

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.

Despite political rhetoric to the contrary and recent actions by the Trump administration, the market reality is that coal-fired power has become increasingly uneconomic and is the main factor driving the U.S. electricity sector to rapidly transition away from coal. Of the more than 700 coal units operating in the U.S. in 2016, 163 units that produce 13 percent of all coal-fired electricity generation are already scheduled for closure or conversion to natural gas. A new study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "A Dwindling Role for Coal," finds that an additional 19 percent of coal-fired generation produced by 122 units are uncompetitive as compared to cleaner alternatives. The analysis identifies which units are no longer economic and may face retirement, features four snapshots of communities located near coal plants, and cautions states against a potentially risky wholesale shift away from coal to natural gas.
The transition away from coal has resulted in a significant boon to public health nationwide. For example, the number of people living close to an operating coal plant--which is made up of individual coal units--plummeted in the last decade. In 2008, approximately 8.5 million people lived within a 3-mile radius of an operational coal plant, but by 2016, following widespread coal plant retirements, that number fell to about 3.3 million. Taking in to account the coal plants that have announced plans to retire, the number drops to less than 2 million. If utilities opted to retire all the units classified as uneconomic in the analysis, the number falls further still to roughly 1.5 million.
"Our analysis shows that the transition away from coal over the past decade is poised to continue--thanks primarily to market forces," said Jeremy Richardson, senior energy analyst at UCS and lead author of the analysis. "Without factoring the cost of installing missing modern pollution controls into the calculations, a large portion of today's coal fleet can't compete economically with cleaner energy options, such as natural gas and, in some cases, renewables. This is particularly true in the Southeast where most coal units operate at a higher cost than cleaner energy options, causing them to fail our economic stress test."
While a total of 20 states have coal units that are no longer economic, the five states that are facing the greatest amount of uneconomic coal generation relative to their overall electricity mix are, in order, West Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, each with at least one-fifth of their in-state electricity generation coming from units that our analysis shows to be struggling economically. In West Virginia, 57 percent of statewide electricity generation comes from uneconomic units; the same is true for 33, 29, 24 and 22 percent of the electricity generation in Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, respectively.
To view state and coal unit data, click here.
"The number of coal-fired power plants in our region that are uneconomic compared to natural gas, as well as wind power, shows that even in the Southeast, the time to transition away from coal has come," said Amelia Shenstone with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE). "Renewable energy sources, including large quantities of reliable wind power transmitted from the Plains, are ready for prime time and can save money over older coal plants."
To view a blog written in partnership with SACE on the findings for Southeastern states, click here.
Without forward-looking policies, coal plant closings could result in some states becoming overly reliant on natural gas. Natural gas prices are historically volatile, posing risks to consumers' pocketbooks. Furthermore, cutting carbon emissions at a pace needed to meet our climate goals and limit the worst impacts of climate change requires limiting our dependence on natural gas, which still produces carbon emissions when burned. As a result, natural gas infrastructure built today could be under-utilized or even abandoned before it is paid off. According to a previous UCS analysis, "Rating the States on Their Risk of Natural Gas Overreliance," in eight states natural gas already makes up more than half of the energy mix and 16 states--including Georgia and North Carolina--are at high risk of natural gas overreliance.
"In states where a large portion of the existing coal fleet is likely to be shuttered, a wholesale shift from one fossil fuel to another puts consumers at risk," said Sam Gomberg, senior energy analyst at UCS and co-author of the analysis. "In Florida, for example, natural gas has become the de-facto substitute for retired coal and already makes up the majority of the state's electricity mix. This could cost consumers dearly in the form of price spikes or obsolete infrastructure. Instead, states should be seeking to take advantage of the opportunity to diversify their energy mix with renewables, energy efficiency, and emerging technologies such as battery storage and smart meters."
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to announce today that he will roll back the Clean Power Plan with no clear plan or timeline for replacing it. This move will undermine the goals of the Clean Power Plan, which were aimed at reducing U.S. power sector global warming emissions. The Trump administration is also attempting to put its thumb on the scale to override current electricity sector market realities. Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry has proposed new rules that would provide potentially unlimited funding for struggling power plants regardless of their economic competitiveness compared to cleaner alternatives. The idea is to prop up outdated and uneconomic coal and nuclear plants--even if better, cheaper, and cleaner alternatives exist--and pass the costs on to ratepayers.
"What happens to the remainder of the coal fleet could have significant implications not only for the millions of people still living in communities near coal-fired power plants, but also for people living further away who will still feel the impacts of pollution from these plants," said Julie McNamara, energy analyst at UCS and report co-author. "Ensuring public health benefits are realized by communities neighboring coal plants, and that worker transition assistance reaches coal-dependent areas to help diversify their economies, is crucial. States and regions need to be prepared for this next wave of coal retirements and devise a plan with local community members on how to replace this lost coal generation in a way that will benefit everyone."
