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.

Kassie Siegel, Center for Biological Diversity, (760) 366-2232 x 302 (office) or (951) 961-7972 (cell)
Deborah Sivas, Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, (650) 723-0325 (office) or (650) 269-2489 (cell)
The Center for Biological Diversity today filed suit to strike down the Obama administration's corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars, trucks, and SUVs for model year 2011. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires miles-per-gallon standards be set at the "maximum feasible level," yet the Obama rule sets a significantly lower standard than proposed by the Bush administration in 2008, and is much lower than current standards in Europe, Japan, China, and other countries.
The lawsuit was filed against the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Department of Transportation in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The Obama rule, issued last Friday, requires that passenger cars achieve only 30.2 mpg and that SUVs and pick-up trucks achieve only 24.1 mpg in 2011. Both these numbers are lower than Bush's proposal of 31.2 mpg for passenger cars and 25 mpg for SUVs and light trucks. It will result in millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions more than the Bush proposal.
"Reducing the proposed fuel economy standards is a step backwards from the clean energy future President Obama has promised," said Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. "These low standards, which ignore greenhouse gas emissions and the climate crisis, are illogical, illegal, and very disappointing from a president who has promised to make the United States a leader in the fight against global warming."
The current European and Japanese standards are about 43.3 and 42.6 mpg, respectively. China's current standard is 35.8.
"The technology for better, smarter, safer vehicles exists today," said Siegel. "The U.S. auto industry is collapsing in large part because it has rejected new, more efficient technologies. These standards embrace instead of reversing this failed approach."
The transportation sector accounts for about a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and any rational plan to address the climate crisis must achieve dramatic fuel economy improvements. Despite the existing legal mandate from the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that the standards be set at the "maximum feasible level," the U.S. standards lag far below current standards in Europe, Japan, China, and other countries.
"The Obama standards keep the U.S. in last place when it comes to fuel economy," said Deborah Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, who is representing the Center in the case. "This lawsuit will force the administration to live up to its promise to lead the way in technological innovation and greenhouse gas reductions."
The new standards come in response to a federal appeals court decision won by the Center and others in 2007 striking down the Bush standards issued in 2006. The court ruled that the standards failed to adequately consider the vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions. As the Bush administration was formulating new standards, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act in December 2007, which mandates that the agency require the combined car and truck fleet reach a minimum of 35 mpg by 2020. In May 2008, the Bush administration issued a new proposal. While those standards were well below what are technically feasible and required by law, they were higher than the final decision issued by the Obama administration last week.
The standards finalized by the Obama administration for passenger cars are a full 1 mpg lower than the Bush proposal. The standards for the light truck category, which includes both SUVs and pick-up trucks, are 0.9 mpg lower than the Bush proposal and only .1 mpg higher than the 2006 standard, which was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as inadequate.
The Bush administration postponed finalizing the standards as Congress and the administration developed options for a bailout of U.S. automakers. President Obama issued a memorandum in January directing the Department of Transportation to revise the rule to incorporate relevant technological and scientific considerations. Today's regulations affect only model year 2011; later model years will be the subject of a future rulemaking.
"Obama promised change, but this is change in the wrong direction," said Siegel. "With all the bailout money spent, the U.S. government practically owns the U.S. auto industry, but unfortunately the bankrupt policies of auto industry lobbyists are still behind the wheel at the Department of Transportation."
Table 1: U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy for Model Year 2011
|
|
2006 Bush Final Rule |
2008 Bush Proposed Rule |
2009 Obama Final Rule |
|
Passenger Cars |
n/a |
31.2 |
30.2 |
|
Light Trucks |
24 |
25.0 |
24.1 |
|
Combined Fleet |
n/a |
27.8 |
27.3 |
Figure 1: Fuel Economy by Country/Region. Source: Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update, ICCT (December, 2008); Bush proposal for 2011-2015 and the final Obama standard of 27.3 mpg has been added to the ICCT graphic.
Documents:
Obama's 2009 Final Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2011
Bush's 2008 Proposed Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2011
Bush's 2006 Final Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2011
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252“If my 5% wealth tax on billionaires was enacted, you’d owe $135 million more in taxes, and a family of four making $150,000 or less would receive a $12,000 payment. Oh, and you’d still be worth more than $2.5 billion."
