June, 18 2009, 03:50pm EDT

Groups to Feds: Communities Have Right to Know of Toxic Coal Ash Sites
Ask agencies to disclose 44 'high hazard' sites
WASHINGTON
A coalition of environmental groups today formally asked the
Department of Homeland Security, the Army Corp of Engineers and
Environmental Protection Agency to make public the list of 44 "high
hazard" coal ash disposal sites across the country. The Freedom of
Information Act request was submitted by the Sierra Club, Earthjustice,
the Environmental Integrity Project, and Natural Resources Defense
Council after the EPA refused to disclose which of the hundreds of coal
ash sites pose such a threat to nearby communities that they have been
deemed by the Obama administration to be a national security risk.
"The Department of Homeland Security has designated 44 massive coal
ash piles as 'high hazard' because they present a clear and present
danger to the people living near them," said Bruce Nilles, Director of
the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign. "People have a right to know if
mountains of toxic coal ash are threatening their communities so they
can take action and put pressure on their local utilities to demand
clean up."
The EPA was instructed by the Department of Homeland Security not to
release information about the location of high hazard dams containing
coal ash. Unspecified national security concerns were cited as the
reason for withholding this critical information from the public, even
though the locations of other hazardous sites, such as nuclear plants
are publicly available.
"EPA was exactly right to ask utilities for information on their
high risk waste disposal sites," said Lisa Evans of Earthjustice. "The
nature and location of these dump sites are precisely what EPA and the
public need to know -- the free flow of information will help stop the
flow of toxic ash into our communities."
Coal ash sites contain harmful levels of arsenic, lead, mercury and
other toxins, which can leach out slowly contaminating drinking water
sources, or as in the case of the 44 "high hazard" sites, flood nearby
communities with a life-threatening wave of toxic sludge as happened
last year in Tennessee.
"The industry has told us for decades that coal ash is perfectly
safe -- now we're told that some of their ash dumps are so dangerous,
the federal government is afraid to tell us where they are. We need to
move beyond this 'see no evil' approach, and regulate these unsafe
practices," said Eric Schaeffer, Director of the Environmental
Integrity Project.
The dangers of coal ash are yet another reminder of the need to
clean up coal's toxic legacy and speed up the transition to cleaner,
safer energy sources.
Last Friday at a press conference Senator Barbara Boxer disclosed
that she has been muzzled and prohibited from telling the nation about
the location of these 44 dangerous sites. Senator Boxer has pushed back
and demanded openness. "We applaud Senator Boxer for her tireless work
to protect communities from the dangers of coal ash," added Nilles.
Download copies of the requests here:
EPA FOIA: https://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/epa-foia-letter-061809.pdf
DHS FOIA: https://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/dhs-foia-letter-061809.pdf
ACOE FOIA: https://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/acoe-foia-letter-061809.pdf
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
'Unconscionable,' Says Khanna as House Panel Blocks Effort to Prevent Deeper US-Israeli Military Ties
"They're not even giving us a vote on the amendment," said Rep. Ro Khanna, who vowed to "continue to fight to make sure we don't compromise American sovereignty."
Jun 30, 2026
A Republican-controlled House panel on Monday refused to allow a floor vote on a bipartisan amendment to prevent closer integration of the American and Israeli militaries, which human rights organizations say would deepen US complicity in Israeli war crimes.
"This is unconscionable," Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who led the proposed amendment alongside Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), said in a video posted to social media on Tuesday. "They're not even giving us a vote on the amendment."
Khanna vowed that "Thomas and I will continue to fight to make sure we don't compromise American sovereignty."
Watch:
Congress has blocked the amendment @RepThomasMassie and I introduced to stop the integration of our military with Israel’s. It is unconscionable to not even have a vote. We will be continuing on and will not be intimidated by the pro-Israel lobby. pic.twitter.com/6ai93L0rAY
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) June 30, 2026
The Khanna-Massie amendment would have removed the US-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative from annual military policy legislation currently moving through Congress. The initiative, laid out in Section 219 of the House's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), instructs the Pentagon to "designate an executive agent... responsible for synchronizing cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel, to expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation."
