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.
800-584-6460One ACLU leader warned it "would hand the Trump administration more tools to criminalize immigrants and terrorize communities at the same time they are deploying federal agents and the military to our streets."
Eleven Democrats voted with Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Thursday to advance the so-called Stop Illegal Entry Act, which critics have condemned as "dangerously overbroad" as well as "dehumanizing and horrific."
The final vote was 226-197. The 11 Democrats who joined all GOP members present in backing the bill were Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Laura Gillen (NY), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Adam Gray (Calif.), Kristen McDonald Rivet (Mich.), Frank Mrvan (Ind.), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Tom Suozzi (NY), and Gabe Vasquez (NM).
Introduced by Congresswoman Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), HR 3486 would increase sentences for undocumented immigrants who repeatedly enter the United States illegally or enter the country and then commit a felony. The bill still needs Senate approval to reach the desk of Republican President Donald Trump, who supports it.
After Thursday's vote, Mike Zamore, the ACLU's national director of policy and government affairs, warned that "HR 3486 would supercharge President Trump's reckless deportation drive, which is already damaging our economy and destabilizing communities."
"This legislation would hand the Trump administration more tools to criminalize immigrants and terrorize communities at the same time they are deploying federal agents and the military to our streets. It would also undermine public safety by diverting more resources away from youth services and prevention programs that actually improve community safety," Zamore said. "While the House narrowly passed this bill, we thank the members of Congress who held the line and voted against this harmful legislation."
"At a time when president is threatening American cities and the Supreme Court is greenlighting racial profiling, it is vital that a growing number of elected officials are standing together in rejecting Stephen Miller's dystopian agenda to criminalize and demonize people who come to this country seeking a better life," he added, calling out the White House deputy chief of staff for policy infamous for various anti-migrant initiatives from Trump's first term, including forcible separation of families.
Speaking on the House floor, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an immigrant herself, called the bill "Republicans' latest attempt to scapegoat and fearmonger about immigrants."
US Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) also spoke out against the bill, saying on social media: "It does nothing to protect communities or make us safer. Instead, it piles on cruel mandatory minimums, explodes prison costs, and treats families seeking safety like violent criminals. We need real immigration reform, not another zero-tolerance failure."
Congressman Dave Min (D-Calif.), the son of immigrants, said in a statement that "in talking with local and state law enforcement officers, I learned that this bill will potentially make it harder for them to do their jobs. By increasing the scope of crimes that local police officers might be expected to enforce, while not providing any funding for this, HR 3486 would effectively reduce the resources our local law enforcement has to keep our communities safe and potentially lead to increases in violent crime."
Min also pointed to the US Supreme Court's Monday ruling that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to engage in what critics have called "blatant racial profiling."
"This bill, combined with the Supreme Court's clearly wrong decision allowing ICE to detain people based on ethnicity, race, language, or place of employment, will give sweeping new authorities to ICE to perpetuate the mass incarceration of immigrants," he said. "I am deeply concerned that HR 3486 will lead to more violent attacks and unlawful arrests by ICE of the people I represent. For these reasons, I voted no earlier today."
One commentator noted that Brazil's Supreme Court "refused to cave to imperialist threats" from the Trump administration.
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was sentenced to over 27 years behind bars Thursday after four of five Supreme Court justices on a panel voted to convict the far-right leader and seven associates of plotting a military coup and assassination of current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and other officials.
"This criminal case is almost a meeting between Brazil and its past, its present, and its future," said Justice Cármen Lúcia Antunes Rocha, on Thursday cast the third and decisive vote to convict the former president and seven co-plotters, referring in part to the two decades of US-backed military dictatorship, during which Bolsonaro served as an army paratrooper.
Lúcia joined Justices Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, and Alexandre de Moraes—who, along with Lula and Brazilian Vice President Geraldo Alckmin were targeted for assassination by the plotters—in voting to convict the defendants of attempting to subvert Lula's victory in the 2022 presidential election.
The defendants—who in addition to Bolsonaro include army generals and former Defense Ministers Walter Braga Netto and Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira; former Institutional Security Minister Augusto Heleno Ribiero; admiral and former Navy Commander Almir Garnier Santos; former Justice Minister Anderson Torres; and former presidential adviser Márcio Mirando—were found guilty of crimes including attempting a coup, involvement in an armed criminal organization, attempting the violent abolition of democratic rule of law, and aggravated damage of the state's assets.
