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.

Erin Fitzgerald, Earthjustice, 415-283-2323
Today, health and labor organizations sued Trump's Environmental Protection Agency for refusing to ban a widely used agricultural pesticide linked to damaging children's brains and farmworker poisonings.
"EPA has repeatedly found chlorpyrifos unsafe, especially to children, yet time and time again it refuses to protect kids," said Patti Goldman, the Earthjustice managing attorney handling the case. "But Earthjustice and our clients won't stand for this. The science and the law call for a chlorpyrifos ban. We are hopeful the courts will do the same for the sake of children and farmworkers."
Advocates and seven states have been battling the Trump administration in court to get a chlorpyrifos ban. Moreover, some states are not waiting for the EPA and have filed bills of their own to ban this harmful pesticide. Legislators in New York just recently passed a ban bill that awaits Governor Andrew Cuomo's signature, spurring the support of over 80 New York State coalition members that banded together to urge Gov. Cuomo to sign ban into law. Hawaii passed a bill to ban chlorpyrifos in 2018 and California, the largest agricultural state in the nation, started a process to ban the pesticide. The European Union is also considering a ban for 2020.
In response to a court deadline, last month EPA said chlorpyrifos can still be used on fruits and vegetables, even though studies show that exposures to chlorpyrifos in infants and children are associated with reduced IQ, attention disorders, and autism. In its decision, EPA claims it can avoid taking action on chlorpyrifos until 2022, when it is supposed to finish a massive pesticide review. In the meantime, countless numbers of children are being exposed to a nerve agent pesticide EPA scientists deemed unsafe in 2014 and 2016.
Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate (OP), a class of chemicals that includes sarin nerve gas. First developed by the Nazis for chemical warfare, OPs were later repurposed for agricultural uses. Chlorpyrifos and other OP pesticides are used on strawberries, apples, citrus, broccoli, corn, and more. In fact, chlorpyrifos is one of the most common insecticides in the United States. Residues can be found not just in food, but also in drinking water. Farmworkers and rural families are most exposed, but consumers across the country are at risk, too, given chlorpyrifos widespread use.
Chlorpyrifos and the other OP pesticides were banned from almost all home use nearly two decades ago. EPA proposed banning chlorpyrifos from food crops in 2015. But shortly after Trump took office, the EPA in 2017 refused to finalize the proposed ban, falsely claiming the science is "unresolved" despite decades of research and suggesting the agency would study the issue until 2022. That decision came after Dow Chemical donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee and after its top executive spoke at a Trump rally in Michigan. The company, now known as Corteva Agriscience, sells chlorpyrifos under the trade name Lorsban.
Quotes from our partners:
"The scientific evidence has been clear for years. Chlorpyrifos is toxic to farmworkers and linked to irreversible neurodevelopmental harms in children," said Dr. Elena Rios, president of the National Hispanic Medical Association. "Trump's EPA might want to dismiss the science and the law to protect corporate profit, but we are confident the courts won't stand for this."
"Having chlorpyrifos in our fields means that women and men who harvest our food are in harm's way every day," said Erik Nicholson, United Farm Workers of America national vice-president. "We will fight to right this wrong in the court of law and the court of public opinion until a ban is in place."
"Studies show chlorpyrifos is an awful threat to the health of children, particularly farmworker children and those who live in rural areas," said Jeannie Economos from the Farmworker Association of Florida. "If the Trump administration refuses to stand up for children's health, then the only recourse is to force them through the courts."
"Trump's EPA has yet again failed farmworkers and children when it refused to ban chlorpyrifos despite all the science that called for the opposite," said Iris Figueroa, staff attorney at Farmworker Justice. "We hope the courts will take the lead and amend this grave mistake. Farmworkers, families and developing children must be safe from chlorpyrifos and most importantly, from preventable illness."
"A chlorpyrifos ban is long overdue given the overwhelming evidence that says this pesticide harms brain development in children," said Tracy Gregoire with the Learning Disabilities Association of America. "We are hopeful the courts will side with children who are now being exposed to irreparable, yet preventable harm."
"A nerve agent pesticide that poisons workers and damages children's developing brain has no place near our fruits and vegetables," said Ramon Ramirez, president of PCUN. "We look forward to seeing the courts do what EPA refuses to do, protect workers and children with a chlorpyrifos ban."
"It's absurd that we have to ask the court to force EPA to do its job," said Kristin Schafer, Pesticide Action Network executive director, one of the plaintiffs in the original 2007 case. "Scientists have known for years that chlorpyrifos puts the health of farmworkers and children in danger. Instead of acting on this evidence, EPA has chosen to ignore it -- putting Dow Chemical's profits before public health."
"EPA's backtracking has put the health of children and farmworkers at risk by purposely overlooking the harms of a terrible pesticide," said Anne Katten, Pesticide and Work Safety Project director at the CRLA Foundation. "We are hopeful the courts will soon intervene and make a chlorpyrifos ban a reality. Our fields must be made safe for farmworkers, and our fruits and vegetables must be safe for our children."
"We will not stand by while the Trump administration fights to keep this poison on the food we feed our kids," said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, senior scientist at NRDC. "EPA knows this stuff is toxic--its own scientists have been sounding the alarm for years now--but this administration is shameless in its push to keep it on the market. We are urging the court to side with children over a powerful chemical industry with friends in high places. Chlorpyrifos does not belong on our food or in our fields."
To speak with community leaders and advocates involved in the case, please contact:
Ahna Kruzic, Pesticide Action Network, 510-927-5379
Anne Katten, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, 916-446-7904 x110
Kate Kiely, Natural Resources Defense Council, 212-727-4592
Ben Melano, National Hispanic Medical Association, 202-628-5895
Erik Nicholson, United Farm Workers, 206-255-5774
Jeannie Economos, Farmworker Association of Florida, 407-886-5151
Andrea Arenas, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, 202-508-6989
Ramon Ramirez, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, 503-989-0073
Bruce Goldstein, Farmworker Justice, (202) 293-5420
Tracy Gregoire, Learning Disablilities Association of America, 207-504-2556
Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network North America, Natural Resources Defense Council, United Farm Workers, Farmworker Association of Florida, Farmworker Justice, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, National Hispanic Medical Association, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos, Learning Disability Association of America, League of United Latin American Citizens, and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.
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"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.