

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.
Sarah Burt, Earthjustice, (510) 550-6755, sburt@earthjustice.org
Eric Bilsky, Oceana, (202) 833-3900 x 1912, ebilsky@oceana.org
Danielle Fugere, Friends of the Earth, (415) 577-5594
Vera Pardee, Center for Biological Diversity, (858) 717-1448, vpardee@biologicaldiversity.org
Dan Galpern, Western Environmental Law Center, (541) 359-3243, galpern@westernlaw.org
A day after the U.S. Senate voted to uphold the Environmental
Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a coalition
of environmental groups has filed a lawsuit challenging the agency's
failure to address such pollution from oceangoing ships, aircraft and
non-road vehicles as well as engines used in industrial operations.
A day after the U.S. Senate voted to uphold the Environmental
Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a coalition
of environmental groups has filed a lawsuit challenging the agency's
failure to address such pollution from oceangoing ships, aircraft and
non-road vehicles as well as engines used in industrial operations. The
lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the District of Columbia by
Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of
Oceana, Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity, the
Center for Food Safety and the International Center for Technology
Assessment.
Together, aircraft, ship and non-road
vehicles and engines are responsible for 24 percent of U.S.
mobile-source greenhouse gas emissions and emit approximately 290,000
tons of soot every year. Pollution from these sources is projected to
grow rapidly over coming decades.
"The shipping
industry is a major contributor to global warming pollution. Annual
U.S. shipping emissions are equivalent to from 130 million to 195
million cars. These emissions are on track to triple over the next 20
years. It is time for the EPA to issue commonsense rules - like
requiring fuel-efficient cruising speeds - to control the pollution
from this important sector," said Eric Bilsky, Oceana assistant general
counsel.
The coalition petitioned EPA in late 2007
and early 2008 to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from
marine vessels, aircraft and non-road vehicles and engines endanger
public health and welfare, and if so, to issue regulations to control
greenhouse gas emissions from these sources. Despite having had more
than two years to do so, EPA has not responded to the petitions.
"Yesterday
Congress rejected an attempt to strip EPA of its authority to protect
the public from global warming pollution," said Sarah Burt of
Earthjustice, who is representing the coalition. "EPA has a clear moral
obligation and legal duty under the Clean Air Act to act decisively to
protect public health and the environment on which all Americans
depend."
"The Clean Air Act works to reduce
dangerous pollution like greenhouse gas emissions, and it must be
implemented immediately," said Vera Pardee, a senior attorney at the
Center for Biological Diversity. "The Clean Air Act has protected the
air we breathe for 40 years, reaping economic benefits 42 times its
cost. Cost-effective solutions to achieve significant greenhouse gas
pollution reductions from ships, airplanes and non-road engines already
exist. The Obama administration needs to move forward far more quickly
to implement them to avoid devastating climate disruption. Delaying
commonsense pollution-reduction measures is the wrong policy and wrong
on the law."
"The evidence of climate change is
becoming clearer each and every day," said Danielle Fugere, regional
program director for Friends of the Earth. "We can no longer afford the
EPA's refusal to address important and growing sources of greenhouse
gas emissions."
"EPA needs to shift into high gear
and limit the impact that industrial non-road vehicles and engines
impose on our common airshed," said Dan Galpern, an attorney with the
Western Environmental Law Center. "Even the Bush EPA admitted that
climate pollution could be slashed from overpowered diesel engines used
in industrial operations, if it chose to do so. Now EPA, at long last,
is restricting climate pollution from cars and light trucks and certain
stationary sources. But the climate crisis will not be allayed without
the maximum achievable reduction in GHG emissions. This requires
reasonable restrictions on monster earth movers, heavy mining and
logging equipment, agricultural pumps and other industrial machinery
that presently spew climate pollution without end."
Background
Aviation and Global Warming
Aircraft emit 11 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from U.S.
transportation sources and 3 percent of the United States' total
greenhouse gas emissions. The United States is responsible for nearly half of worldwide CO2
emissions from aircraft. Such emissions are anticipated to increase
substantially in the coming decades due to the projected growth in air
transport; in fact, according to the Federal Aviation Administration,
greenhouse gas emissions from domestic aircraft are expected to
increase 60 percent by 2025. While some countries, such as the European
Union, have already begun to respond to these challenges, the United
States has failed to address this enormous source of emissions.
