

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.

David Guest, Earthjustice, (850) 228-3337
A federal judge in Tallahassee today approved a historic consent
decree which requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to set
legal limits for the widespread nutrient poisoning that triggers
harmful algae blooms in Florida waters.
The change in federal policy comes 13 months after five
environmental groups filed a major lawsuit to compel the federal
government to set strict limits on nutrient poisoning in public waters.
Nutrients like phosphorous and nitrogen poison Florida's waters
every time it rains; running off agricultural operations, fertilized
landscapes, and septic systems. The poison runoff triggers slimy algae
outbreaks which foul Florida's beaches, lakes, rivers, and springs more
each year, threatening public health, closing swimming areas, and even
shutting down a southwest Florida drinking water plant.
Ruling from the bench, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle rejected
arguments made by polluters who sought to delay cleanup and get out of
complying with the Clean Water Act. Florida Agriculture Commissioner
Charles Bronson, the Florida Pulp and Paper Association, four of the
state's five water management districts, sewage plant operators, the
Florida Farm Bureau, and others tried to derail the settlement.
Today's action has nationwide implications. Currently, Florida and
most other states have only vague limits regulating nutrient pollution.
The U.S. EPA will now begin the process of imposing quantifiable -- and
enforceable -- water quality standards to tackle nutrient pollution,
using data collected by the Florida DEP.
"The Clean Water Act is strong medicine," said Earthjustice attorney
David Guest. "The EPA can now get on with the work of setting standards
that will clean up our waters. We're hoping to see safe drinking water,
clear springs, lakes and rivers again."
A 2008 DEP report concluded that half of the state's rivers and more
than half of its lakes had poor water quality. The problem is
compounded when nutrient-poisoned waters are used as drinking water
sources. Disinfectants like chlorine and chloramine can react with the
dissolved organic compounds, contaminating drinking water with harmful
chemical byproducts.
Exposure to these blue-green algae toxins - when people drink the
water, touch it, or inhale vapors from it -- can cause rashes, skin and
eye irritation, allergic reactions, gastrointestinal upset, serious
illness, and even death. In June 2008, a water treatment plant serving
30,000 Florida residents was shut down after a toxic blue-green algae
bloom on the Caloosahatchee River threatened the plant's water supply.
"The long-lasting and worsening pollution of our lakes, rivers,
beaches and springs hurts Florida's economy and needs to end," said
Florida Wildlife Federation president Manley Fuller. "This day has been
a long time coming."
"Asking for clean water is not a stretch," said St. Johns
Riverkeeper Neil Armingeon. "There are algae blooms even today in the
St. Johns River. Moving forward quickly is imperative."
"Florida is one step closer to having the tools it needs to
adequately address the threats that nutrient pollution pose to our
quality of life and our tourist economy," said Frank Jackalone of the
Sierra Club.
The public interest law firm Earthjustice filed the suit in the
Northern District of Florida on behalf of the Florida Wildlife
Federation, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Environmental
Confederation of Southwest Florida, St. John's Riverkeeper, and the
Sierra Club in July 2008. The suit challenged an unacceptable
decade-long delay by the state and federal governments in setting
limits for nutrient pollution. Speaking from the bench today, Judge
Hinkle said the delay was a matter of serious concern.
The EPA originally gave Florida a 2004 deadline to set limits for
nutrient pollution, which the state failed to meet. The EPA was then
supposed to set limits itself, but failed to do so. Under the
administration of President George W. Bush, the EPA let the states off
the hook by allowing them to formulate plans without deadlines for
action.
The dire state of Florida's polluted waters made the delay unacceptable and dangerous, so the five groups sued.
Florida's current narrative standard says: "In no case shall
nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an
imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna."
Clearly, nutrient poisoning is altering water bodies all over Florida. As Earthjustice noted in a letter it sent to the EPA:
"Potentially toxigenic cyanobacteria have been found statewide,
including river and stream systems such as the St. Johns River in the
Northeast Region and the Caloosahatchee River in the Southwest Region.
In the Southeast Region, toxin levels in the St. Lucie River and
estuary during an algae bloom in 2005 were 300 times above suggested
drinking water limits and 60 times above suggested recreational limits.
Warning signs had to be posted by local health authorities warning
visitors and residents not to come into contact with the water. Lake
Okeechobee, which is categorized under state regulations as a drinking
water source, is now subject to almost year-round blue-green algae
blooms as a result of nutrient pollution."
The St. Johns River has been under a health advisory due to a
toxigenic blue green algae bloom. In 2005, a similar bloom shut down
all boat traffic on the river.
Tampa Bay has suffered an outbreak this year of Pyrodinium
bahamense, and Takayama tuberculata has sullied waters around San Marco
Island.
Nutrient pollution also fuels the explosive growth of invasive water
plants like hydrilla, which now clogs countless springs, rivers and
lakes.
EPA's agreement to set enforceable nutrient limits is available here.
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.
800-584-6460Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."
A group of Democratic lawmakers pushed President Donald Trump on whether he would veto legislation that cuts Social Security.
A group of Democratic US senators warned Monday that congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump could be gearing up for a push for raise the retirement age as part of a broader—and deeply unpopular—effort to slash Social Security benefits after the 2026 midterm elections.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in a letter to Trump that they have "renewed concerns" that his administration is "considering raising the retirement age, cutting the earned benefits of millions of Americans," despite the president's repeated vows to shield the program.
"Republicans have a history of attempting to increase the retirement age, privatize Social Security, or otherwise cut Social Security benefits, and some congressional Republicans have called to raise the retirement age or means-test benefits," the lawmakers wrote, emphasizing that GOP lawmakers "are not alone."
"In an interview this past fall, [Social Security Administration] Commissioner Frank Bisignano said—and later attempted to retract after public outcry—that your administration was considering this idea," the Democratic senators wrote of raising the retirement age, which would cut Social Security benefits across the board.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of a 2024 Republican proposal to raise Social Security's full retirement age found that doing so would cut benefits by an average of 13% for people born after 1971.
The Democratic senators sent their letter to Trump days after Social Security's trustees said in their annual report that the program will be unable to pay out full benefits by the end of 2032—a quarter earlier than projected last year—unless Congress takes action. The finding was seen as evidence of the damage inflicted by Trump's policies, including his tariffs and tax cuts for the rich.
Ahead of the trustees report's release, House Speaker Mike Johnson declared that Social Security needs to be "adjusted and fixed" and said Republicans would release their plan "next year," without specifying what the proposal would entail.
Mike Johnson admits Republicans will cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security next year pic.twitter.com/bgyAb4ppyw
— FactPost (@factpostnews) June 8, 2026
In their letter to Trump on Monday, the trio of Democratic senators demanded to know if the president is aware of "Republican plans to cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits" and whether he would veto GOP legislation that slashes those programs.
"Raising the retirement age—or otherwise cutting benefits—only worsens the looming retirement income crisis," the lawmakers wrote. "Doing so hurts older Americans, cutting monthly benefits and forcing millions into poverty."