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.
Keith Rushing, Earthjustice Campaign Press Secretary, (202) 797-5236; (757) 897-2147
Tom Pelton, Director of Communications, Environmental Integrity Project, (202) 888-2703; (443) 510-2574
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today issued long-delayed federal regulations for coal ash, but failed to fix major pollution problems from the disposal of coal ash waste, including contamination of rivers and drinking water supplies.
The Obama Administration's failure to issue strong ash disposal regulations means that environmental disasters like the Dan River coal ash spill in North Carolina in February, and the massive 2008 ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, could happen again.
"Today's rule doesn't prevent more tragic spills like the ones we are still trying to clean up in North Carolina and Tennessee. And it won't stop the slower moving disaster that is unfolding for communities around the country, as leaky coal ash ponds and dumps poison water," said Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans.
The new rule fails to phase out the dangerous practice of storing immense quantities of toxic waste in unlined "ponds" behind earthen dams that are often structurally unstable and prone to failure. EPA's approach effectively lets the utility industry police itself without federal or state oversight.
"While EPA's coal ash rule takes some long overdue steps to establish minimum national groundwater monitoring and cleanup standards, it relies too heavily on the industry to police itself, " said Eric Schaeffer, Executive Director of the Environmental Integrity Project. "The devil is in the details, and we will review the regulation closely for loopholes. But regardless of what the rule requires, companies like Duke Energy, First Energy, and TVA have already learned that spills and leaking ash ponds add up to billions of dollars in cleanup costs."
While the rule does require closure of some inactive ponds, like the one that failed on the Dan River in North Carolina, it only mandates closure of ponds that are located on the site of active facilities.
"This power industry has had half a century or more to clean up its act, but even in the face of huge spills and a terrible record of proven water contamination around the country, it is still dumping ash in huge unlined pits," said Evans. "These dumps aren't going away by themselves, and unfortunately under today's rule, EPA is putting the burden on citizens to get them safely closed."
The rule requires water quality monitoring and public disclosure of the results, which should help citizens to track damage from dumps and to go to court to force clean-ups. However, communities are understandably concerned that coal plant operators will not reliably identify, report and remedy water contamination and structural risks without independent oversight.
When she heard about the new regulations, Esther Calhoun, of Uniontown, Ala., who lives near a coal ash dump said: "It seems like the EPA doesn't give a damn about people. "
Calhoun lives near the Arrowhead landfill in Uniontown which received four million cubic yards of coal ash form the 2008 Kingston disaster.
"Our people have heart attacks and breathing problems. They're dealing with this big mountain of coal ash in their face. This is a civil rights issue just as much as an environmental and health one. "
Coal ash is the toxic waste formed from burning coal in power plants to make electricity. It is filled with some of the deadliest toxins known to man, including hazardous chemicals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and hexavalent chromium. Coal ash--the second largest industrial waste stream in the United States--is linked to the four leading causes of death in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, respiratory diseases and stroke.
Unsafe disposal of coal ash into the nation's more than 1,400 coal ash waste dumps has contaminated more than 200 rivers, lakes, streams and sources of underground drinking water in 37 states.Coal ash, when dumped in unlined lagoons and landfills, often poisons drinking water and kills fish and wildlife.
Earthjustice, and the groups that sued the EPA over its failure to regulate coal ash, are planning to keep up the fight for critical public health and environmental protection. "We had to go to court to force EPA to issue this first-ever coal ash rule, and unfortunately, we will be back in court to force coal plants to clean up their ash dumps and start disposing of their toxic waste safely," said Evans.
Coal ash regulations were proposed in 2010 following the largest toxic waste spill in U.S. history in Kingston, Tenn., when one billion gallons of coal ash sludge destroyed 300 acres and dozens of homes. But in response to pressure from the coal power industry, EPA delayed finalizing the proposed rule.
