion for working families who just want their kids to get a quality education, to be able to pay for college, and to pay off their student loans."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, also slammed the announcement, saying that "in his ongoing rampage against everything that makes our country what it is, President Trump is now acting on the plan to destroy the Department of Education."
"Short of toppling the Statue of Liberty, there is perhaps nothing that could capture the agenda of this administration more than what they are in fact doing right now: Making an enemy out of education itself," she suggested. "This contemptible assault on American education must be condemned by everyone who strives towards a prosperous future for our country and our children."
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.)—a former preschool teacher and local school board member—also piled on, saying that "Donald Trump and Linda McMahon are lawlessly trying to fulfill Project 2025's goal to abolish the Department of Education and pull the rug out from students in every part of the country."
"But instead of seeking congressional approval of their reckless actions to weaken our education system—which McMahon has acknowledged is necessary—Trump and McMahon are now pretending that our laws and the constitutional separation of powers are a mere suggestion," said Murray, who used to lead and remains a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
"This is an outright illegal effort to continue dismantling the Department of Education," she argued, "and it is students and families who will suffer the consequences as key programs that help students learn to read or that strengthen ties between schools and families are spun off to agencies with little to no relevant expertise and are gravely weakened—or even completely broken—in the process."
The senator stressed that she is "always ready and willing to talk about reforms to our education laws to improve educational outcomes for students," and urged her Republican colleagues to join Democrats in standing up against the administration's attacks.
The GOP controls both chambers of Congress. According to Murray, "The fact that Trump and McMahon are choosing to break the law to do this on their own—despite having unified Republican control of Washington—tells us they know just how unpopular their plans are and can't win the approval of members of their own party."
"Billionaire companies are bankrolling Trump’s ballroom and it stinks of bribery," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Amid concerns over President Donald Trump's White House ballroom, a pair of Democratic US lawmakers on Tuesday introduced legislation "to root out apparent bribery and corruption" involving the $300 million project.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) introduced the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act, described by Warren's office as "the first piece of legislation addressing the ballroom that would impose donation restrictions."
“Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom—and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line," Warren said in a statement. "Americans shouldn’t have to wonder whether President Trump is building a ballroom to facilitate a pay-to-play scheme for political favors. My new bill will put an end to what looks like bribery in plain sight."
Billionaire companies are bankrolling Trump’s ballroom and it stinks of bribery.That’s why @robertgarcia.house.gov and I introduced a bill to crack down on this potential corruption.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) November 18, 2025 at 11:16 AM
Garcia said: "Donald Trump is raising hundreds of millions of dollars to build himself a White House ballroom at a time when millions of American families can barely make ends meet. It's outrageous that the White House won’t reveal who’s bankrolling Trump’s pet project, and that the people’s house could be funded by shady figures, corrupt money, and bad actors."
"This bill will ban contributions from anyone with a conflict of interest, prevent bribery, and ensure we can hold any administration accountable for blatant corruption," he added.
Noting that many of the "wealthy individuals, corporations, and organizations" funding the ballroom "need something from the Trump administration," Warren's office flagged "serious concerns of quid-pro-quo arrangements and possible bribery."
"Ethics experts have argued that the apparent pay-to-play relationship between Trump and business leaders oversteps the norms of presidential behavior and could erode Americans’ trust in government," the senator's office added.
As Warren's office noted:
Key ballroom donors currently have business interests in front of the Trump administration. For example, Google, which recently donated $22 million to settle President Trump’s censorship lawsuit against YouTube, will benefit if Trump’s [Department of Justice] decides not to appeal a recent judicial ruling in a relevant antitrust case. Meanwhile, Union Pacific Railroad is seeking federal approval of a lucrative merger and Palantir is working to get more federal contracts.
The White House has refused to be fully transparent, publishing only a noncomprehensive donor list missing multiple key donors and offering donors anonymity. Donations for projects like the ballroom are often channeled through the National Park Service and philanthropic partners; nonprofits with formal ties to property used by the president and [Vice President JD Vance] raise unique conflict-of-interest risks when fundraising from individuals and corporations with interests in front of the federal government.
The Stop Ballroom Bribery Act would:
Virginia Canter, chief counsel and director for ethics and anticorruption at Democracy Defenders Action—another backer of the bill—said that "over the past year, President Trump has raised millions of dollars for vanity projects at the White House—like paving over the Rose Garden and demolishing the beloved East Wing."
"These funds have come from private donors without meaningful transparency or accountability,” Canter added. “The highest office in the land should never be for sale, nor should it ever appear to be."
“The Trump-Abbott maps are clearly illegal, and I’m glad these judges have blocked them,” said Rep. Greg Casar.