On Monday, the House Rules Committee unveiled a list of NDAA amendments that it decided would get a full House vote, and the Khanna-Massie proposal was absent. Ben Freeman noted at Responsible Statecraft that the rules panel made its decision "after no debate" on the amendment.
"By rejecting the Khanna and Massie amendment, the Rules Committee on Monday ensured the American public would not even get to see how their representatives would vote on this pivotal issue," Freeman wrote. "This is despite unprecedented levels of public distrust in the Israeli government and widespread public outrage directed at these proposals."
The fight to block the US-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative—which is enthusiastically backed by the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC—is not necessarily over.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said earlier this month that lawmakers "must" strip the initiative from the NDAA, signaling a possible fight over the provision in the upper chamber. A summary of the Senate version of the NDAA states that the legislation would establish "the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative to expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, coordination, and industrial cooperation between the US and
Israel."
Leading human rights organizations, including Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch (HRW), have urged lawmakers to reject the cooperation initiative, with the latter group warning that the proposal would "deepen US military cooperation with Israel while walling that cooperation off from further congressional oversight."
"Israeli forces’ widespread war crimes, crimes against humanity, and its ongoing acts of genocide in Gaza should give the United States pause about closer military association," said Akshaya Kumar, HRW's director of crisis advocacy. "Instead, Section 219 proposes to deepen entanglement, in a way that makes the risks of complicity ongoing. Legislators still have a chance to strip this damaging proposal out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Gift to Billionaires, Supreme Court Buys Vance's Argument Against Post-Watergate Campaign Finance Rule
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that upholds our fundamental freedoms—not one that consistently sides with billionaire donors and diminishes the power of everyday citizens," said one democracy defender.
Jun 30, 2026
Just days after Vice President JD Vance suggested that if Watergate happened today, it would barely make the news, let alone end a presidency, the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority on Tuesday embraced the Republican's argument against a 1974 campaign finance rule that Congress passed in response to the seismic scandal.
Specifically, the court struck down restrictions on political parties coordinating campaign spending with candidates. The ruling is the result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by Vance, then a Republican Senate candidate in Ohio; Steve Chabot, then a GOP congressman from the same state; and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and its House counterpart.
The high court had previously upheld the rule in 2021, but as with the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending by corporations and ultrarich individuals via super political action committees (PACs), the majority cited the First Amendment to the US Constitution in its 6-3 decision in NRSC v. FEC. The three liberals dissented.
Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at the group Issue One, stressed that Tuesday's decision opening up "a new avenue for wealthy donors and special interests to buy favor with political candidates" is part of "a string of disastrous campaign finance rulings from the Roberts Court that began with Citizens United and have left our political system awash in large contributions that most Americans could never dream of giving."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs for the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, similarly declared that "the right-wing supermajority on the Supreme Court thinks Citizens United didn't go far enough. Today they gave their blessing for billionaires to buy even more influence over the politicians who represent us."
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that upholds our fundamental freedoms—not one that consistently sides with billionaire donors and diminishes the power of everyday citizens in our democracy," Edkins asserted, calling on Congress to add more members to the court once President Donald Trump finishes his second term in 2029.
"Congress should rein in this rogue court once Trump leaves office by enacting major reforms, including term limits, an enforceable code of ethics, and expanding the court with justices who will defend our democracy and our fundamental freedoms," he said.
In the meantime, Americans will have to contend with the new ruling in the November midterms as well as the next presidential cycle in 2028.
Along with calling out a high court that yet again "twisted the First Amendment to help billionaires and corporations buy our elections and bend our government to their will," Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger argued Tuesday that "we have to combat this outcome by increasing transparency so voters know who’s paying for election ads, empowering small donors and public matching funds, and passing the Democracy For All Amendment to empower Congress, the states, and the voters to put in place reasonable protections to guard against campaign finance corruption."
