

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.
Alliance for the Great Lakes: Lyman Welch, 312-445-9739
Clean Water Action: Jennifer Peters, 202-895-0420 x 109 | Michael Kelly, 202-393-5449 Earthjustice: Jared Saylor, 202-745-5213
Environmental Integrity Project: Jennifer Duggan, 802-225-6774
Environmental Law and Policy Center: Manny Gonzales, 312-795-3706
Labadie Environmental Organization: Patricia Schuba, 636-402-8460
Prairie Rivers Network: Traci Barkley, 217-344-2371
Sierra Club: Trey Pollard, 202-495-3058
Waterkeeper Alliance: Donna Lisenby, 704-277-6055
Power plants, particularly coal-burning power plants, are the largest polluters of our nation's waters, discharging more than 5 billion pounds of toxic contaminants into the nation's rivers, lakes, and streams every year - more than the next nine top-polluting industries combined. In April EPA proposed a long-overdue update to Clean Water Act standards for power plants - the first update since 1982. The public comment period for
EPA's Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category closes today. More than 165,000 Americans have supported the strongest possible standards to protect water from power plants' toxic pollution.
All summer, environmental and clean water groups, including Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Waterkeeper Alliance, and Sierra Club, have mobilized people across the country - at rallies, public hearings, and in face-to-face meetings - to support a strong rule.
Americans are speaking out because, as EPA's own data reveal, more than half of all toxic water pollution in the country comes from power plants, making them the number one source of toxic water pollution in the United States. These discharges have degraded 399 water bodies around the country that provide drinking water to local communities, and 40% of coal plants discharge within 5 miles of a drinking water intake.
"Americans are frustrated that power plants have been able to treat our water like their own private sewer for so long," said Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Director for Clean Water Action. "They want to see EPA put drinking water first by adopting common sense standards."
"Unless the EPA acts, this problem is only going to get worse as more and more power plants resort to dumping toxics in our water. By the agency's own estimate, 30% more contaminated wastewater will be pumped into lakes and streams over the next 15 years. They acknowledge the problem, so now they should act, by following the established law of the Clean Water Act that the public overwhelmingly supports," says Dalal Aboulhosn, Senior Washington Representative for the Sierra Club.
EPA found that readily available, affordable technologies can be used to virtually eliminate toxic pollution from power plants, but this will only happen if EPA selects the strongest possible standards.
Under heavy pressure from the industry, EPA's proposal says that it prefers to select a cheaper option that falls short of what the Clean Water Act requires.
"For 30 years, power plants have had polluted our waters with toxic chemicals, even though there are laws on the books that require the industry to clean up its act," said Thom Cmar, an attorney with Earthjustice.
"Americans have spoken and they overwhelmingly support strong protections from this pollution. The EPA must take this opportunity to finally right this wrong and clean up the nation's biggest water polluters."
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., president of Waterkeeper Alliance said, "Allowing coal polluters to fill our rivers and lakes with this witches brew of toxic chemicals threatens public health and diminishes quality of life for Americans. The Clean Water Act is one of our nation's greatest achievements, but forty years after this critical legislation was passed, the coal industry is still polluting with impunity, thanks to a loophole no other industry has enjoyed."
The human health impacts from this pollution are serious. The EPA estimates that: nearly 140,000 people per year experience increased cancer risk due to arsenic in fish from coal plants, nearly 13,000 children under the age of seven each year have reduced IQs because of lead in fish they eat, and almost 2,000 children are born with lower IQs because of mercury in fish their mothers have eaten.
"The strongest power plant rules are especially important to protect the Great Lakes where mercury is the primary cause of fish consumption advisories," said Lyman Welch, Water Quality Program Director for Alliance for the Great Lakes.
Comments from the public urging strong EPA action have been overwhelming: It's time for EPA to end this power plant water pollution.
"It is time to hold the coal industry accountable for cleaning up this pollution. Americans deserve - and the law demands - commonsense safeguards that protect downstream communities and our watersheds from dangerous heavy metals," said Jennifer Duggan, managing attorney, Environmental
Integrity Project. "Affordable treatment technologies are available to eliminate toxic discharges for power plants and are already in use at some plants. There is no excuse for further delay."