Eric Schaeffer, Executive Director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said: "EPA's coal ash rule is too little and too late. Too little because its standards are minimal, vague, and unenforceable. Too late, because damage from collapsing dikes and leaking ash dumps has accumulated in the absence of common sense rules designed to prevent those disasters."
In 2012, Earthjustice sued EPA in federal court on behalf of ten public interest groups and an Indian tribe to obtain a court-ordered deadline. The groups involved in the lawsuit include: the Moapa Band of Paiutes (NV),: Appalachian Voices (NC); Chesapeake Climate Action Network (MD); Environmental Integrity Project (D.C., PA); Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (KY); Montana Environmental Information Center (MT); Physicians for Social Responsibility (DC); Prairie Rivers Network (IL); Sierra Club (CA); Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (eight southeast states); and Western North Carolina Alliance (NC),
In 2013, a consent decree was lodged in federal court that set a deadline of December 19, 2014 for EPA's final rule.
Quotes from Partner Groups
Vickie Simmons, Moapa Band of Paiutes in Nevada
Email: simmonsvickie@ymail.com
Phone: 702-865-2910
"Our people have been harmed for decades by the toxic dust that blows from coal ash dumps at the Reid Gardner plant," says Vickie Simmons of the Moapa Band of Paiutes in Nevada. "We wanted a far stronger rule."
Amy Adams, North Carolina Campaign Coordinator, Appalachian Voices
Email: amy@appvoices.org
Phone: (252) 944-6459
"For the thousands of citizens whose groundwater is no longer safe for consumption due to leaching ponds or whose air is contaminated by fugitive dust, failing to regulate coal ash as hazardous is a slap in the face. We will continue to fight for cleanup of these toxic sites."
Traci Barkley, Water Resources Scientist, Prairie Rivers Network (she said use all or part of the quote)
Email: tbarkley@prairierivers.org
Phone: 217.344.2371
"While these rules put forward clean-up and safety standards to protect communities, the EPA is leaving oversight and enforcement almost entirely to the states.
Illinois has over 90 aging coal ash pits with coal ash pollutants found in the groundwater near every one. Communities rely on at-risk rivers and groundwater for drinking water, recreation, and business."
Barbara Gottlieb, Director for Environment & Health at Physicians for Social Responsibility
Email: bgottlieb@psr.org
Phone: (202) 587-5225
"It's high time that those communities get adequate protection from coal ash toxics like arsenic and chromium poisoning their water and their air," said Barbara Gottlieb, Director for Environment & Health at Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Mary Love, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth
Email: mbloveky@yahoo.com
Phone: 502-541-7434
"Hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians depend on the Ohio River for their drinking water. Of the 44 coal ash disposal sites nation-wide that the EPA has listed as high hazard, 19 of them sit on the Ohio River or one of its tributaries. As a result, Kentuckians are vulnerable to exposure to toxins from coal ash, especially since state officials do little to protect the public. Current Kentucky law regulates municipal garbage dumps more stringently than it regulates coal ash disposal sites. "--Mary Love, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth
Anne Hedges, Deputy Director of the Montana Environmental Information Center
Email: ahedges@meic.org
Phone: (406) 443-2520
"This rule comes far too late to protect the people who rely on groundwater in Colstrip, Montana. We can only hope that this rule will help get the toxins out of their water. Colstrip area ranchers told the state decades ago that the Colstrip ash ponds would leak but no one expected them to hemorrhage toxic water into ground and surface water for decades," said Anne Hedges, Deputy Director of the Montana Environmental Information Center.
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.
800-584-6460"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly," said leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus, "it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color."
In what's being called an "exceedingly rare" move, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is blocking the promotion of two Black and two female colonels to one-star generals,
The New York Times reported Friday that some senior US military officials are questioning whether Hegseth acted out of animus toward Black people and women after the defense secretary blocked the promotion of the four officers despite the repeated objections of Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, who touted what the Times called the colonels' "decadeslong records of exemplary service."