As billionaires nationwide rally to stop tax increases on the wealthy, US Sen. Bernie Sanders stepped in to "clear things up" for one of Wall Street's top power brokers after he railed against the proposal.
Following in the footsteps of California, where a popular ballot initiative to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state's 200 billionaires has gained steam, Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced their own federal proposal earlier this month to tax those with net worths of more than $1 billion 5% of their annual household wealth.
The proposal is projected to raise $4.4 trillion over the next decade to provide direct payments to lower-income Americans, reverse Republicans' cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act spending, expand Medicare, and build millions of affordable housing units, among many other expenditures.
Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who is worth about $2.8 billion according to Forbes, appeared on Fox News on Tuesday and was asked by anchor Brian Kilmeade about Sanders' frequent accusations that billionaires "don't pay their fair share" in taxes.
"I don't know what he means by fair share," Dimon said. "I've listened to that my whole life, and I don't know what he means."
The two did not address the facts that may have led Sanders to draw such a conclusion. For instance, the senator often notes that fewer than 1,000 billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the US, around 175 million people.
Those billionaires also manage to pay a lower effective tax rate than the average American by wielding loopholes that allow them to exempt large chunks of their fortunes.
Sanders took to social media to respond to Dimon's incredulity about his idea of "fairness."
"Ok, Jamie: Let me clear things up for you," the senator wrote. "If my 5% wealth tax on billionaires was enacted, you’d owe $135 million more in taxes, and a family of four making $150,000 or less would receive a $12,000 payment."
"Oh, and you’d still be worth more than $2.5 billion," Sanders added. "Seems pretty fair to me."
Dimon's remarks came as billionaires are in a full-blown panic over the proposal for a one-time 5% tax in California, which is projected to raise about $100 billion, mostly to cover the Medicaid funding shortfall caused by the massive cuts in last year's GOP budget law.
A poll earlier this month showed that the measure, which will be put to voters in November, has about 2-1 approval, despite a more than $80 million effort by the state's elite—most notably Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page—to stop it in its tracks.
Dimon himself is not known to have contributed to the effort. But during his Tuesday appearance on Fox, he echoed one of the movement's oft-used talking points: that raising taxes on the rich leads to an "exodus" of wealth from financial hubs like New York and California.
As Forbes senior contributor Teresa Ghilarducci explained late last year, "Decades of economic research show that billionaire 'flight' is rare, exaggerated, and often confused with tax avoidance through accounting maneuvers rather than physical relocation."
Christopher Marquis and Nick Romeo similarly said last month in a piece for TIME that “despite multiple debunkings, the ‘millionaire exodus’ panic remains a popular narrative,” even though it is “frequently based on biased or sloppy arguments where anecdote replaces systematic evidence, correlation poses as causation, and every modest redistributive proposal is framed as an existential threat to prosperity.”
"Unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!" wrote US District Judge Richard Leon.
President Donald Trump was left fuming after a federal judge blocked construction of his planned White House ballroom.
In a ruling delivered Tuesday, US District Judge Richard Leon granted a preliminary injunction requested by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, which had sued to stop the ballroom from being built.
While handing down the injunction, Leon reminded Trump that "the president of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations," then emphasized "he is not, however, the owner" of the building.
The judge—appointed by former President George W. Bush—found that Trump's ballroom was the first time that a proposed major addition to the White House went forward without any kind of congressional approval, and he recommended that the president seek input from the legislative branch before moving forward with the project.
"Unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!" Leon wrote in his conclusion. "But here is the good news. It is not too late for Congress to authorize the continued construction of the ballroom project."
The judge granted a two-week delay for his order to go into effect, but he warned any above-ground construction of the ballroom done in that time will be "at risk of being taken down depending on the outcome of this case."
In a Truth Social post delivered after the ruling, the president angrily lashed out at National Trust for Historic Preservation, which he described as "a Radical Left Group of Lunatics."
The president also claimed that his ballroom and the renovated John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts—which Trump shut down less than two months after illegally slapping his own name on the side of the building—"will be among the most magnificent Buildings of their kind anywhere in the World."