"Our analysis makes it clear the transition away from coal continues, making additional waves of coal retirements inevitable," said Richardson. "It's long past due for Congress and President Trump's administration to set aside the false promise that discarding, slowing down or weakening environmental safeguards will bring back reliable coal jobs. Instead, they should focus on supporting real, innovative solutions that can bring about tangible, economic development in coal-reliant communities like transforming retired coal plants, retraining coal workers and diversifying the local economy. A just transition to a clean energy economy is vital for U.S. communities and necessary to for global efforts to address climate change."
To see the community snapshots and corresponding blogs, click here. Clips from these interviews are also featured on the UCS Got Science? podcast airing today.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
After getting the opportunity to view the unredacted files, Rep. Thomas Massie threatened to read the names on the House floor to secure justice for survivors.
With 3 million Jeffrey Epstein files still being withheld from the public and the names of many possible clients and co-conspirators still blacked out, Rep. Thomas Massie is threatening to invoke what he has called a "nuclear option" to force transparency from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice.
Massie (R-Ky.), who has pushed harder than any other Republican for the release of the files pertaining to the late sex criminal and his circle of powerful friends, will join Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to view unredacted versions of the DOJ files on Monday.
Under a law introduced by Massie and Khanna last year, which Congress passed almost unanimously, the DOJ was required to release all files to the public in December without redacting information solely to protect public figures from embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.
But millions still remain under lock and key, while those made public, including a tranche of more than 3 million released late last month, are heavily redacted.
Rep. Thomas Massie and I have requested a meeting with Todd Blanche to ask why the senders of these emails have been redacted. Concealing the reputations of these powerful men is a blatant violation of the Epstein Transparency Act we passed.
[image or embed]
— Ro Khanna (@rokhanna.bsky.social) February 5, 2026 at 4:10 PM
Those files contained many references to Trump as well as other powerful figures, including former President Bill Clinton, tech billionaires Elon Musk and Bill Gates, and former British ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson.
Meanwhile, files containing compromising mentions of Trump were uploaded to the site before being swiftly deleted—including a list of unverified FBI tips that described the president participating in the heinous abuse of children.
In a Sunday appearance on CNN‘s “Inside Politics,” Massie accused the Trump administration of violating the law by failing to meet the deadline for the public release of information and by releasing the names of victims while covering up the names of alleged perpetrators.
He said that of particular interest were the FBI’s 302 files, which contain information from official interviews with witnesses and victims of Epstein’s abuse, which he said the DOJ is still withholding.
He also said the DOJ was “overredacting” documents related to “some really sketchy emails” between Epstein and associates, on which “we can’t see who the sender was.”
Massie said that Attorney General Pam Bondi "will be in front of my committee," referring to the House Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday to answer questions about the release of the files.
He said he plans to ask her why the rest of the documents have not been released, why—even with the delays that purportedly gave officials time to ensure victims' identifying information was redacted—they still published the names of some victims, and what information has been redacted from the files.
Asked by anchor Manu Raju how he would respond if the DOJ continued to flout the law, Massie said he was prepared to begin reading off the names of Epstein's clients on the House floor, provided the victims "believe that the best way to get justice is to force the DOJ to release these names."
Massie also remarked on the revelation in the latest batch of files that Trump's commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, who'd claimed to have cut ties with Epstein back in 2005, had actually continued a business and personal relationship with him years after he'd been convicted of sex crimes in 2008. This included joint business ventures, dinner gatherings, and a planned trip to Epstein's infamous private island in 2012.
Asked whether Lutnick should testify before the Judiciary Committee, Massie instead said, "No, he should just resign."
He said that Mandelson and the former Prince Andrew, another prominent Epstein associate who was stripped of his royal title, have resigned in disgrace from their posts "for less than Lutnick lied about."
On Friday, amid mounting pressure from lawmakers and the public, the DOJ sent a letter to members of Congress—obtained by the Associated Press—informing them that they could inspect the documents.
Legislators were required to give the DOJ 24 hours' notice before arriving and will be required to view the documents in a tightly-controlled "reading room." They are also barred from creating electronic copies of the files for distribution, but they may take notes.
In a post to social media Sunday, Massie called on inquisitive followers to point out which concerning documents they want him to scrutinize, saying those that receive the most "likes" will be his first priority.
Among the documents that have garnered the most outrage and demands for transparency are:
As Khanna pointed out, she did not do this in July when she privately answered questions from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Khanna has sent a letter to House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) containing a list of questions for Maxwell about any knowledge she has of other co-conspirators, the extent of Epstein's and Trump's involvement, and whether Trump offered her a pardon in exchange for her silence.
"The American people will see that there's an inconsistency," Khanna told reporters on Monday. "Why didn't she plead the Fifth when Blanche asked her questions, but now she's pleading the Fifth about things that don't implicate her, but may implicate many of the other powerful people in the Epstein class that committed these crimes?"
"Bus stops are empty, and families are turning to wood and coal for cooking, living through near-constant power outages amid an economic crisis worsened by the Trump administration’s steps in recent weeks."