Lt. Col. Mauro Cid, a former Bolsonaro aide who turned state's witness, was sentenced Thursday to two years of confinement under open conditions, the most lenient form of carceral punishment in the Brazilian justice system.
"The government wanted to remain in power by simply ignoring democracy—and that is what constitutes a coup d'état," Moraes said ahead of his vote on Tuesday. "The leader of the criminal group made it clear—publicly and in his own words—that he would never accept defeat at the ballot, a democratic loss in the elections, and that he would never abide by the will of the people."
Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years, 3 months in prison, with penalties for the other convicted defendants still uncertain as of Thursday evening. Bolsonaro, who is 70 years old, denies any wrongdoing. He is currently under house arrest and could remain there until after exhausting the appeals process. He is already banned from running for any office until 2030 due to his abuse of power related to baseless claims of electoral fraud.
Justice Luiz Fux voted Thursday to absolve Bolsonaro, asserting that there was "absolutely no proof" that the former president took part in or was even aware of the coup and assassination plot.
However, Lúcia argued that there was copious evidence indicating that Bolsonaro and his accomplices acted "with the purpose of eroding democracy and institutions."
"They acted to hijack the soul of the republic," she said. "The case files show a coordinated criminal enterprise by the defendants, who adopted the methods of a digital militia to attack the judiciary, the electoral system, and the electronic voting machines."
The landmark verdict came amid acute political polarization in Latin America's biggest democracy and threats from the office of US President Donald Trump to unleash American "military might" in defense of the "Trump of the Tropics," as Bolsonaro is often called. The Trump administration has already slapped 50% tariffs on Brazilian imports and has sanctioned Moraes.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded to Thursday's developments by vowing on social media that "the United States will respond accordingly to this witch hunt."
Like Trump in 2020, Bolsonaro made many baseless allegations that his loss in the 2022 election was due to fraud, fueling lies and conspiracy theories that led to the January 8, 2023 mob attacks on government buildings. Around 1,500 Bolsonaro supporters were arrested in the days following the storming of Congress and the presidential offices.
While many right-wing Brazilians were outraged by the convictions, leftist lawmakers and others applauded what Lula's Workers' Party (PT) called "a historic moment for Brazil."
Brazilian Secretary of Institutional Affairs Gleisi Hoffmann (PT) said on social media, "The conviction of Jair Bolsonaro and his accomplices by the Federal Supreme Court expresses the vigor of democracy and national sovereignty."
"They were convicted in due legal process, based on compelling evidence of the crimes they committed," she continued. "It is a historic, unprecedented decision so that they may never again dare to attack the rule of law and the will of the people expressed at the ballot box."
"It is also the proud response of Brazil's judiciary to the economic sanctions and absurd coercion of the Donald Trump government, in conspiracy with the traitors to the homeland in the service of Bolsonaro," Hoffmann added. "Today... Brazil told the world that crimes against democracy are intolerable. And they are unforgivable."
Federal Deputy Talíria Petrone (Socialism and Liberty-Rio de Janeiro) called Thursday "the greatest day ever," while former colleague Jean Wyllys also hailed this "great day."
Erika Hilton, a Socialism and Liberty federal deputy representing São Paulo, taunted Bolsonaro with the prospect of a lengthy stay at a notorious maximum security penitentiary.
Federal Deputy Benedita da Silva (PT-Rio de Janeiro) said on social media that "democratic Brazil is proud and celebrating the firm decision" of the high court, "whose members suffered countless threats, including death threats, from the conspirators against the democratic rule of law."
Referring to the United States, da Silva praised the justices, who "did not bow to the threats to our sovereignty from the greatest external power."
"Now we have to defeat the amnesty coup of the convicted plotters that they are still trying to pass," she added, a reference to efforts by the right-wing Congress to pass clemency legislation for Bolsonaro. "No amnesty!"Health insurance premiums are expected to rise significantly for approximately 22 million Americans after Republicans ended a tax credit for those enrolled in programs under the Affordable Care Act.