Ships and Global Warming
In 2008, marine vessels entering U.S. ports accounted for 4.5 percent
of domestic mobile-source greenhouse gas emissions. The global fleet of
marine vessels releases almost 3 percent of the world's CO2,
an amount comparable to the total greenhouse gas emissions of Canada.
Because of their huge numbers and inefficient operating practices,
marine vessels release a large volume of CO2,
nitrous oxide, and black carbon, or soot. If fuel use remains
unchanged, shipping pollution will potentially double from 2002 levels
by the year 2020 and triple by 2030. Despite their impact on the global
climate, greenhouse gas emissions from ships are not currently
regulated by the United States or internationally.
Non-road Vehicles and Engines and Global Warming
Non-road vehicles and engines are used in the agricultural,
construction, commercial, industrial, mining and logging sectors. In
2008, such industrial non-road vehicles and engines were responsible
for approximately 9 percent of U.S. mobile source carbon dioxide
emissions, as well as significant emissions of black carbon, or soot.
Nearly a third of these emissions are produced by the construction and
mining sectors, while a fifth are from agriculture. EPA projects that CO2 emissions from the non-road sector will increase approximately 46 percent between 2006 and 2030.
"America’s 250th anniversary celebration is supposed to be an occasion for strengthening public trust in our democratic institutions," said one advocate. "Freedom 250 is a privately managed slush fund."
As the 250th anniversary of the United States' independence approaches, a government watchdog group is warning that the Trump administration has refused to release key documents regarding President Donald Trump's Freedom 250 project, in which the White House has partnered with corporations including Palantir and ExxonMobil to organize what it's called "a celebration of America like no other."
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a lawsuit Monday against the Department of Interior (DOI) in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday, more than two months after the group filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the funding of the "controversial and secretive" Freedom 250 initiative.
As the agency that oversees the National Parks Service, DOI and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are playing a major role in the organization of Freedom 250, with the celebration including projects like the National Garden of American Heroes, the proposed Freedom 250 Grand Prix at the National Mall, and the proposed Independence Arch.
In late February, PEER's FOIA requests sought information from DOI on reports that public funds are being directed to Freedom 250 through the congressionally chartered National Park Foundation, "with no transparency, no accountability, and no guardrails."
“America’s 250th anniversary celebration is supposed to be an occasion for strengthening public trust in our democratic institutions, not eroding it,” Tim Whitehouse, PEER’s executive director, said late Monday. “In contrast, Freedom 250 is a privately managed slush fund... It epitomizes what is wrong with politics today."
In its lawsuit, PEER said the DOI "has failed to make a final determination on any of PEER’s FOIA requests and has failed to disclose any of the requested records within the time stipulated under FOIA."
The department has failed to respond to the requests as reports have mounted that Trump is using Freedom 250 to:
In its lawsuit, PEER noted that the DOI was required to respond to the FOIA requests by March 20, but communications from the department have indicated officials plan to respond no sooner than August 3—after the main 250th anniversary celebrations occur.
Whitehouse said DOI's failure disclose information about the funding mechanisms for Freedom 250 continue "a pattern of Secretary Doug Burgum dispensing with a variety of legal safeguards to improperly facilitate Trump projects—particularly around the nation’s capital."
"Just look no further than his more than $1 billion ballroom or vanity projects, such as the arch," said Whitehouse.
Burgum has pushed for the construction of a 250-foot arch in Washington, saying it "embodies American freedom." Trump has said the project could be paid for by private donors, while veterans groups and historians have filed legal challenges over the proposed project, arguing Congress needs to approve its construction.
"The government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering," said the newspaper's publisher.
The US Justice Department has reportedly subpoenaed The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets at the urging of President Donald Trump, who has complained incessantly about coverage of his illegal and disastrous Iran war.
The Journal reported Monday that it received grand jury subpoenas dated March 4 for records of its journalists as Trump pushed the Justice Department—now led by his former personal attorney, Todd Blanche—to investigate war-related leaks. "Blanche vowed to secure subpoenas specifically targeting the records of reporters who have worked on sensitive national security stories," the Journal reported, citing an unnamed administration official.
During one meeting, the Journal reported, "Trump passed a stack of news articles he and other senior officials thought threatened national security to Blanche with a sticky note on it that said 'treason.'"
Trump and other top administration officials, including Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have publicly voiced outrage over the US media's Iran war coverage and threatened reporters who publish classified information—a common journalistic practice.
In April, Trump said he would work to imprison journalists involved in reporting on a US fighter jet shot down in Iran and subsequent efforts to rescue the warplane's crew. The previous month, Trump floated "charges for treason" against journalists he accused of circulating "false information" about the Iran war.
