

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.
Joshua Osborne-Klein, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340 ext. 28
Glen Spain, PCFFA, (541) 521-8655
Aimee Code, NCAP, (541) 344-5044 ext. 27
Yesterday, the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a "biological
opinion" finding that three pesticides - carbaryl, carbofuran, and
methomyl - jeopardize the existence of protected salmon and steelhead.
The biological opinion
prescribes measures necessary to keep these pesticides out of salmon
waters in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. It is the second
such plan issued in the last six months under a court settlement with
fishermen and conservationists.
The new mitigation measures must be implemented within one year. They include:
"Salmon runs all along the west coast are collapsing, and our
rivers becoming a toxic soup of pesticides is surely one of the
causes," said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations (PCFFA). "This new NMFS decision will help
keep pesticides out of salmon-bearing streams and is a step toward
protecting these economically valuable salmon runs and the tens of
thousands of jobs they support. It just makes sense for EPA to stop
allowing pesticides to pollute salmon-bearing rivers,
especially when so many other agencies are spending hundreds of
millions of taxpayer dollars to try to save these endangered salmon
runs."
The three pesticides at issue in the biological opinion are known
to contaminate rivers and streams throughout California and the Pacific
Northwest and poison salmon and steelhead.
"The federal government has a duty to protect imperiled salmon
from these deadly pesticides," said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney
for Earthjustice, the environmental law firm that represented the
salmon advocates. "It's high time we reduce or eliminate
the use of deadly pesticides in order to protect salmon, an icon of the
Pacific Northwest's natural heritage."
Many of the mitigation measures required in the new biological
opinion mirror those NMFS mandated in a previous biological opinion for
three organophosphate pesticides. However, in that prior decision, as
well as in a draft of yesterday's decision, NMFS
required 20-foot non-crop vegetative buffers to be left along all
waterways impacting salmon. NMFS deleted that requirement from the
final decision.
"We're excited by the progress that this decision represents,"
said Aimee Code, the Water Quality Coordinator for the Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). "But we're concerned
that NMFS backslid on an essential element needed to
protect salmon. The science indicates that healthy vegetation next to
rivers and streams filters out pollutants."
NMFS has now determined that current uses of all six of the
pesticides it has reviewed so far are jeopardizing the existence of
west coast salmon and steelhead. The Environmental Protection Agency -
the federal agency charged with regulating pesticide
use - had earlier determined that many salmon runs were not at risk
from these six pesticides. NMFS's review found serious flaws with
EPA's analytical methods and conclusions, and determined that EPA
underestimated the risk that the pesticides pose to salmon.
"Today's findings are an example of why it's so important for the fish
and wildlife scientists at NMFS to provide an independent check on
other agencies' findings about endangered species," said Earthjustice's
Osborne-Klein.
But in the final days of the Bush administration, the federal
government significantly weakened the protections provided by the
consultation process between EPA and NMFS that produced today's
decision. "The Bush administration's warped interpretation
of the law removed the voices of scientific experts responsible for
protecting salmon," continued Osborne-Klein. Those last-minute
regulations are currently being reconsidered by the Obama
administration.
Thirty-one more pesticides will undergo review by the National
Marine Fisheries Service over the next three years. The next opinion,
reviewing 12 pesticides, is due on June 30, 2010.
To read the biological opinion go to:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/carbamate.pdf
Background
Fact Sheet for Carbaryl, Carbofuran, and Methomyl Biological Opinion
On April 20, 2009, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) issued a "Biological Opinion" concluding that three dangerous
carbamate pesticides commonly used in the Pacific Northwest and
California are jeopardizing the survival of numerous species
of salmon and steelhead. The decision requires EPA to implement the
following measures to protect salmon and steelhead within one year:
The Biological Opinion can be downloaded at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/carbamate.pdf
Technical Background
All three of the pesticides assessed in the Biological
Opinion are neurotoxins. Exposure to these poisons either immediately
kills salmon or impairs their feeding, predator avoidance, spawning,
homing, and migration capabilities. Recent research
has found that these pesticides can have "synergistic effects" on
salmon, which means that exposure to mixtures of carbamates and other
chemicals is even more dangerous than exposure to individual
chemicals.
Carbaryl:
Carbofuran:
Methomyl:
Legal Background
In 2002, the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to
Pesticides, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations,
Institute for Fishery Resources, and Washington Toxics Coalition with
legal representation from Earthjustice, obtained a federal
court order declaring that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had
violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with NMFS on
the impacts that certain pesticides have on west coast salmon and
steelhead. Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA,
413
F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005). As a result of that lawsuit, EPA began
consultations, but NMFS never issued biological opinions or identified
the measures needed to protect salmon and steelhead from the
pesticides. In 2007, some of the same salmon advocates
filed a second lawsuit and entered into a settlement agreement with
NMFS that establishes a schedule for issuing the required biological
opinions. The biological opinion released today is the second of
several decisions that will be released over the next
three years that will assess a total of 37 pesticides.
"We must not allow ICE to kidnap children and bring them to prisons where they profit off their pain, misery, and suffering," said Rep. Joaquin Castro.
