

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.

Tom Pelton, Environmental Integrity Project, (443) 510-2574 or tpelton@environmentalintegrity.org
Alejandro Dávila Fragoso, Earthjustice, (202) 745-5229 or adavila@earthjustice.org
Darcey Rakestraw, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-2467 or drakestraw@fwwatch.org
Maia Raposo, Waterkeeper Alliance, (212) 747-0622 x116 or mraposo@waterkeeper.org
Natalia Lima, Animal Legal Defense Fund, (201) 679-7088 or nlima@aldf.org
Betsy Nicholas, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, (202) 423-0504 or betsy@waterkeeperschesapeake.org
Hannah Connor, Center for Biological Diversity, (202) 681-1676 or hconnor@biologicaldiversity.org
John Rumpler, Environment America (617) 747-4306 or jrumpler@environmentamerica.org
Conservation groups today filed a formal notice of intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to update slaughterhouse wastewater guidelines as required by the Clean Water Act.
More than 8 billion chickens, 100 million hogs, and 30 million beef cattle are processed each year in more than 5,000 slaughterhouses across the country. An estimated 4,700 of these are currently allowed to discharge processed wastewater directly into waterways or to publicly-owned treatment plants.
"Many of these dirty slaughterhouses contribute to impairments in the waterways where they discharge their pollution," said Sylvia Lam, Attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project. "The most polluting plants also release far more pollution than the cleanest plants. EPA needs to step in, set stronger national water pollution standards for meat and poultry processing plants, and level the playing field.
The Clean Water Act requires the EPA to annually review, and potentially strengthen, industry-wide water pollution standards--called effluent limitation guidelines --for slaughterhouses to ensure the guidelines keep pace with advances in technology that reduce the amount of pollution animal processing and rendering facilities discharge into the nation's waterways.
Since at least 2016, the EPA has failed to conduct the required annual reviews for meat and poultry slaughterhouses. The agency last revised a subset of the guidelines for slaughter facilities discharging wastewater directly into rivers and streams in 2004. But some slaughterhouses are still operating under guidelines originally established as far back as 1974.
The EPA has also failed to review whether "pretreatment" guidelines should be developed for slaughterhouses that send their wastewater to publicly-owned treatment facilities.
"Slaughterhouses often release toxic pollutants that impair drinking water supplies around the country," said Peter Lehner, Managing Attorney at Earthjustice. "They are also the linchpin in the highly polluting industrial meat production chain. Nitrates run off from over-fertilized fields growing animal feed; manure lagoons leak and overflow; animal waste is spread on fields and flows into rivers. We need to clean up every stage. We need the government to do its job."
"Some of the world's largest meat companies are dumping huge volumes of pollution into America's rivers, contributing to toxic algae, dead zones, and fecal bacteria that can make swimmers sick," noted John Rumpler, Clean Water Program Director at Environment America.
The slaughtering and rendering processes generate wastewater that is contaminated with blood, oil and grease, and fats that contain oxygen-depleting pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus, pathogens, and other contaminants. When released into waterways, these pollutants can drive excess algae growth, causing algae blooms that suffocate aquatic life, and turn waterways into bacteria-laden public health hazards.
"At a time when communities, businesses, and citizens across the country are facing the devastating consequences of massive toxic algae blooms, EPA must take urgent action to address the largest sources of pollutant discharges fueling those outbreaks," said Kelly Hunter Foster, Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney. "Slaughterhouses are major sources of this pollution through discharges into rivers and streams, or into city wastewater treatment systems. Our cities' treatment systems often lack capacity and technology to properly treat this waste - overwhelming the treatment systems, increasing pollution and improperly putting taxpayers on the hook for the industry's waste treatment problem."
"The EPA must stop allowing slaughterhouses to treat many of the same rivers and streams we depend on for drinking water and recreation as industrial sewers," said Hannah Connor, Senior Attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Especially in rural communities, the Trump administration's ongoing failure to oversee slaughterhouse wastewater is putting wildlife and public health at risk."
America's largest slaughterhouses are clustered in rural areas, including northeast and northwest Arkansas, central Mississippi, Iowa, northern Georgia, east central Pennsylvania, eastern North Carolina, southern Indiana, and Sussex County, Delaware.
"Scattered throughout our region, there are several slaughterhouses that have discharged high levels of pollutants into our local waterways, violating their permits with little or no enforcement," said Betsy Nicholas of Waterkeepers Chesapeake. "As an example, in a recent 18-month period, a meat processing plant in Pennsylvania violated its water discharge permit 62 times, discharging excessive amounts of nitrogen pollution into a tributary to the Susquehanna River."
Updated regulations would lead to significant improvements in many waterways across the country, especially in those areas of greatest industry concentration.
