

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.

Suzanne Struglinski, NRDC, 202-289-2387, sstruglinski@nrdc.org
A nationwide poll and four separate, statewide polls found similar strong support for bolstering protections against toxic chemicals. By overwhelming bipartisan margins, Americans support strengthening the 35-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), according to new polls released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition, and the Ecology Center.
"Americans of all stripes have real concerns about the toxic chemicals we are exposed to every day - and the serious health problems they cause," said Daniel Rosenberg, director of NRDC's toxic chemicals reform project. "Protecting us from chemicals linked to cancer, learning disabilities, infertility and other health problems should be a top priority for Congress. This really can't wait."
NRDC and the Safer Chemical Healthy Families coalition strongly support the Safe Chemicals Act, S. 847, introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. The bill updates TSCA by requiring manufacturers to show that their chemicals are safe in order to sell them. It also streamlines the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to limit uses of a chemical that may harm public health or the environment.
"As the Senate moves closer to a vote on the Safe Chemicals Act, Senators should keep in mind that the partisan divisions that wrack Congress do not reflect the views or desires of the American people," said Andy Igrejas, campaign director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.
A nationwide poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (POS) for NRDC found:
"Even when we presented robust arguments on both sides of the issue, those we polled continued to side with supporters of reform," said Lori Weigel, a partner at polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, who conducted the national poll for NRDC.
POS and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) also conducted a poll in New Mexico that found:
Meanwhile, separate polls conducted by The Mellman Group for the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition in Nevada and Missouri found:
"There is a rare depth of public support for tackling the issue of toxic chemicals that crosses party lines," said Mark Mellman of the Mellman Group, who conducted statewide polling on the issue in Nevada, Missouri this month and Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2011.
Finally, a Michigan poll conducted by POS with Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research for Ecology Center in Michigan found 74 percent of respondents supportive of legislation described to increase EPA's authority to regulate chemicals and require chemical companies to prove that their products are safe. The poll also found 61 percent of respondents were extremely or very concerned about the health impacts from toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes, and 32 percent were somewhat concerned. A mere 6 percent were not concerned.
"The findings of this poll demonstrate that Michiganders support a change in the way our nation deals with toxic chemicals," said Rebecca Meuninck, campaign director of the Michigan Network for Children's Environmental Health. "Michigan residents are concerned about the impacts toxic chemicals have on their health and the health of the Great Lakes."
Information on the polls can be found here:
National poll: https://pos.org/documents/12368_national_key_findings_final.pdf
New Mexico poll: https://pos.org/documents/220-3464_nm_memo_final.pdf
Missouri and Nevada polls (along with results from OH, WI, PA and MT conducted by the Mellman group for Safer Chemicals Healthy Families in 2011): https://saferchemicals.org/PDF/mellmanJuly2012.pdf
Michigan poll: https://pos.org/documents/mi_memo_d.pdf
About the polls: For the national poll, Public Opinion Strategies conducted a telephone survey of 800 registered voters nationwide. The survey, conducted June 25 through June 27, 2012, has an overall margin of error of +/-3.46 percent nationwide.
In New Mexico, POS and FM3 surveyed 503 likely voters, between June 28 through July 1, 2012 and has a margin of error of +/-4.38%.
In Michigan, POS and Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research surveyed 615 likely voters between June 25 and June 28, 2012 with a margin of error of +-3.95%.
In Missouri, the Mellman Group surveyed 500 likely voters between June 30 and July 2, 2012 with a margin of error of +/- 4.4%.
In Nevada, the Mellman Group surveyed 500 likely voters between June 28 and July 1, 2012 with a margin of error of +/-4.4%.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy.
US Sen. Chris Murphy said Saturday that the GOP's rejection of Democrats' compromise proposal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits for a year in exchange for reopening the federal government shows that the Republican Party is "absolutely committed to raising your costs."
" Republicans are refusing to negotiate," Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a video posted to social media, arguing that President Donald Trump and the GOP's continued stonewalling is "further confirmation" that Republicans are uninterested in preventing disastrous premium increases.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," the senator added.
An update on the shutdown.
Senate Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate. House Republicans refuse to even show up to DC.
Democrats just made a new reasonable compromise offer. And if Republicans reject it, it's proof of how determined they are to raise health premiums. pic.twitter.com/JUBPMMXKC7
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 8, 2025
More than 20 million Americans who purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplace receive enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't act. So far, the Republican leadership in the Senate has only offered to hold a vote on the ACA subsidies, with no guarantee of the outcome, in exchange for Democratic votes to reopen the government.
People across the country are already seeing their premiums surge, and if the subsidies are allowed to lapse, costs are expected to rise further and millions will likely go uninsured.
“Clearly, the GOP didn’t learn their lesson after the shellacking they got in Tuesday’s elections,” said Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse. “They would rather keep the government shut down, depriving Americans of their paychecks and food assistance, than let working families keep the healthcare tax credits they need to afford lifesaving coverage. Good luck explaining that to the American people."
In a post to his social media platform on Saturday, Trump made clear that he remains opposed to extending the ACA tax credits, calling on Republicans to instead send money that would have been used for the subsidies "directly to the people so that they can purchase their own, much better healthcare."
Trump provided no details on how such a plan would work. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who was at the center of the largest healthcare fraud case in US history, declared that he is "writing the bill now," suggesting that the funds would go to "HSA-style accounts."
