

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.

Julie Anderson (202) 683-2467
"The latest New
York Times article in its "Toxic
Water" series continues to detail the consequences of the Bush
Administration's poor record on safeguarding the nation's water and highlights
the immediate need for the Obama Administration to protect this critical public
resource. Though the article calls on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to update the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring the regulation of hundreds of
chemicals increasingly entering our water supplies, much more is needed to
protect our waters on the front end of this process.
"The latest New
York Times article in its "Toxic
Water" series continues to detail the consequences of the Bush
Administration's poor record on safeguarding the nation's water and highlights
the immediate need for the Obama Administration to protect this critical public
resource. Though the article calls on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to update the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring the regulation of hundreds of
chemicals increasingly entering our water supplies, much more is needed to
protect our waters on the front end of this process.
"Water supply preservation requires a considerable
number of new initiatives to regulate these chemicals -- or remove them to a
level safe for drinking -- but it also requires government to prevent the
contaminants from entering our water in the first place. Industry
has been allowed to discharge potentially harmful chemicals into our water
supplies, leaving the public to clean up the mess. Today, more than 60,000
chemicals are used within the United States. The government should ensure they
are safe before permitting their use by industry.
"Without
additional funding, water and sewer systems cannot meet more stringent
standards, even if they are authorized to do so by law. Based on EPA's
final arsenic rule, it could cost an additional $700 million nationally to set the arsenic standard to the lowest
feasible level, and without
federal support, the typical household served by a small community water system
could have to pay an extra $400 or more a year. As standards become
increasingly stringent, we must work to ensure that the resulting treatment
costs do not force families off public water systems.
"The Safe Drinking Water Act should be updated and additional
funding should be allocated for water infrastructure. Despite this need, bottled
water remains a bad alternative to tap water, as studies have demonstrated
significant contamination in bottled water as well. Bottled water has a negative environmental impact and is
exorbitantly expensive. For residents who are concerned about water quality, we
recommend using a filter as a much better alternative to bottled water.
"We need to pass H.R. 3202, the Water Protection and Reinvestment
Act, which would create a dedicated source of funding to help public utilities
meet important new quality standards. With a renewed federal commitment,
we can improve our water systems and protect public health to ensure safe,
clean and accessible water for all communities."
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500"The ship was unarmed," wrote one war journalist. "That’s why Trump and Hegseth chose to murder them."
President Donald Trump said the US Navy chose to sink an Iranian frigate, killing more than 100 sailors last week, because it was "more fun" than capturing the vessel, even though the ship posed no threat.
Though death tolls vary, Iran's state media organization, the Islamic Republic News Organization, reported on Sunday that 104 crew members were killed in the attack and that 32 others were injured when a US submarine torpedoed the Iranian warship IRIS Dena in the Indian Ocean on March 4 as it departed from the Milan Peace 2026 naval drills hosted in India.
The Dena was more than 2,000 miles away from the Persian Gulf when it was attacked, far from the hostilities unleashed last weekend when the US and Israel launched a war against Iran. Contradicting US claims, Iranian and Indian officials have said it was not armed.
In what political commentator Adam Schwarz described as "the most blasé admission of a war crime by a US president in history," Trump on Monday casually recounted the US Navy's decision to attack the ship before a gathering of Republicans at a Congressional Institute event, a GOP-aligned nonprofit retreat organizer.
He suggested that the Navy blew the boat up not to neutralize a threat, but purely for its own sake.
After making the exaggerated boast that Iran's navy is "gone" following aggressive US bombing, Trump said at first he "got a little upset" with the military brass who ordered the sinking of the Dena, which he said they described as a "top-of-the-line" vessel.
Trump said he asked: "Why don't we just capture the ship? We could have used it. Why did we sink them?"
He said that an unspecified official told him, "It's more fun to sink them."
As the crowd laughed, Trump went on, chuckling himself: "They like sinking them better. They say it's safer to sink them. I guess it's probably true."
Iran's deputy foreign minister, Saeed Khatibzadeh, described the ship as operating in a purely "ceremonial" role and said it was "unloaded" and "unarmed" at the time of the attack last week.
Rahul Bedi, an independent defense analyst in India, told the Associated Press that while the ship may have used some limited non-offensive ammunition during naval exercises, drill protocol requires “the participating platforms to be unarmed.”
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has claimed the vessel was a "predator ship," while the US Indo-Pacific Command has said claims that the ship was unarmed are "false." However, it has provided no evidence that it posed a threat at the time of the attack.
The attack itself was likely legal under the rules of naval warfare, even if the ship was unarmed, though its ethical and tactical justification has been called into question.
However, while it's generally permissible under international law to attack a warship to weaken an enemy, using excessive violence purely for amusement could be characterized as "wanton destruction," a war crime under several international law statutes.
The Navy's refusal to rescue the dozens of shipwrecked survivors has also been described as a possible violation of the Second Geneva Convention, which requires militaries to take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded, and sick.
The Dena's 32 survivors, as well as dozens of dead bodies, had to be pulled from the water by a Sri Lankan joint rescue operation following a distress call. The survivors were quickly rushed to a local hospital in Galle City.
Hegseth has previously come under fire for reportedly ordering a second strike on shipwrecked sailors who survived the bombing of an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean.
Many have described that attack on September 2 as an exceptionally blatant war crime in a broadly illegal campaign that has extrajudicially killed at least 156 people.
In carrying out its war against Iran, Hegseth has emphasized that the US would not abide by what he called "stupid rules of engagement."
