March, 02 2018, 09:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lisa Evans, Earthjustice (978) 548-8645 levans@earthjustice.org
Larissa Liebmann, Waterkeeper Alliance (212) 747-0622 x 122 LLiebmann@waterkeeper.org
Brian Willis, Sierra Club (202)253-7486 brian.willis@sierraclub.org
Michael Kelly, Clean Water Action (202) 393-5449, mkelly@cleanwater.org
Andrew Rehn, Prairie Rivers Network (217) 344-2371 x 208, arehn@prairierivers.org
Tim Maloney, Hoosier Environmental Council (812) 369-8677
Tom Pelton, Environmental Integrity Project (443) 510-2574 tpelton@environmentalintegrity.org
Dana Wright, Interim Executive Director, Tennessee Clean Water Network, (865) 522-7007 ext. 103 dana@tcwn.org
Ruth Santiago, Comite Dialogo Ambiental, Inc. (781) 312-2223 rstgo2@gmail.com
Trump Administration Guts Safeguards for Nation's No. 2 Toxic Pollution Threat
Coal Ash Waste Linked to Cancer, Heart Disease, Stroke, Brain Damage
WASHINGTON
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided yesterday afternoon that it will gut the critical protections afforded by the first-ever federal rule that provides health and environmental safeguards for communities near toxic coal ash waste dumps.
The EPA proposed a thorough overhaul of the 2015 coal ash rule, choosing to substantially weaken the nation's environmental safeguards for coal ash, which is the toxic waste left over from coal-burning power plants. For decades, coal ash was dumped into giant pits, where toxic chemicals can seep into water and soil and blow into the air. Coal ash waste is filled with some of some of the deadliest known toxic chemicals, including heavy metals like arsenic, lead, mercury and chromium. The toxics raise the risk for cancer, heart disease, and stroke, and can inflict permanent brain damage on children.
"This is the second biggest toxic pollution threat in our country, and we need to clean it up - not make things easier for polluters," said Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans. "People living near more than a thousand toxic coal ash sites are at risk. They face contaminated drinking water, toxic dust in the air, and serious health threats just because the EPA is choosing to side with polluters over the public."
In October 2015, the first-ever EPA safeguards to protect communities near coal ash dumps went into effect after Earthjustice filed a lawsuit on behalf of public interest groups and a Native American tribe, the Moapa Band of Paiutes. The EPA received more than a half-million comments from people supporting the safeguards that the EPA is seeking now to remove in its proposed rule.
"The list of environmental protections the Pruitt EPA is attempting to roll back continues to grow, this time with a proposal to weaken the first-ever federal coal ash rule," said Lisa Hallowell, Senior Attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project. "Despite mounting evidence of pollution at coal ash sites, EPA - which is supposed to be protecting the environment - wants to reduce safeguards [and make it harder for citizens to get polluted sites cleaned up]."
Among the protections of the coal ash rule that the EPA proposes to weaken or remove are: groundwater monitoring requirements, national groundwater protection standards, cleanup standards, closure standards, location restrictions for siting toxic dumps in groundwater, wetlands, floodplains, fault areas, seismic zones and unstable areas, as well as deadlines to comply with those standards. Recent petitions by the utility industry asked for broad weakening of health and environmental standards, which the EPA has proposed to adopt. The rule seeks to provide States, EPA and even the industry itself, with discretion to weaken core requirements of the 2015 rule that protect the nation's drinking water aquifers, including determining when or if groundwater monitoring is necessary, when cleanup of contaminated groundwater is required, the extent of a groundwater cleanup, and how long a polluter is required to monitor a closed site.
"The Trump administration is putting drinking water and the health of communities across the country at risk so their friends in the power plant industry can save a few bucks," said Jennifer Peters, Clean Water Action's Water Program Director. "The coal ash rule is a very modest protection. Gutting it now will let coal plants avoid any responsibility for their waste, leave taxpayers on the hook for clean up, and lead to more contaminated water."