Military officials told the Times that Hegseth's chief of staff, Lt. Col. Ricky Buria, got into a heated exchange with Driscoll last summer over the promotion of another officer, Maj. Gen. Antoinette Gant—a combat veteran of the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—to command the Military District of Washington, DC.
Such a promotion would have placed Gant in charge of numerous events at which she would likely be seen publicly with President Donald Trump. According to multiple military officials, Buria told Driscoll that Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer.
Pete Hegseth looked at a list of qualified officers and decided Black leaders and women had to go.That’s not leadership. It’s discrimination in plain sight.And every Republican who stays silent is complicit.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Norma Torres (@normajtorres.bsky.social) March 27, 2026 at 10:10 AM
A shocked Driscoll reportedly replied that "the president is not racist or sexist," an assessment that flies in the face of countless racist and sexist statements by the president, both before and during both of his White House terms.
Buria called the officials' account of his exchange with Driscoll "completely false."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to discuss the matter beyond saying that Hegseth is “doing a tremendous job restoring meritocracy throughout the ranks at the Pentagon, as President Trump directed him to do.”
Military officials told the Times that one of the Black colonels whose promotion was blocked by Hegseth wrote a paper nearly 15 years ago historically analyzing differences between Black and white soldiers' roles in the Army. One of the female colonels, a logistics officer, was held back because she was deployed in Afghanistan during the US withdrawal whose foundation was laid by Trump during his first term. It is unclear why the two other colonels were denied promotions.
Although more than 40% of current active duty US troops are people of color, military leadership remains overwhelmingly comprised of white men. Hegseth, who declared a "frontal assault" on the "whores to wokesters" who he said rose up through the ranks during the Biden administration, told an audience during a 250th anniversary ceremony for the US Navy that "your diversity is not your strength."
Hegseth has argued that women should not serve in combat roles, although he later walked back his assertion amid pushback from senators during his confirmation process. Still, since Trump returned to office, every service branch chief and 9 of the military’s 10 combat commanders are white men.
Leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus issued a joint statement Friday calling Hegseth's blocking of the four colonels' promotions "outrageous and wrong."
"The claim that Hegseth’s chief of staff told the army secretary Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events is racist, sexist, and extremely concerning," wrote the lawmakers, Reps. Yvette Clarke (NY), Teresa Leger Fernández (NM), Emilia Sykes (Ohio), Hillary Scholten (Mich.), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.).
"Time and time again, Trump and his administration have shown us exactly who they are—attacking and undermining Black people and women in the military, public servants, and women in power," the congressional leaders asserted. "It is clear they are trying to erase Black and women’s leadership and history."
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly, it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color," their statement said.
"We've long known that Pete Hegseth is an unfit and unqualified secretary of defense appointed by Trump," the lawmakers added. "So it is absurd, ironic, and beyond inappropriate that he of all people would deny these promotions to officers with records of exemplary service. America's servicemembers deserve so much better.”
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also issued a statement reading, "If these reports are accurate, Secretary Hegseth's decision to remove four decorated officers from a promotion list after having been selected by their peers for their merit and performance is not only outrageous, it would be illegal."
"Denying the promotions of individual officers based on their race or gender would betray every principle of merit-based service military officers uphold throughout their careers," Reed added.
Several congressional colleagues weighed in, like Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran who lost her legs when an Iraqi defending his homeland from US invasion shot down the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting. Duckworth said on Bluesky: "He says he wants to bring meritocracy back to our military. He says he has our warfighters' backs. But here he is, the most unqualified SecDef in history, denying troops a promotion that their fellow warfighters decided they've earned. Hegseth is a disgrace to our heroes."
Other observers also condemned Hegseth's move, with historian Virginia Scharff accusing him of "undermining national security with his racism and misogyny," and City University of New York English Chair Jonathan Gray decrying the "gutter racist" who "should be hounded from public life for the damage he’s caused."
More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."