A foreign policy expert told Common Dreams that Israel’s unprecedented attack on Lebanon, backed by the US, “appeared to be a direct attempt to blow up the ceasefire, and it worked.”
A Pakistani official said Wednesday that despite Israel’s unprecedented attack on Lebanon, it is still part of the ceasefire agreement that Pakistan's prime minister helped to mediate the previous day, even as Israel and the US insist otherwise.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who played a key role in brokering the deal announced on Tuesday, said that "Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.”
But within hours of the agreement, Israel launched what it said was its largest military operation against Lebanon yet, which killed at least 254 people and wounded 1,165 others, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. The Israel Defense Forces acknowledged that the assault included attacks on many civilian areas.
Contrary to the mediators, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the ceasefire "does not include Lebanon.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt followed suit, confirming that the US's position was also that “Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire,” adding that “that has been relayed to all parties involved."
But Pakistan's ambassador to the US, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, said on Wednesday afternoon that this was not the agreement the parties reached on Tuesday.
He told CNN anchor Becky Anderson that the deal announced by his prime minister, which included Lebanon, "could not have been more authentic" to what the two parties agreed to, and that it was still the prime minister's understanding that Lebanon was included.
He added that this was another instance in which a ceasefire "could be disrupted" by Israel's actions. He also noted that "there have been instances in the past where ceasefires have been disrupted," a possible reference to Israel's routine violations of its previous ceasefire with Lebanon and the current one with Gaza, and its repeated assassinations of Iranian negotiators as they've sat down for talks with the US.
The US-Iran ceasefire is less than 24 hours old, but Israel's attack on Wednesday has already thrown it into peril. Iran responded to the attacks on Wednesday by once again closing the Strait of Hormuz after briefly reopening the critical waterway in accordance with the deal. Iran is also reportedly considering withdrawing from the ceasefire altogether and resuming strikes against Israel.
President Donald Trump has appeared eager to declare victory and move on from the war, which has further tanked his already plummeting support at home and sparked a global economic crisis.
But Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher with the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams that Israel's goals are very different.
She explained that Israel was largely sidelined from the talks that culminated in Tuesday's ceasefire and that within Israel's internal politics, the agreement is being portrayed as "catastrophic."
She noted that Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition to Netanyahu's government, has portrayed it as “the worst political failure in our history,” and accused the prime minister of failing to achieve his goals.
"What we’ve seen since looks like Israel acting to undermine a diplomatic process over which it had lost influence," Abou-Elias said.
She said that Israel's attack on Lebanon on Wednesday, which it has referred to as Operation Eternal Darkness, "appeared to be a direct attempt to blow up the ceasefire, and it worked."
According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a US-based human rights monitor for Iran, at least 1,701 civilians have been killed in US-Israeli attacks against Iran since the war was launched on February 28.
After Wednesday's bombardment, Lebanon's Health Ministry reported that the death toll in the country was now up to at least 1,739 since the war began on March 2.
"At this point, any durable end to this conflict, even a temporary one, requires Washington to rein in Israel," Abou-Elias said. "Trump has the leverage to do it. What’s unclear is whether he has the political will to use it."
"No family should have to worry about putting food on the table, but congressional Republicans have made sure that millions will," said one critic of the GOP's budget law.
An analysis published Wednesday by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found that millions of low-income Americans have stopped participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ever since President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law last year.
According to CBPP's analysis, SNAP participation declined by 6% between July 2025 and December 2025, with 2.5 million fewer Americans receiving benefits.
CBPP estimated that millions more will be dropped from SNAP benefits in the coming months as states adjust their budgets to remain in compliance with the law.
"Starting in 2027, most states will have to pay between 5% and 15% of SNAP benefit costs, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars a year in many states," explained CBPP. "The magnitude of the cost shift... may incentivize states to take drastic measures to reduce their payment error rates quickly and cut program costs, even if it means delaying or improperly denying benefits to eligible people."
In total, concluded CBPP, "we estimate that 4 million people in a typical month will lose out" on SNAP benefits "once the changes are fully implemented."
CBPP published a separate analysis focusing specifically on Arizona, where SNAP participation has already fallen "far more than anticipated," while warning that other states could soon see similarly steep participation drops as they rush to comply with the law.