A group of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday demanded the termination of US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, as new footage emerged in Minneapolis of federal immigration officers drawing guns on unarmed observers.
More than a dozen Democrats serving in the US House of Representatives stood outside the Washington, DC headquarters of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Tuesday and demanded that President Donald Trump fire Noem, who has taken heat for making false claims in recent weeks about Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both of whom were gunned down by federal agents last month.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) delivered a brief speech at the event where she described her home city of Minneapolis as being under "occupation" by federal agents sent by Trump and Noem.
"We do not exaggerate when we say we have schools where two-thirds of the students are afraid to go to school," she said. "We do not exaggerate when we say we have people who are afraid to go to the hospital because our hospitals have occupying paramilitary forces. We do not exaggerate when we say our restaurants are shutting down because there are not enough people to drive the employees to work and from work."
Omar went on to reiterate her past calls to abolish ICE, which she described as "not just rogue, but unlawful." She also said that “Democrats are ready and willing to impeach" Noem if Trump doesn't fire her.
Later in the event, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) spoke of his meeting last week with Liam Ramos, a 5-year-old boy from Minneapolis who had been detained at a Texas ICE facility before a judge last weekend ordered his release.
"While detained, he became lethargic and sick," Castro said, speaking of Ramos. "His father said that he'd become depressed. He was asking about his mother and his classmates, and most of all, he wanted to go home. But he also said that he was scared of the guards... he had clearly been traumatized."
Castro emphasized that, even though Ramos and his father have been freed from detention, there are still too many children being held at the facility, including at least one as young as two years old
"This is a machinery of cruelty and viciousness that Secretary Noem has overseen, the Trump administration has built, and people like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott have been complicit in upholding," he said. "We must not allow ICE to kidnap children and bring them to prisons where they profit off their pain, misery, and suffering."
As Democrats were making their case for Noem's removal, new footage emerged of federal immigration officers in Minneapolis pulling legal observers out of their cars at gun point.
In a video posted on social media by independent journalist Ford Fischer, agents can be seen swarming a vehicle with their guns drawn and demanding and its passengers exit the car.
Just now: ICE agents pull handguns and arrest observers who had been following them this morning in Minneapolis. pic.twitter.com/s3uIwWS3AA
— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) February 3, 2026
After the observers were pulled from the vehicle and detained by officers on the scene, one officer in the video claims that the people in question had been threatening them with "hand guns."
An observer then asks the officer if he means that the people being taken into custody were waving firearms at them, and he replies that they were making fake guns with their fingers, not brandishing actual weapons.
As the officers left the scene, they were heckled by protesters.
"Put away your weapons you douchebag, nobody is threatening you!" yelled one.
"I think the DOE's attempts to cut corners on safety, security, and environmental protections are posing a grave risk to public health, safety, and our natural environment," said one expert.
Less than a week after NPR revealed that "the Trump administration has overhauled a set of nuclear safety directives and shared them with the companies it is charged with regulating, without making the new rules available to the public," the US Department of Energy announced Monday that it is allowing firms building experimental nuclear reactors to seek exemptions from legally required environmental reviews.
Citing executive orders signed by President Donald Trump in May, a notice published in the Federal Register states that the DOE "is establishing a categorical exclusion for authorization, siting, construction, operation, reauthorization, and decommissioning of advanced nuclear reactors for inclusion in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures."
NEPA has long been a target of energy industries and Republican elected officials, including Trump. The exemption policy has been expected since Trump's May orders—which also launched a DOE pilot program to rapidly build the experimental reactors—and the department said in a statement that even the exempted reactors will face some reviews.
"The US Department of Energy is establishing the potential option to obtain a streamlined approach for advanced nuclear reactors as part of the environmental review performed under NEPA," the DOE said. "The analysis on each reactor being considered will be informed by previously completed environmental reviews for similar advanced nuclear technologies."
"The fact is that any nuclear reactor, no matter how small, no matter how safe it looks on paper, is potentially subject to severe accidents."
However, the DOE announcement alarmed various experts, including Daniel P. Aldrich, director of the Resilience Studies Program at Northeastern University, who wrote on social media: "Making America unsafe again: Trump created an exclusion for new experimental reactors from disclosing how their construction and operation might harm the environment, and from a written, public assessment of the possible consequences of a nuclear accident."
Foreign policy reporter Laura Rozen described the policy as "terrifying," while Paul Dorfman, chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group and a scholar at the University of Sussex's Bennett Institute for Innovation and Policy Acceleration, called it "truly crazy."
As NPR reported Monday:
Until now, the test reactor designs currently under construction have primarily existed on paper, according to Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group. He believes the lack of real-world experience with the reactors means that they should be subject to more rigorous safety and environmental reviews before they're built.
"The fact is that any nuclear reactor, no matter how small, no matter how safe it looks on paper, is potentially subject to severe accidents," Lyman said.
"I think the DOE's attempts to cut corners on safety, security, and environmental protections are posing a grave risk to public health, safety, and our natural environment here in the United States," he added.