Don't like the press coverage of your disastrous war with Iran?Just sic DOJ on the press.www.wsj.com/politics/nat...
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 5:50 PM
Ashok Sinha, the chief communications officer of Dow Jones, the Journal's publisher, said in a statement that "the government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering."
"We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting," said Sinha.
The subpoena targeting Journal reporters pertained to "a February 23 article that reported that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others at the Pentagon warned the president about the risks of an extended military campaign against Iran," the newspaper reported Monday.
"Other news outlets, including Axios and the Washington Post, published similar stories that day," the Journal added. "Trump launched the war five days later, on February 28."
CNN reported Monday that "in addition to The Journal, other news outlets have also received subpoenas in recent months."
"But some of the news organizations have chosen not to comment on the matter for the time being," CNN added.
Scott Stedman, an investigative journalist with The Newsground, accused the leaders of targeted outlets of "cowardice" for not speaking out against the Trump administration's brazen assault on press freedom.
"The president uses the DOJ to target your news organization with subpoenas because he wants to out your sources and you don’t even have the guts to say anything," Stedman wrote. "Grow a fucking spine!"
"Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need," said Sen. Patty Murray.
Defenders of reproductive rights, including key Democrats in Congress, reiterated the safety of mifepristone on Monday after the US Supreme Court temporarily extended access to the medication—commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care—by mail while the justices review a ruling from a notoriously right-wing appellate court.
The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit blocked a federal rule allowing mifepristone to be dispensed by mail at the beginning of the month. Drugmakers quickly appealed to the high court, where Justice Samuel Alito, who is part of the right-wing supermajority, issued a one-week stay to give himself and colleagues time to review the case.
As Alito's initial Monday evening deadline approached, he extended the stay until 5:00 pm ET on Thursday. The move means that "for now, mifepristone is still available via telehealth, mail order, and pharmacy while the case proceeds," noted the Democratic Women's Caucus in the US House of Representatives.
However, pro-choice advocates and policymakers are still sounding the alarm and arguing that, as the caucus put it in a social media post, "reproductive freedom should not depend on emergency rulings or political attacks."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement that "mifepristone has been safe, effective, and trusted for decades. Today's order keeps access in place for now, but it's not cause for celebration—it's a reminder that basic reproductive care is still under attack every day. Anti-abortion extremists are trying to use the courts to roll back access to medication abortion nationwide, and Senate Dems will keep fighting to protect women's freedom to make their own healthcare decisions."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly wrote on social media: "Another extension, but this shouldn't be complicated. Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need. Extremist judges shouldn't get to decide how women get healthcare."
This case traces back to early 2023, when the Biden administration's Food and Drug Administration permanently lifted mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement, just months after the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority overturned Roe v. Wade. Louisiana, which has among the most restrictive abortion policies in the country, sued over the FDA's policy change.
Medication abortions account for the majority of abortions provided in the United States, and those patients generally take both mifepristone and another drug, misoprostol. Demand for abortion pills by mail increased after Roe's reversal, as advocates of forced pregnancy policies in Republican-controlled states ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom.
"With the Supreme Court punting a decision on access to mifepristone—a safe, effective medication used in abortion care—until later this week, patients and providers are left facing continued uncertainty," said Rachel Fey, interim co-CEO of Power to Decide. "Wondering day by day whether you'll have access to an essential medication is not practical, and the confusion only deepens the barriers people already face when seeking abortion care."
"Access to mifepristone should be based on scientific evidence, not ideology," Fey declared. "We urge the Supreme Court to follow that science and maintain current telehealth access to mifepristone—not just for a few days at a time, but permanently."
Alito's extensions in recent days are not necessarily signals of where the conservative will ultimately come down. The Associated Press pointed out Monday that "the current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago," when the justices blocked another 5th Circuit ruling "over the dissenting votes of Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas," and then unanimously dismissed that case due to lack of standing, or a legal right to sue.
The battle comes as the Trump administration's FDA is conducting a review of mifepristone that Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, has said seems "designed to manufacture an excuse for further restricting medication abortion across the country."
The New York Times noted Monday that US Department of Justice "lawyers have not said in court proceedings or publicly whether they back regulations that allow people to be prescribed the pills through telehealth appointments. Instead, they have asked the lower courts to pause the litigation to give the FDA time to complete a review of the safety of mifepristone, which was first approved in 2000."