The ruling came as Public Citizen released a report documenting the historic $517 million in corporate spending on the 2026 cycle so far—money that has largely gone to "industry-prioritizing super PACs" and the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc.
Democratic Party leaders, who hope to reclaim majorities in both chambers of Congress this November, also ripped the new ruling.
In a joint statement, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, as well as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who lead the party's campaign arms for each chamber, called it "a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption."
"Republicans have failed the American people with a record that has ripped away healthcare and raised costs on families, and they know voters will hold them accountable in November—which is exactly why they are rewriting the rules in an effort to drown out the will of the voters by flooding elections with more money from their billionaire backers," they said.
"Democrats are fighting back for the American people," the trio added, "and in November, voters will reject Republicans' toxic agenda and efforts to rig the system and weaken our democracy by electing a Democratic House and Senate majority."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Call On NYC Council to Expel Member Paladino for Saying CIA Should 'Neutralize' DSA Organizers
"Yet another example of Vickie Paladino calling for the federal government to retaliate against people she disagrees with," said congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier.
Jun 30, 2026
Darializa Avila Chevalier, the progressive organizer whose primary victory over five-term Democratic Congressman Adriano Espaillat last week stunned the party's establishment, was among those calling for the expulsion of New York City Council member Vickie Paladino Tuesday night after the Republican issued "a thinly veiled call" for the government "to kill" democratic socialists.
On the social media platform X, Paladino posted an image of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) 2025-27 National Political Committee, including national co-chairs Ashik Siddique and Megan Romer, and mused that in the past, government agencies may have mobilized to kill the 27 people in the picture to stop their left-wing activities.
"There was a time in our history, not too long ago, when the CIA/FBI would’ve made sure unabashed revolutionaries like this were neutralized one way or another," said Paladino (R-19). "In fact, that was basically the entire point of having them."
Paladino appeared to be referring to the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which surveilled, infiltrated, and tried to disrupt groups and movements that fought for civil rights and against the US war in Vietnam. COINTELPRO was involved in the 1969 raid in Chicago in which police killed Black Panther Party leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark.
"This is insane," said US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) after Paladino suggested the US government should use the FBI and CIA to "neutralize" DSA organizers, who are working to elect advocates for Medicare for All, universal childcare, and abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, among other increasingly popular progressive proposals.
Chevalier, a member of the DSA's New York City chapter, called for Paladino to be "expelled."
"We need public leaders who will fight for a politics of life and the council member has shown time and time again that she does not," said Chevalier.
Paladino's call to "neutralize" left-wing organizers came a day after she urged New York City police to "run over" protesters who were blocking officers on bikes. Last December, Paladino said the US should "take very seriously the need to begin the expulsion of Muslims from Western nations," and last June she suggested New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who was then a primary candidate, should be deported.
The Brooklyn Young Democrats also accused Paladino of "encouraging political violence" and called on the City Council to condemn her comments "and consider appropriate action—including expulsion."
Ryan Deitsch, co-founder of the gun control group A March for Our Lives, addressed the New York Police Department and Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, asking whether Paladino's threat raised any "red flags."
The council member's comments came less than a week after a number of progressive primary victories in New York City, including Chevalier's. The election results led centrist Democrats to quickly mobilize against democratic socialist candidates, warning that progressive contenders are “bomb-throwers, not problem solvers"—even as Mamdani secured a two-year rent freeze that will affect roughly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments, as New Yorkers and people across the country struggle with rising costs.
One DSA organizer said in response to Paladino, "Imagine if Zohran Mamdani said something about having the [Republican National Committee] chair and co-chair 'neutralized one way or another' with a secret police force."
"Expel Vickie Paladino from the NYC Council," they added, "and have her arrested and charged for making a terrorist threat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