The GOP budget law contained roughly $186 billion in cuts to SNAP over the span of a decade, which came from expanding work requirements, shifting some of the cost of the program to the states, and restricting benefit increases. As a result, millions of Americans became vulnerable to losing their benefits.
Leor Tal, campaign director at Unrig Our Economy, pointed to CBPP's analysis as an example of the GOP waging class warfare on behalf of rich donors.
“SNAP is a lifeline for working Americans nationwide," Tal said. "Now, that lifeline is being ripped away from millions because Republicans in Congress decided that giving tax breaks to billionaires and waging war are more important than protecting food for families. No family should have to worry about putting food on the table, but congressional Republicans have made sure that millions will.”
"A foreign country that a majority of Americans now disapprove of gets $3.8 billion a year from them."
The bipartisan support Israel and its powerful lobby have enjoyed for decades in the US—with lawmakers from both parties insisting the federal government must help Israel "defend itself" with nearly $4 billion per year in military aid—is likely to shift considerably in the coming years as public support for the country continues to collapse, particularly among young voters, in the latest Pew Research poll.
The survey was taken last month as the US-Israeli war on Iran, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly pitched to President Donald Trump in an unusual Situation Room meeting in February, was escalating and spreading across the Middle East. It found that overall, 60% of US adults had an unfavorable view of Israel.
That share has grown considerably since 2022, before Israel began its US-backed war on the population of Gaza in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack. That year, just 42% in the US viewed Israel unfavorably.
Public opposition to the country's government has also gone up by seven percentage points since last year, according to Pew. The share of adults who describe themselves as having a "very unfavorable" view of Israel has gone up by 9% since 2025 and has nearly tripled since before Israel began waging war on Gaza.
Journalist Prem Thakker commented that it was "absurd" to continue providing a country that a sizable majority of Americans disapprove of with military funding.
Over the past two-and-a-half years—as US public support for Israel has steadily declined—that funding has helped Israel to kill more than 72,000 Palestinians; injure more than 172,000; displace more than 90% of Gaza's population; carry out nearly 800 attacks on the healthcare system, damaging 94% of hospitals; damage or destroy 97% of school buildings; and impose a mass starvation policy through a blockade on humanitarian aid. Israeli officials have publicly called for the killing of 50 Palestinians for every Israeli killed in the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks, for Gaza to be burned to the ground, and for Israelis to "remember what Amalek has done to you," a reference to the Israelites' enemies in the Old Testament, whom King Saul was ordered to massacre.
All the while, Israeli officials and bipartisan US lawmakers who continue to support the Israeli government—and take donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other influential pro-Israel lobbying groups—have accused Americans who have spoken out against Israel's genocidal attacks on Gaza of being antisemitic.
In the poll released by Pew, the shift away from support for Israel is most pronounced among voters aged 18-49, with 70% of respondents in that age bracket reporting unfavorable views. Majorities of both Democrats (84%) and Republicans (57%) under 50 had unfavorable views. In 2025, just 50% of Republicans under 50 viewed Israel negatively, while 71% of young Democrats said the same—representing a 13-point jump in just a year among the latter group.
Americans' views on Netanyahu have also grown more negative, with 59% of respondents saying they did not trust the prime minister to do the right thing in terms of world affairs—up from 53% last year.
The poll was released as Israel continued its assault on Lebanon, which it began attacking in March after Hezbollah retaliated against Israeli forces for the US-Israeli killing of Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israeli officials claim the two-week ceasefire reached between the US, Israel, and Iran does not include Lebanon, despite statements from Pakistan, which helped broker the deal declaring otherwise.
Israel has killed more than 1,400 people in Lebanon in the last month, in addition to striking Iran along with the US in attacks that have killed more than 2,000 people.
The Pew survey was released days after a poll by the IMEU Policy Project and Data for Progress found that among Democratic primary voters in Texas, the US relationship with Israel was not seen as an abstract foreign policy issue, but one that significantly impacted how many chose between US Senate candidate James Talarico and his primary opponent, US Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas).
The poll found that Talarico gained a 4-to-1 advantage over Crockett when he spoke out against providing US weapons to Israel. Nearly 90% of respondents agreed with his stance, and 44% of his supporters said his position deeply influenced their vote.
"Democrats," said political operative Isi Baehr-Breen in response to the poll of Talarico supporters, "are gonna have to choose between Israel and winning elections."