The standards for coal ash management are the subject of litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Lawsuits were brought against EPA in 2015 by both environmental groups and industry trade groups. The Court heard oral arguments in the case in October 2017.
"Pressure from industry resulted in EPA's 2015 standards falling woefully short of truly protecting the public from the dangers of coal ash," said Larissa Liebmann, Staff Attorney at Waterkeeper Alliance. "Now, the Trump Administration is trying to pare back what already was the bare minimum."
Among other things, the EPA's 2015 coal ash rule required utilities to test the water near their coal ash dumps to make sure hazardous chemicals, like arsenic, lead, chromium and other toxins were not leaking into drinking water sources. Coal ash contains concentrated levels of heavy metals, which are released to water when the ash is dumped into unlined pits. Requirements to monitor the water around dump sites--and to clean it up, if poisoned-- were set to go into effect at all coal ash dumpsites in 2018.
The EPA's action comes in response to petitions filed by the Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group, a trade organization that has long fought against the common-sense pollution protections for coal ash dumps, and by AES-PR, which operates a coal-fired power plant in Puerto Rico. Today, over 1,400 coal ash waste dumps are spread across the nation, and in at least 200 cases, the toxic waste is known to have contaminated water sources.
"Clean water is a basic human right that should never be treated as collateral damage on a corporate a balance sheet, but that is exactly what is happening," said Mary Anne Hitt, Director of Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign. "The Trump administration is trying to pull the wool over the America people's eyes about the dangers of gutting our clean water protections against coal ash so that rich coal magnates will not have to pay to properly dispose of their toxic byproduct. Weakening protections against coal ash is a betrayal of all the families across this country who having been living on bottled water for years, or have lost their health and property, due to coal ash pollution. Families are looking to EPA to solve the coal ash problem - not abandon them, which is what happened today."
About 70 percent of the toxic coal ash dumps are located in low-income areas. The impact on communities throughout the nation is immense. For example, the EPA's action will affect communities in Puerto Rico - already struggling with devastation from hurricanes.
"By weakening the coal ash cleanup rule, Puerto Ricans will be exposed to ever greater health hazards," said Ruth Santiago, Attorney for Comite Dialogo Ambiental. "Without this rule, the AES coal-burning power plant in Guayama, Puerto Rico will not be required to monitor groundwater underneath the coal ash waste pile that has hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic waste in it - all exposed to the elements. Our environmental regulators are supposed to protect us, not make things worse."
Federal protections are critical, because the dumps are ticking time bombs, and the states have demonstrated that they are unable or unwilling to impose protective standards on coal ash dumps. In 2008, the single-largest toxic waste spill in U.S. history happened when a billion gallons of coal ash sludge burst through a dam at the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston plant and covered 300 acres, destroying dozens of homes. In 2014, a portion of a coal ash dump in North Carolina collapsed, fouling 80 miles of the Dan River with toxic sludge.
"The national coal ash rule already has a blind spot for closed power plants like the Vermilion Power Station in Illinois, which is oozing colored coal ash waste into the Middle Fork River, where people tube and kayak," said Andrew Rehn of the Prairie Rivers Network. "The EPA's decision to further weaken these regulations is a disservice to the people of Illinois and the rest of the country."
Dana Wright, Interim Executive Director of the Tennessee Clean Water Network, added: "Tennesseans and residents of other states need protections from coal ash waste. The administration's reversal impairs water quality and threatens human health."
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.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
With Food Aid Suspended for Millions of Families, Trump Brags of 'Statuary Marble' Bathroom Makeover
"He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself," one critic said of Trump.
Oct 31, 2025
As millions of families across the US are about to lose their access to food aid over the weekend, President Donald Trump on Friday decided to show off photos of a White House bathroom that he boasted had been refurbished in "highly polished, statuary marble."
Trump posted photos of the bathroom on his Truth Social platform, and he explained that he decided to remodel it because he was dissatisfied with the "art deco green tile style" that had been implemented during a previous renovation, which he described as "totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era."