Democratic leaders said Thursday that they plan to hold up negotiations on a potential government shutdown unless Republicans agree to forfeit a policy change that is expected to dramatically raise health insurance premiums for millions of Americans.
Health insurance premiums are expected to rise significantly for approximately 22 million Americans enrolled in Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plans after Republicans refused to extend enhanced tax credits when passing Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" in July.
In remarks on Capitol Hill Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he and Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) were in total agreement not to negotiate unless Republicans agree to extend the tax credits.
“On this issue, we’re totally united. The Republicans have to come to meet with us in a true bipartisan negotiation to satisfy the American people’s needs on healthcare, or they won't get our votes, plain and simple,” Schumer warned at a press conference.
"We will not support a partisan spending agreement that continues to rip away healthcare from the American people. Period. Full stop,” Jeffries said.
The enhanced tax credits, which were created in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act and later extended through the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, are credited with reducing the insurance premiums of millions of people who purchase health insurance through government exchanges.
The tax credits have reduced insurance premiums by 44% on average—over $700 per enrollee—and have contributed to the number of people purchasing insurance on the exchanges more than doubling to over 24 million in 2025.
According to a report released Wednesday by KFF:
Nine in 10 enrollees (92%) receive some amount of premium tax credit. If these enhanced tax credits expire at the end of 2025, out-of-pocket premiums would rise by over 75% on average for the vast majority of individuals and families buying coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces.
The increases come as insurance companies, citing "slumping share prices," per the Financial Times, are planning the largest hike to premiums in 15 years, including an 18% increase for those buying from ACA exchanges.
These increases will come on top of those already expected as a result of a Trump administration rule passed in June, which increased the maximum percentages of income and raw dollar amounts that insurance plans could charge patients out-of-pocket for care.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, these changes "will make coverage less affordable for millions of people." The CBPP estimates that "a family of four making $85,000 will have to pay an additional $197 in premiums for coverage in 2026" while a "family of two or more people on the same plan could face an additional $900 in medical bills if a family member is seriously ill or injured in 2026, and an individual enrolled in self-only coverage could face an additional $450 in medical bills."
In all, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in May that as a result of these mounting costs, over 5 million people will no longer be able to afford their health insurance plans.
"The death star of American healthcare, the insurance companies are preparing to blow up the lives of millions of middle-class families," warned journalist David Sirota in a podcast for The Lever.
Republicans in Congress are facing mounting pressure to extend the tax credits and stave off the premium hikes. Last week, 11 Republicans in Congress signed onto a bill that would extend the credits through 2026, allowing them to avoid the issue until after the midterm elections.
A survey conducted in July by two of Trump's most trusted pollsters, Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward, found that for Republicans in the most competitive districts, "a 3-point deficit becomes a 15-point deficit" against the generic Democrat if they allow the healthcare premium tax credit to expire.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has stayed coy about whether he and the Republican caucus plan to support extending the credits.
"I'm not going to forecast that right now," Johnson told reporters earlier this week, while also saying, "There's a lot of opposition to it as well."
Democrats, meanwhile, have proposed a competing bill to make the subsidies permanent and are hoping to use this month's budget showdown to force Republicans to make concessions on the issue.
As David Dayen wrote Monday for the American Prospect, it sets up a challenging strategic and moral dilemma for Democrats:
On the one hand, Democrats fighting for healthcare benefits speaks to an issue where they have the highest level of support from the public. They would credibly be able to tell voters that they fought for lower costs during an affordability crisis and won, and that more of that will happen if they are given power in the midterms.
On the other hand, Republicans willingly drove the healthcare system toward the point of oblivion, and some may question why Democrats would offer a lifeline to bail them out. In this reading, relieving Republicans of the consequences of their health care plans would be harmful to Democratic midterm chances; Trump would take credit for keeping health care costs low.
What's clear, Dayen said, is that "unless action is taken, it will be an enormous example of Trump's failure to rein in the runaway cost of living."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, urged Democrats to stand firm as the fight over a potential government shutdown heats up.
"If Republicans refuse to negotiate and move away from their cost-increasing agenda, then it is Republicans who will be forcing a government-wide shutdown," Gilbert said. "There should be no deal without assurances that the budget will be honored and not impounded, and one that returns care to the American people.”