"Slaughterhouses are some of the country's biggest polluters," said Tarah Heinzen, Senior Attorney with Food & Water Watch. "We will not let EPA continue to let the meat industry off the hook for polluting our waterways."
According to a 2018 report by the Environmental Integrity Project, "Water Pollution from Slaughterhouses," the most technologically advanced plants are the best performing plants, releasing far less pollution than the rest of the industry. Technology to dramatically reduce pollution from the industry clearly exists, but because of outdated guidelines, EPA and state agencies continue to set permit limits that allow slaughterhouses to discharge far too much water pollution. Meanwhile, 60 of the 98 plants reviewed by EIP release their wastewater to rivers, streams, and other waterways that are impaired because of the main pollutants found in slaughterhouse wastewater. In 2016, Environment America found that the processing plants of just a few large agribusiness companies discharged more than 250 million pounds of toxic pollution into America's waterways over a 5-year period.
"The pace and size of today's slaughterhouses create an extremely dangerous environment, in which animals suffer and toxic waste spews into our waterways," said Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. "This contaminates water for wildlife and surrounding communities at unprecedented rates. The government must do its job to protect people, animals, and the environment -- and stop serving corporate interests at our expense.
The Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice are filing today's notice on behalf of Waterkeeper Alliance, Environment America, Center for Biological Diversity, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Animal Legal Defense Fund, and Food & Water Watch.
To view the notice letter, visit: https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Slaughterhouse-ELG-and-Pretreatment-Guidelines-Deadline-Suit-NOI.pdf
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500Analyst Mouin Rabbani said the deployment comes as “Netanyahu is seeking to... inject poison pills into the negotiations in order to ensure that they fail and thereby set the stage for a new armed conflict with Iran.”
President Donald Trump further escalated his threats to attack Iran on Thursday by deploying another massive aircraft carrier to the Middle East.
According to Axios, Trump decided to send the USS Gerald Ford to the region shortly after his Wednesday talk with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the seventh such meeting in just over a year since he returned to the presidency.
The Ford, America’s largest aircraft carrier, will take approximately 3-4 weeks to reach the Persian Gulf from Venezuela, where it was used as part of Trump’s operation to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro in January. It will join the USS Abraham Lincoln, which was sent to the region earlier this month.
Trump has said he wants to finalize a new nuclear deal with Iran by next month after ripping up the old one during his first term, and has threatened war if one is not reached.
Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian has said Iran is open to making a deal to limit its capabilities to develop nuclear weapons in the future and to allow weapons inspectors to ensure compliance with the deal.
“We are not seeking nuclear weapons, and we are ready for any kind of verification,” Pezeshkian said on Wednesday.
However, its leaders have said they are not willing to negotiate on their broader ballistic missile program, which they view as the only deterrent against attacks by Israel and the US.
Netanyahu, who met with Trump for nearly two and a half hours on Wednesday, has pushed the president to pursue maximalist demands that Iran is unlikely to accept.
"I said that any agreement must include... not just the nuclear issue, but also the ballistic missiles and the Iranian proxies in the region," Netanyahu said.
Middle East analyst Mouin Rabbani said in an interview Thursday with Democracy Now that "what Netanyahu is seeking to do with this visit is to inject poison pills into the negotiations in order to ensure that they fail and thereby set the stage for a new armed conflict with Iran."
So far, this appears not to have worked, as Trump has said he is willing to negotiate on the narrower issue of nuclear weapons.
But, according to Rabbani, "it's really impossible to take any statement he says either seriously or literally because his subsequent actions could either be a very accurate reflection of what he said or the precise opposite."
"Trump seems to think that a deal limited to the nuclear issue may be preferable to going to war to tackle everything else," said Christian Emery, an associate professor of international politics at the University College London. "Yet opponents of US military action, which include all of Washington’s Middle Eastern allies except Israel, should still be worried."
"It is far from clear whether Iran will offer the kind of nuclear deal Trump would find acceptable, and Trump himself does not seem to know what else to do other than double down on military threats," Emery said. "That alone may scupper the talks."
"The danger here... is that Washington, encouraged by Israel, is looking at Iran as a substantially weakened power," Rabbani said. "It has taken note of the widespread unrest in Iran last month. And coming straight off the successful abduction of the Venezuelan president, they may believe that it's just going to be one and done and that there can be a limited clean conflict with Iran."
“But of course, Iran is a very different kettle of fish than Venezuela,” he continued. “Iran has already indicated that should there be a new armed conflict, it will observe neither strategic patience nor restraint or proportionality as it has in previous realms.”
"Noem and Lewandowski are like the most toxic couple you have ever met given full rein of a government agency."
An explosive report published by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday shed fresh light on what critics have described as "outrageous corruption" by US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Among other things, the Journal report highlighted Noem's relationship with top adviser Corey Lewandowski, whom sources said is romantically involved with the Trump Cabinet official despite both of them being married.