Thousands of civilian targets, including schools, hospitals, and residential areas, have reportedly been attacked by US and Israeli strikes, according to the Iranian Red Crescent.
As of Monday, Iranian Deputy Health Minister Ali Jafarian said at least 1,255 people have been killed, including 200 children and 11 healthcare workers.
Though it may have still technically been legal, journalist Mark Ames, the co-host of the geopolitics podcast Radio War Nerd, argued that attacking a ship that posed no threat shows that Trump is "cowardly scum" who "gets his kicks killing those who can’t fight back."
"The ship was unarmed. That’s why Trump and Hegseth chose to murder them," Ames wrote on social media. "Tormenting those who can’t fight back is its own sadistic pleasure."
DNC Chairman Ken Martin accused Trump of trying to "bully and cheat his way through a midterm election that he knows Republicans will lose."
The Democratic National Committee is suing the Trump administration and alleging that it is threatening the integrity of the 2026 midterm elections.
In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the DNC revealed that the Trump administration hasn't complied with any of the 11 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests the Democratic committee made last year regarding any plans for the "potential deployment of federal agents and troops to polling places, drop boxes, and election offices."
The complaint argued that these FOIA requests were necessary given the "repeat threats to free and fair elections from President Trump and his administration," and accused the administration of violating the law by refusing to fulfill them.
The lawsuit also provided extensive documentation of President Donald Trump and other administration officials making threats and taking actions to potentially disrupt voting in the 2026 elections, including Trump in January saying he regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in the wake of the 2020 presidential election; White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt subsequently saying that the administration "can't guarantee" federal law enforcement won't be deployed to polling places; and the FBI seizure of 2020 election ballots in Fulton County, Georgia.
The DNC said the court must now enforce FOIA requirements "to ensure that the American people obtain timely knowledge of potential threats to free and fair elections and to enable the DNC to take appropriate action to ensure voting rights are protected."
DNC Chairman Ken Martin accused Trump of trying to "bully and cheat his way through a midterm election that he knows Republicans will lose," then added that "we won’t let him."
"The DNC will stand on the side of voters," continued Martin, "and use every tool in our arsenal to stop voter suppression and intimidation before it can even begin."
The DNC lawsuit follows reporting from Politico in February revealing that Democratic state attorneys general have been conducting "war games" aimed at combating Trump administration moves to tamper with the 2026 elections.
Among the many possibilities that the AGs are preparing for are that the Trump administration orders the seizure of ballots and voting machines, defunds the post office to block the delivery of mail-in ballots, and sends federal immigration enforcement officials or even the US military to patrol polling places.
"Americans can't afford their groceries, they can't afford their medicine, they can't afford the cost of living, and yet we're dropping a billion dollars of bombs, it seems, every day in Iran," said one Senate Democrat.
The Trump administration is quietly pursuing a regulatory change that would strip federal nutrition assistance from an estimated 6 million low-income Americans—including nearly two million children—as it spends billions on an illegal, open-ended war on Iran that has killed more than a thousand people and plunged the global economy into chaos.
The change sought by the US Department of Agriculture would curb broad-based categorical eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Broad-based categorical eligibility allows states to automatically qualify residents for SNAP if they are already enrolled in other aid programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, thus reducing administrative hurdles and costs.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimated in a blog post published late last month—the day before President Donald Trump announced the joint US-Israeli assault on Iran—that gutting broad-based categorical eligibility would likely strip modest federal food aid from around 6 million people, including nearly 2 million children.
"The people losing access to food assistance from SNAP, school meals, and [the Women, Infants, and Children Program] would mainly be working families, older adults, and people with disabilities," the think tank noted. "In other words, the change would primarily harm groups that federal and state policymakers from across the political spectrum have long sought to help: people who work but are living near poverty; older adults and people with disabilities with low, fixed incomes; and people trying to build modest savings in order to become more economically independent."
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that restricting broad-based categorical eligibility would result in roughly $11 billion in savings over a 10-year period—or just over $1 billion a year.
The Trump administration is currently spending around $1 billion per day in US taxpayer money waging war on Iran—a price tag that would be enough to cover the daily costs of SNAP benefits for the more than 40 million Americans on the program.
Over just the first two days of the military onslaught, the Pentagon "burned through $5.6 billion worth of munitions," according to figures reported late Monday by the Washington Post.
"Americans can't afford their groceries, they can't afford their medicine, they can't afford the cost of living, and yet we're dropping a billion dollars of bombs, it seems, every day in Iran," US Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in a CNN appearance on Monday.
During Trump's first White House term, his administration proposed a rule that would have curtailed states' option to use broad-based categorical eligibility for SNAP, but the rule was never finalized and the Biden administration later rescinded it.
The Trump Agriculture Department revived the effort late last year, submitting a rule purportedly aimed at ensuring that "categorical eligibility is extended only to households that have sufficiently demonstrated eligibility."
"The end result," CBPP's Katie Bergh recently warned, "will be more hunger and hardship."
The Trump administration's new push comes months after the president signed into law the largest SNAP cuts in US history—around $187 billion over the next decade.
Trump bragged about the cuts during his State of the Union address last month, declaring that his administration has "lifted 2.4 million Americans" off SNAP—a euphemistic description of kicking people off the critical anti-poverty program.
Last week, Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee advanced a farm bill that would do nothing to mitigate the reverberating impacts of the Trump-GOP SNAP cuts.
"Instead of prioritizing the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans, the committee failed to reverse course and continued down a path that will strip food from the tables of children, veterans, caregivers, older adults, and people experiencing homelessness," said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center.