The Trump administration's decision to tighten the decadeslong US stranglehold on the Cuban economy by depriving the island nation of its largest source of oil has plunged the country into a rapidly worsening energy crisis, forcing its government to take far-reaching emergency steps to avert catastrophe—from curbing transportation services to shortening work and school hours.
"We are not going to collapse," Oscar Perez‑Oliva Fraga, Cuba's deputy prime minister, said in an address outlining the emergency measures late last week as White House officials—including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a longtime Cuba hawk—pushed for the overthrow of the Cuban government by the end of the year.
The Wall Street Journal reported late last month that President Donald Trump's administration is "emboldened" by its kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and is now "searching for Cuban government insiders who can help cut a deal to push out" the government of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, who has expressed openness to talks with the US—but not under economic coercion.
"The Trump administration has assessed that Cuba’s economy is close to collapse and that the government has never been this fragile after losing a vital benefactor in Maduro," the Journal noted. "Officials don’t have a concrete plan to end the Communist government that has held power on the Caribbean island for almost seven decades, but they see Maduro’s capture and subsequent concessions from his allies left behind as a blueprint and a warning for Cuba."
Since its abduction of Maduro in early January, the Trump administration has vowed to bar any Venezuelan oil or money from reaching Cuba and threatened to slap tariffs on any country that sells oil to the Cuban government. Venezuela was previously Cuba's largest oil supplier, providing the island nation with roughly 70,000 barrels of crude oil and refined products last year.
In a January 29 executive order, Trump proclaimed—laughably—that Cuba "constitute[s] an unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
The Trump administration's increasingly aggressive economic warfare has been disastrous for the Cuban people, who have always been the primary victims of the illegal and globally condemned US blockade.
"Bus stops are empty, and families are turning to wood and coal for cooking, living through near-constant power outages amid an economic crisis worsened by the Trump administration’s steps in recent weeks," Al Jazeera reported Sunday. "The government says it will prioritize available fuel for essential services—public health, food production, and defense—and push the installation of solar-based renewable energy sector and incentives therein. It will prioritise shifting energy to selected food production regions and accelerate the use of renewable energy sources, while cutting down on culture and sport activities and diverting resources towards the country’s early warning systems."
A spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned last week that the UN chief is "extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Cuba, which will worsen, if not collapse, if its oil needs go unmet."
David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International, wrote Monday that "right now, Donald Trump is laying siege to the island of Cuba: asphyxiating its people, shuttering its hospitals, starving them of food."
"If you care about 'America', this is your fight," Adler added.
Over the weekend, the Mexican government announced that its Navy is sending more than 800 tons of humanitarian aid to Cuba, including "essential food items" and "personal hygiene products."
"Through these actions, the government of Mexico reaffirms the humanistic principles and spirit of solidarity that guide it, and its commitment to international cooperation among peoples, especially with those who require humanitarian assistance in situations of emergency and vulnerability," the government said in a statement. "Cuba and Mexico are sister nations, heirs to a long history of solidarity that we honor today."
In a social media post during the National Football League Super Bowl in the US, Drop Site journalist Ryan Grim wrote that "there are obviously a lot of shameful moments in American history, but Mexico being forced to send militarily protected humanitarian relief to a Cuban population we are starving for no reason, while we all stuff our faces with chicken wings, has to rank among our low moments."
The DHS report shows only 14% of immigrants taken into custody by ICE in 2025 had either been charged with or convicted of violent criminal offenses.
A leaked document obtained by CBS News reveals that only a tiny fraction of immigrants detained by the Trump administration last year have violent criminal records.
According to CBS News, the internal US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document shows that just 14% of immigrants taken into custody by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2025 had either been charged with or convicted of violent criminal offenses.
The DHS report also shows 40% of immigrants detained last year have no criminal record at all except for civil immigration law violations, such as living unlawfully in the US or overstaying a visa, which CBS News noted "are typically adjudicated by Justice Department immigration judges in civil—not criminal—proceedings."
The internal document undermines President Donald Trump's past claims that his administration is focused primarily on deporting "the worst of the worst" undocumented immigrants, such as those belonging to criminal gangs. In reality, the document shows, less than 2% of immigrants detained last year had any sort of gang affiliation.
As noted last month by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, ICE during Trump's second term has grown more aggressive in detaining people with no prior criminal offenses save for civil immigration law violations.
In January 2024, for example, immigrants with no prior criminal record accounted for just 6% of ICE detainees. By January 2025, that percentage surged to 43%.
ICE has drastically ramped up its arrests of immigrants in the last year, as White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller has demanded that the agency hit arrest quotas of at least 3,000 per day.
While ICE has not yet reached that goal, they did make an estimated 393,000 arrests during Trump's first year back in the White House, an average of more than 1,000 per day.
CBS News notes that the internal DHS document "does not include arrests by Border Patrol agents, who the Trump administration has deployed to places far away from the US-Mexico border, like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis," where they "have undertaken aggressive and sweeping arrest operations, targeting day laborers at Home Depot parking lots and stopping people, including US citizens, to question them about their immigration status."