In a direct rebuke to President Donald Trump's hopes that mid-decade redistricting in key states could help Republicans retain control of Congress in next year's midterm elections, a federal court Tuesday ordered Texas to halt the use of its new congressional maps, redrawn earlier this year as part of a GOP effort to maximize its advantage in the Lone Star State.
The unprecedented mid-decade power grab was expected to net Republicans an extra five seats in the House, which, in tandem with other redistricting efforts in Missouri and North Carolina, may have proven critical in their efforts to blunt a blue wave by Democrats in next year's midterms.
But those efforts ran into an unexpected obstacle when Tuesday's 2-1 ruling by a panel of three federal judges in Texas determined the maps were "racially gerrymandered," disempowering nonwhite voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). With a preliminary injunction, the court ordered the state to instead rely on the boundaries it drew in 2021.
In the majority opinion, District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote that while "politics played a role" in Trump's request for Texas to redraw its maps, the White House explicitly "reframed its request as a demand to redistrict congressional seats based on their racial makeup."
Specifically, Brown's decision cited a claim made in a letter to Texas officials from Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, that the existence of four "coalition districts," where no racial group had a 50% majority, in the 2021 map, was "unconstitutional." The DOJ threatened legal action against Texas if it did not immediately move to redraw these districts, which it promptly did at the direction of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
This is despite the fact that, as Brown points out, "attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General—who professes to be a political ally of the Trump Administration—describe the DOJ letter as 'legally unsound,' 'baseless,' 'erroneous,' 'ham-fisted,' and 'a mess.'"
"The governor explicitly directed the legislature to draw a new US House map to resolve DOJ’s concerns," Brown wrote. "In other words, the governor explicitly directed the legislature to redistrict based on race. In press appearances, the governor plainly and expressly disavowed any partisan objective and instead repeatedly stated that his goal was to eliminate coalition districts and create new majority-Hispanic districts."
"The legislature adopted those racial objectives," he continued. "The redistricting bill’s sponsors made numerous statements suggesting that they had intentionally manipulated the districts’ lines to create more majority-Hispanic and majority-Black districts. The bill’s sponsors’ statements suggest they adopted those changes because such a map would be an easier sell than a purely partisan one."
Republicans will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court. But as the Texas Tribune points out, "time is short," as "candidates only have until December 8 to file for the upcoming election," which means that the district lines must be determined before then.
Chad Dunn, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said: "It seems they’d have a limited chance of success at the Supreme Court because the evidence is so overwhelming. Everyone involved said they were drawing the lines on the basis of race. I don’t see how the Supreme Court sets that aside.”
The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority has signaled that it intends to strike down Section 2 of the VRA entirely. But that case is currently scheduled for early next year and could not be brought onto the shadow docket in time to override the ruling blocking the Texas map for 2026.
While it could have major implications for future elections, likely allowing the GOP to net over a dozen additional seats, in the near term, Trump's gambit for aggressive racial gerrymandering may blow up in his and his party's face---at least temporarily.
Texas' maps kicked off a retaliatory gerrymandering push by Democrats to redraw maps to their advantage in blue states. That effort culminated in California voters' overwhelming passage earlier this month of Proposition 50, which overrode the state's independent redistricting commission and allowed the state legislature to draw maps that handed Democrats an additional five seats. Similar efforts may soon be underway in New York and Virginia.
With the cushion provided by Texas suddenly yanked away, Democrats now appear to be the clear winners of the gerrymandering war if things stand as they are. Instead of gaining the GOP five extra seats, Trump's gambit could end up costing it five.
"Today’s ruling is a rebuke of Texas Republicans who caved to Donald Trump and trampled the voting rights of their constituents," said Adrian Shelley, the Texas director of Public Citizen. "Gov. Abbott and his allies in the Legislature have forgotten their independent streak as Texans. Perhaps they can find the courage that Republicans in a few other states have to tell the president no.”
Meanwhile, Texas Democrats previously at risk of being gerrymandered out of their seats, rejoiced in the wake of Tuesday's ruling.
This includes Austin Reps. Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett, who, in anticipation of seeing their districts smushed into one, have spent the past several months engaged in a sort of shadow primary, which resulted in Doggett saying he'd retire if the maps were upheld. If Tuesday's ruling holds, both of their districts would remain intact.
"The Trump Abbott maps are clearly illegal, and I’m glad these judges have blocked them," Casar said after Tuesday's ruling. "If this decision stands, I look forward to running for reelection in my current district."
While he celebrated the ruling, he said, "no matter what, we must fight to pass a federal ban on gerrymandering once and for all."