Trump last year tore down the entire East Wing of the White House in preparation for the ballroom's construction, which was set to begin this week.
The cost of the ballroom is estimated at $400 million, and Trump is financing it by soliciting donations from some of America’s wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir.
The president held an exclusive White House dinner for some of the largest donors to the ballroom in October, in a move that many critics decried as a “cash-for-access” event.
“This is not just a policy shift—it’s a wholesale abandonment of government commitments to the American public," said one advocate.
The so-called "Make America Healthy Again" movement encapsulated a key campaign promise ahead of President Donald Trump's second term in office, with Trump telling one Pennsylvania crowd in 2024, "We’re going to get toxic chemicals out of our environment, and we’re going to get them out of our food supply."
But the Trump administration has gradually announced a slew of public health-related policies and proposals since the president took office—pushing to loosen emissions rules for the cancer-causing gas ethylene oxide; suggesting the polio vaccine should be optional; and mandating the production of carcinogenic glyphosate—and a peer-reviewed study has now cataloged the "grave threat to America's health" that Trump's policies present.
"During the first administration of President Donald Trump, nearly 100 environmental and occupational protections, including air-quality safeguards, were rescinded," reads the study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on March 25. "Although many of those rescissions were delayed by litigation or reversed by President Joe Biden, they inflicted considerable harm on Americans’ health. The second Trump administration’s actions have been even more aggressive, portending greater harm."
Weeks after the US Senate confirmed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy in February 2025—a confirmation that he secured after making the baseless claim that Americans would prefer the for-profit insurance system over universal healthcare and refusing to reject debunked claims about vaccines—the administration appeared to make clear its true views on public health when it announced 31 climate regulation rollbacks.
"Those initiatives and other administration actions are set to reverse progress on pollution, make workplaces more dangerous, and (in Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin’s words) drive 'a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion,'" reads the study.
The proposals swiftly introduced by the administration included:
Ken Cook, co-founder of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said the study described "a deliberate dismantling of safeguards that protect the air, water, and health of nearly every person in this country—all in the service of polluters."
“This is not just a policy shift—it’s a wholesale abandonment of government commitments to the American public and the MAHA movement that helped propel Trump into office,” said Cook, who did not contribute to the study.
Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician and public health physician who directs the Global Observatory on Planetary Health at Boston College and is the lead author of the paper, told EWG that the “impacts of these rollbacks will fall most heavily on the most vulnerable among us—including infants—resulting in brain injury, neurodevelopmental disorders, increased preterm births, and elevated lifelong risk of chronic disease.”
Children and other vulnerable populations, including those in low-income communities situated close to petrochemical industrial areas, are likely to have increased mercury, benzene, and arsenic exposures—raising their risk of developing cancers and other diseases—due to the Trump administration's rollbacks, according to the study.
"Several proposed policies would weaken water-quality standards, reducing drinking-water safety for millions of people," reads the paper. "For example, the EPA seeks to weaken regulations governing effluent discharges from coal-fired power plants. The resulting increase in waterborne lead, mercury, and arsenic will increase the incidence of bladder cancers and adversely affect children’s cognitive function."
The study's authors emphasized that "statistics and documentation are not enough" to protect the public from the White House's harmfiul policies.
"Unless health professionals speak up, and unless we put a human face on the tragic consequences of these environmental rollbacks, the connection between these seemingly abstract policy changes and the real health harms they cause may remain invisible," reads the study. "We health professionals must call urgent attention to this silent but deadly assault on Americans’ health, work with broad coalitions to halt it, and ultimately rebuild the agencies, protections, and shared sense of trust and responsibility that have given us clean air and water and enabled us and our children to live longer, healthier lives."
Cook noted that the NEJM itself has been a target of the administration, with Kennedy calling highly respected, science-based journals "corrupt" and the Department of Justice questioning the publication's editorial integrity.
“No amount of political pressure or intimidation should silence independent science or the experts working to protect public health,” Cook said. “The NEJM and the study’s authors rightly ignore those threats and lay bare the real-world consequences of the Trump administration’s actions—and the American people deserve to hear it.”