Democrats immediately panned the idea.
"This is, unsurprisingly, nonsensical," said Murphy. "Is he suggesting eliminating health insurance and giving people a few thousand dollars instead? And then when they get a cancer diagnosis they just go bankrupt? He is so unserious. That's why we are shut down and Americans know it."
Polling data released Thursday by the health policy group KFF showed that nearly three-quarters of the US public wants Congress to extend the ACA subsidies
"More than half (55%) of those who purchase their own health insurance say Democrats should refuse to approve a budget that does not include an extension for ACA subsidies," KFF found. "Notably, past KFF polls have shown that nearly half of adults enrolled in ACA marketplace plans identify as Republican or lean Republican."
"Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or Bitcoin? Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks," said one Democratic lawmaker.
The Trump administration is quietly waging an all-out regulatory war on a Biden-era corporate tax that aimed to prevent large companies from dodging their tax liabilities while reporting huge profits.
The corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) was enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democratic legislation that former President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. The CAMT requires highly profitable US corporations to pay a tax of at least 15% on their so-called book profits, the figures reported to shareholders.
As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has explained: "Many of the special breaks that corporations use to avoid taxes work by allowing companies to report profits to the IRS that are much smaller than their book profits. Corporate leaders prefer to report low profits to the IRS (to reduce taxes) and high profits to the public (to attract investors)."
But since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has issued guidance and regulatory proposals designed to gut the CAMT. The effort is a boon to corporate giants and rich private equity investors at a time when the Trump administration is relentlessly attacking programs for low-income Americans, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "with its various tax relief provisions, the administration is now effectively adding hundreds of billions of dollars in new breaks for big businesses and investors" on top of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.
"The Treasury is empowered to write rules to help the IRS carry out tax laws passed by Congress," the newspaper added. "But the aggressive actions of the Trump administration raise questions about whether it is exceeding its legal authority."
Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or bitcoin?
Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks.
We've gone from a system where the rich must pay taxes for public services, to one where they must pay the president for private favors.
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) November 8, 2025
The administration's assault on the CAMT has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress.
In a September 8 letter to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a group of Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) warned that the administration's guidance notices "create new loopholes in the corporate alternative minimum tax for the largest and wealthiest corporations."
"Most troubling, Notice 2025-27, issued this June, allows companies to avoid CAMT if their income—under a simplified accounting method—is below $800 million," the lawmakers wrote. "The Biden administration previously set the safe harbor threshold precisely at $500 million in its proposed CAMT rule after calculating that a higher safe harbor threshold would risk exempting corporations that should be subject to CAMT under statute."
"Now, less than nine months later and with zero justification, this new guidance summarily asserts that an $800 million safe harbor will not run that risk," they continued. "We are seriously concerned that this cursory loosening of CAMT enforcement will simply allow more wealthy corporations to avoid paying their legally owed share."
"This is insane," said US Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP."
The US Supreme Court late Friday temporarily blocked a lower court order that required the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits as the government shutdown drags on with no end in sight.
One wrinkle in the case is that the Supreme Court order, which came after the Trump administration appealed the lower court directive, was handed down by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her brief order came after the Massachusetts-based US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit opted not to swiftly intervene in the case.
Jackson, who is tasked with handling emergency issues from the 1st Circuit, wrote that her administrative stay in the case will end 48 hours after the appeals court issues a ruling in the case.
The justice's order came after states across the US had already begun distributing SNAP benefits after a district court judge directed the Trump administration to release billions of dollars in funds by Friday.
"Some people woke up Friday with the money already on the debit-like EBT cards they use to buy groceries," NPR reported.
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote Friday that "it may surprise folks that Justice Jackson, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the court's behavior on emergency applications from the Trump administration, acquiesced in even a temporary pause of the district court's ruling in this case."
He continued:
But as I read the order, which says a lot more than a typical “administrative stay” from the Court, Jackson was stuck between a rock and a hard place—given the incredibly compressed timing that was created by the circumstances of the case.
In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control the timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree, but which strikes me as eminently defensible under these unique (and, let’s be clear, maddening and entirely f-ing avoidable) circumstances.
The Trump administration has fought tooth and nail to flout its legal obligation to distribute SNAP funds during the shutdown as low-income Americans grow increasingly desperate and food bank demand skyrockets.
"This is insane," US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote after the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP. Follow the law, fund SNAP, and feed American families."
Maura Healey, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts—one of the states that quickly moved to process SNAP benefits following the district court order—said in a statement that "Trump should never have put the American people in this position."
"Families shouldn’t have had to go hungry because their president chose to put politics over their lives," said Healey.
Feeding America, a nonprofit network of hundreds of food banks across the US, said Friday that food banks bought nearly 325% more food through the organization's grocery purchase program during the week of October 27 than they did at the same time last year.
Donations to food banks, which were underresourced even prior to the shutdown, have also skyrocketed. The head of a Houston food bank said the organization is in "disaster response mode."
"Across the country, communities are feeling the real, human impact the shutdown is having on their neighbors and communities,” said Linda Nageotte, president and chief operating officer at Feeding America. "Families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities are showing strength through the hardship, and their communities are standing beside them—giving their time and money, and advocating so no one faces hunger alone.”