Of particular note, the Journal wrote, is the way Lewandowski has taken over the contracting process at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) despite being classified as a special government employee whose service is supposed to be capped at a maximum of 130 days per year.
"Given Lewandowski’s continuing business interests in the private sector, his role in awarding contracts has raised alarm bells inside the White House and DHS," reported the Journal. "Several officials inside the department said contracts and grants are being awarded in an opaque and arbitrary manner, and some are being held up without explanation."
The report also claimed that Noem and Lewandowski have been flying around the country together on a luxury 737 MAX jet, complete with a private cabin.
DHS has been leasing the plane, although the Journal's sources said it is in the process of buying it for $70 million, which "would be double the cost of each of seven other commercial planes the department is also buying at the pair’s direction to carry out deportations."
Additionally, the report outlined allegedly abusive behavior by Noem and Lewandowski toward DHS staff members, as sources said they "frequently berate senior level staff, give polygraph tests to employees they don’t trust, and have fired employees," including one incident where "Lewandowski fired a US Coast Guard pilot after Noem’s blanket was left behind on a plane."
The report generated fierce reaction from critics on social media.
"Noem and Lewandowski are like the most toxic couple you have ever met," wrote New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, "given full rein of a government agency."
Veteran foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen described Noem and Lewandowski as "the most vile scumbags on Earth" after reading the report, highlighting the details about the pair flying on the luxury jet as particularly egregious.
Investigative journalist Sarah Posner found herself floored by the conduct outlined in the Journal's report.
"There is so much crazy shit, outrageous corruption, and naked, ham-fisted ambition in this WSJ piece about Noem, Lewandowski, and DHS," she wrote. "Read and take note of the of eye-popping number of sources who have knives out for Kristi and Corey."
Former Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) argued the report showed Noem and Lewandowski "are wholly unqualified and a disaster at DHS," and have been "been very effective in driving [President Donald] Trump’s ratings into the ditch."
Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, expressed disbelief at how much power Lewandowski had accumulated despite only being a special government employee.
"How the fuck is Corey Lewandowski in any position to fire a Coast Guard pilot?" he asked. "What is his title? What is his job? What is his official position in the US government? If you are Kristi Noem’s boyfriend you get to fire Coast Guard officers?"
The co-founder of Palestine Action called the decision "a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people."
The British High Court ruled Friday that the United Kingdom government's ban on the anti-genocide advocacy group Palestine Action was unlawful, a decision that campaigners cheered as a major victory while also demanding the dismissal of all charges against those arrested and imprisoned for backing the group.
The UK-based Stop the War Coalition noted that roughly 3,000 activists have been arrested on terrorism charges for "holding signs in support of Palestine Action," which has targeted the UK operations of Israeli weapons manufacturers and engaged in civil disobedience to protest Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. More than 250 people have been charged under the Terrorism Act due to the Palestine Action ban, according to the Associated Press, and more than 20 people are still jailed while awaiting trial.
Lindsey German, convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, called the High Court's ruling "fantastic news" and "an utter humiliation for Yvette Cooper, Shabana Mahmood, and the rest in this most authoritarian government in living memory," referring to the UK's foreign secretary and home secretary.
German said UK authorities must now "drop all the charges against those wrongly arrested and imprisoned without trial for peacefully protesting a genocide."
Fantastic news! Utter humiliation for Yvette Cooper, Shabana Mahmood and the rest in this most authoritarian govt in memory
We call on Mark Rowley and Cooper to resign
Now drop all the charges against those wrongly arrested and imprisoned for peacefully protesting genocide! https://t.co/RRqhw2s5AW
— Stop the War Coalition (@STWuk) February 13, 2026
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action who brought the case against the government, said the ruling represents "a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people, striking down a decision that will forever be remembered as one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history.”
The Labour government's designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group and ban on the organization, which took effect last summer, will remain in place pending appeal of the High Court's Friday decision. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she was "disappointed" by the ruling and intends to "fight this judgment," which characterized the ban as "disproportionate" and unjustified. Under the ban, membership in or support for Palestine Action was made punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
"Thousands of people of conscience saw that branding protest as terrorism was a move straight out of the dictator’s playbook," said a spokesperson for the advocacy group Defend Our Juries in response to the decision. "Together we took action at great personal risk—inspired by each other’s courage. We helped make this proscription unenforceable by saying, 'We do not comply.'"

Tom Southerden, Amnesty International UK’s law and human rights director, praised the High Court's ruling as "a vital affirmation of the right to protest at a time when it has been under sustained and deliberate attack."
"The High Court’s decision sends a clear message: The government cannot simply reach for sweeping counter‑terrorism powers to silence critics or suppress dissent," said Southerden. "We welcome this judgment as an essential check on overreach and a powerful reminder that fundamental freedoms still carry weight in UK law."