Lyman was also among the experts who criticized changes that NPR exposed last week, after senior editor and correspondent Geoff Brumfiel obtained documents detailing updates to "departmental orders, which dictate requirements for almost every aspect of the reactors' operations—including safety systems, environmental protections, site security, and accident investigations."
While the DOE said that it shared early versions of the rules with companies, "the reduction of unnecessary regulations will increase innovation in the industry without jeopardizing safety," and "the department anticipates publicly posting the directives later this year," Brumfiel noted that the orders he saw weren't labeled as drafts and had the word "approved" on their cover pages.
In a lengthy statement about last week's reporting, Lyman said on the Union of Concerned Scientists website that "this deeply troubling development confirms my worst fears about the dire state of nuclear power safety and security oversight under the Trump administration. Such a brazen rewriting of hundreds of crucial safeguards for the public underscores why preservation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as an independent, transparent nuclear regulator is so critical."
"The Energy Department has not only taken a sledgehammer to the basic principles that underlie effective nuclear regulation, but it has also done so in the shadows, keeping the public in the dark," he continued. "These long-standing principles were developed over the course of many decades and consider lessons learned from painful events such as the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. This is a massive experiment in the deregulation of novel, untested nuclear facilities that could pose grave threats to public health and safety."
"These drastic changes may extend beyond the Reactor Pilot Program, which was created by President Trump last year to circumvent the more rigorous licensing rules employed by the NRC," Lyman warned. "While the DOE created a legally dubious framework to designate these reactors as 'test' reactors to bypass the NRC's statutory authority, these dramatic alterations may further weaken standards used in the broader DOE authorization process and propagate across the entire fleet of commercial nuclear facilities, severely degrading nuclear safety throughout the United States."
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” said the CEO of one North Carolina-based steel product company.
US President Donald Trump pledged that the manufacturing industry would come "roaring back into our country" after what he called "Liberation Day" last April, which was marked by the announcement of sweeping tariffs on imported goods—a policy that has shifted constantly in the past 10 months as Trump has changed rates, canceled tariffs, and threatened new ones.
But after promising to turn around economic trends that have developed over decades—the shipping of jobs overseas, automation, and the obliteration of towns and cities that had once been manufacturing centers—Trump's trade policy appears to have put any progress achieved in the sector in recent years "in reverse," as the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
Federal data shows that in each of the eight months that followed Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, manufacturing companies reduced their workforce, with a total of 72,000 jobs in the industry lost since April 2025.
The Census Bureau also estimates that construction spending in the manufacturing industry contracted in the first nine months of Trump's second term, after surging during the Biden administration due to investments in renewable energy and semiconductor chips.
"But the tariffs haven’t helped," said Hanson.
Trump has insisted that his tariff policy would force companies to manufacture goods domestically to avoid paying more for foreign materials—just as he has claimed consumers would see lower prices.
But numerous analyses have shown American families are paying more, not less, for essentials like groceries as companies have passed on their higher operating costs to consumers, and federal data has made clear that companies are also avoiding investing in labor since Trump introduced the tariffs—while the trade war the president has kicked off hasn't changed the realities faced by many manufacturing sectors.
"While tariffs do reduce import competition, they can also increase the cost of key components for domestic manufacturers," wrote Emma Ockerman at Yahoo Finance. "Take US electric vehicle plants that rely on batteries made with rare earth elements imported from overseas, for instance. Some parts simply aren’t made in the United States."
At the National Interest, Ryan Mulholland of the Center for American Progress wrote that Trump's tariffs have created "three overlapping challenges" for US businesses.
"The imported components and materials needed to produce goods domestically now cost more—in some cases, a lot more," wrote Mulholland. "Foreign buyers are now looking elsewhere, often to protest Trump’s global belligerence, costing US firms market share abroad that will be difficult to win back. And if bad policy wasn’t enough, US manufacturers must also contend with the Trump administration’s unpredictability, which has made long-term investment decisions nearly impossible. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that small business bankruptcies have surged to their highest level in years."
Trump's unpredictable threats of new tariffs and his retreats on the policy, as with European countries in recent weeks when he said he would impose new levies on countries that didn't support his push to take control of Greenland, have also led to "a lost year for investment" for many firms, along with the possibility that the US Supreme Court could soon rule against the president's tariffs.
“If Trump just picked a number—whatever it was, 10% or 15% to 20%—we might all say it’s bad, I’d say it’s bad, I think most economists would say it’s bad,” Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Yahoo Finance. “But the worst thing is there’s no certainty about it.”
Constantly changing tariff rates make it "very difficult for businesses... to plan," said Baker. “I think you’ve had a lot of businesses curtail investment plans because they just don’t know whether the plans will make sense.”
While US manufacturers have struggled to compete globally, China and other countries have continued exporting their goods.
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” H.O. Woltz III, chief executive of North Carolina-based Insteel Industries, told the Wall Street Journal.
US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) noted Monday that the data on manufacturing job losses comes a week after Vice President JD Vance visited his home state to tout "record job growth."
"Here’s the reality: Families face higher costs, tariffs are costing manufacturing jobs, and over $200 million in approved federal infrastructure and manufacturing investments here were cut by this administration," said Kaptur. "Ohio deserves better."