"I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble," Trump continued. "This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!"
Trump's critics were quick to pan the remodeled bathroom, especially since it came at a time when Americans are suffering from numerous policies the president and the Republican Party are enacting, including tariffs that are raising the cost of food and clothing; expiring subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through Affordable Care Act exchanges; and cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) programs in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
"Sure, you might not be able to eat or go to the doctor, but check out how nice Trump's new marble shitter is," remarked independent journalist Aaron Rupar on Bluesky.
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who has become a critic of Trump, ripped the president for displaying such tone deafness in the middle of a federal government shutdown.
"Government still shutdown, Americans not getting paid, food assistance for low-income families and children about to be cut off, and this is what he cares about," he wrote on X. "He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself."
Don Moynihan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, expressed extreme skepticism that the White House bathroom during Abraham Lincoln's tenure was decked out in marble and gold.
"Fact check based on no research but with a high degree of confidence: This is not the marble that was originally in the Lincoln Bedroom," he wrote. "It is more likely to the be retrieved from a Trump casino before it was demolished."
Fashion critic Derek Guy, meanwhile, mostly left politics out of his criticisms of the remodeled bathroom, instead simply observing that "White House renovations are currently being spearheaded by someone with famously bad interior design taste."
Earlier this month, Trump sparked outrage when he demolished the entire East Wing of the White House to make way for a massive White House ballroom financed by donations from some of America’s wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Warns Any Trump Attack on Venezuela Would Be 'Blatantly Unconstitutional'
"Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war," said Democratic US Rep. Ro Khanna.
Oct 31, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday demanded urgent congressional action to avert "another endless, regime-change war" amid reports that President Donald Trump is weighing military strikes inside Venezuela.
Such strikes, warned Khanna (D-Calif.), would be "blatantly unconstitutional."
"The United States Congress must speak up and stop this," Khanna said in a video posted to social media. "No president, according to the Constitution, has the authority to strike another country without Congress' approval. And the American people have voted against regime change and endless wars."
Watch:
Trump is getting ready to launch strikes inside Venezuela per the @WSJ & @MiamiHerald.
This is blatantly unconstitutional.
Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war. @RepThomasMassie @RandPaul. pic.twitter.com/LrnPPUVZaU
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) October 31, 2025
Khanna's remarks came in response to reporting by the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal on internal Trump administration discussions regarding possible airstrike targets inside Venezuela.
The Herald reported early Friday that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment." The Journal, in a story published Thursday, was more reserved, reporting that the administration "has identified targets in Venezuela that include military facilities used to smuggle drugs," but adding that "the president hasn't made a final decision on ordering land strikes."
Citing unnamed US officials familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that "the targets would send a clear message to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro that it is time to step down."
Following the reports, the White House denied that Trump has finalized plans for a military strike on Venezuela. Trump himself told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday that he has not made a final decision, signaling his belief he has the authority to do so if he chooses.
Last week, the president said publicly that land strikes are "going to be next" following his illegal, deadly strikes on boats in waters off Central and South America.
Trump has said he would not seek approval from Congress before attacking Venezuela directly.
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period."
A potentially imminent, unauthorized US attack on Venezuela and the administration's accelerating military buildup in the Caribbean have thus far drawn vocal opposition from just a fraction of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, currently embroiled in a shutdown fight.
Just three senators—Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—are listed as official backers of a resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization. Other senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), have spoken out against Trump's belligerence toward Venezuela.
"Trump is illegally threatening war with Venezuela—after killing more than 50 people in unauthorized strikes at sea," Sanders wrote in a social media post on Friday. "The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. Congress must defend the law and end Trump's militarism."
Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Friday that "most Americans oppose overthrowing Venezuela's leaders by force—and an even larger majority oppose invading."
"Call your senators and tell them to vote for S.J.Res.90 to block Trump's unauthorized use of military force," Williams added. "The Capitol switchboard can connect you to your senators' offices at 202-224-3121."
A similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) in the US House has just over 30 cosponsors.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) announced his support for the House resolution on Thursday, saying in a statement that "Trump does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."
"I am deeply troubled by reports that suggest this administration believes otherwise," said Neguse. "Any unilateral directive to send Americans into war is not only reckless, but illegal and an affront to the House of Representatives' powers under Article I of our Constitution."
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period," Neguse added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Question' More People Will End Up With Fake Insurance If ACA Subsidies Expire: Expert
"This is what happens when we design systems for insurance companies instead of humans."
Oct 31, 2025
Time on Thursday published reporting about "how fake health insurance is luring people in," and along with sharing stories of Americans tricked into paying for plans that aren't compliant with the Affordable Care Act, the article features an expert's warning that more could be fooled if Congress lets ACA subsidies expire.
The ongoing federal government shutdown stems from congressional Democrats' efforts to reverse recent GOP cuts to Medicaid and extend the ACA tax credits, which set to expire at the end of the year. Open enrollment for 2026 plans sold on ACA marketplaces starts Saturday, and Americans who buy insurance through these platforms now face the looming end of subsidies and substantial monthly premium hikes.
"Confusion about navigating insurance writ large and the Affordable Care Act marketplace in particular has led many people to end up with plans that they think are health insurance which in fact are not health insurance," Time reported. "They mistakenly click away from healthcare.gov, the website where people are supposed to sign up for ACA-compliant plans, and end up on a site with a misleading name."
ACA plans are required to cover 10 essential benefits, the outlet detailed, but consumers who leave the official website may instead sign up for short-term plans that don't span the full year, fixed indemnity plans that pay a small amount for certain services, or "healthcare sharing ministries, in which people pitch in for other peoples' medical costs, but which sometimes do not cover preexisting conditions."
Claire Heyison, senior policy analyst for health insurance and marketplace policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Time that "there's no question that more people will end up with these kinds of plans if the premium tax credits are not extended."
According to the outlet:
These non-insurance products "have increasingly been marketed in ways that make them look similar to health insurance," Heyison says. To stir further confusion, some even deploy common insurance terms like PPO (preferred provider organization) or co-pay in their terms and conditions. But people will pay a price for using them, Heyison says, because they can charge higher premiums than ACA-compliant plans, deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and exclude benefits like prescription drug coverage or maternity care.
Often, the websites where people end up buying non-ACA compliant insurance have the names and logos of insurers on them. Sometimes, they are lead-generation sites... that ask for a person's name and phone number and then share that information with brokers who get a commission for signing up people for plans, whether they are health insurance or not.
To avoid paying for misleading plans, Heyison advised spending a few days researching before buying anything, steering clear of companies that offer a gift for signing up, and asking for documents detailing coverage to review before payment.
On the heels of Time's reporting and the eve of open enrollment, Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative published polling that makes clear Americans across the political spectrum are worried about skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
The pollsters found that 75% of voters are "somewhat" or "very" concerned about the spikes, including 83% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 66% of Republicans. While the overall figure was the same as last week, the share who said they were very concerned rose from 45% to 47%.
As the second-longest shutdown ever drags on, 57% of respondents said they don't believe that President Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress are focused on lowering healthcare costs for people like them and their families. More broadly, 52% also did not agree that Trump and GOP lawmakers "are fighting on behalf of" people like them.
A plurality of voters (42%) said that Trump and congressional Republicans deserve most of the blame for rising premiums, while 27% blamed both parties equally, and just a quarter put most of the responsibility on elected Democrats.
"While President Trump focuses on the moodboard for his gilded ballroom and House Republicans refuse to show up for work in Washington, a ticking time bomb is strapped to working families’ pocketbooks," said Elizabeth Pancotti, Groundwork Collaborative's managing director of policy and advocacy, in a Friday statement.
Pointing to the Trump administration's legally dubious decision not to keep funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the shutdown, she added that "healthcare premiums are set to double and food assistance benefits are on the brink of collapse in a matter of hours, and voters know exactly who's to blame."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


