

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"She needs to be fired, resign, or she will be impeached."
President Donald Trump offered a one-word answer—"No"—when asked Tuesday if Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will resign following her decision to smear Alex Pretti as a violent domestic terrorist immediately after he was gunned down by border security agents on a Minneapolis street, but Democrats in Congress noted that many in the Republican Party have not appeared so confident regarding Noem's conduct following the killing.
Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee emphasized that since "Operation Metro Surge" in the Minneapolis area led to the killing of a second US citizen by Border Patrol agents on Saturday, and Noem accused Pretti of approaching officers with a gun and resorting to violence despite the fact that footage from multiple camera angles showed nothing of the sort, "she has been rebuked by Republicans in Congress, by her own senior staffers, and even the president."
Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said Noem's comments "came before all the facts were known and weakened confidence," while Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called for Noem and the heads of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other immigration agencies to testify before Congress.
Former DHS general counsel John Mitnick, an architect of the agency, said he was "enraged and embarrassed by DHS’s lawlessness, fascism, and cruelty" and demanded Trump's impeachment, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt attempted on Monday to distance the administration from Noem's response to the killing.
The Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee posted MS NOW's fact-check of Noem's comments directly after Pretti was killed, along with their demand: "She lied about Alex Pretti... She needs to be fired, resign, or she will be impeached."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) released a statement outlining why—regardless of how—Noem must leave her position leading DHS.
"Taxpayer dollars are being weaponized by the Trump administration to kill American citizens, brutalize communities, and violently target law-abiding immigrants," said the Democratic leaders. "Dramatic changes at the Department of Homeland Security are needed. Federal agents who have broken the law must be criminally prosecuted. The paramilitary tactics must cease and desist. Taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for Americans, not kill them in cold blood."
"Kristi Noem should be fired immediately, or we will commence impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives," they added. "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."
On MS NOW, Jeffries on Tuesday called Noem "a despicable, corrupt, pathological liar."
Hakeem Jeffries: "Kristi Noem is a despicable, corrupt, pathological liar. We've seen her slander not just one, but American citizens, patriotic Americans who were killed without justification on the streets of Minneapolis ... we are prepared to initiate impeachment proceedings… pic.twitter.com/MEnBXIJDdt
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 27, 2026
The GOP-controlled House is not likely to move forward with impeaching Noem, but a resolution to do so now has 150 Democratic cosponsors, with more than two-thirds of the party's House members backing the call to bring charges against the homeland security secretary and former South Dakota governor. Should Democrats win back control of the House in the November elections, they could move forward with the effort if she is still in office.
"Secretary Noem has blood on her hands," Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) who introduced the impeachment articles, said in a statement. "Under her leadership, Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good were murdered."
"President Trump has repeatedly made clear his contempt for laws governing presidential transparency and proper recordkeeping."
A watchdog group is raising concerns that President Donald Trump may have violated federal recordkeeping laws by using an auto-deleting message application to text world leaders.
On Tuesday, the group American Oversight sent a letter to White House Counsel David Warrington asking for information about whether the president is taking all the required steps to comply with the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of all presidential records—including digital correspondence—during official duties.
The group highlighted two posts Trump made on Truth Social last Tuesday in which appeared to reveal that he was using Signal or another similar messaging app to discuss world affairs with world leaders.
The first screenshot shows a message from French President Emmanuel Macron, who discussed plans to meet with Trump about his proposal to take over Greenland and meetings with other foreign diplomats.
The second was sent from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who told Trump he'd use his "media engagements" in Davos to "highlight" Trump's work in Ukraine and Gaza, and expressed an interest in "finding a way forward on Greenland."
While some European diplomats found it troubling that any intimate communication they have with Trump could be exposed to the world on a whim, American Oversight said it also raised concerns about the preservation of records.
Trump has a long history of flouting rules surrounding the proper storage of documents. The group pointed out that during his first term, the president would often rip up notes, memos, and documents after reading them and at least twice reportedly attempted to flush them down the toilet.
More recently, he was indicted for improperly stashing away classified documents at his personal residence at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House and showing them to people without security clearances.
The second Trump White House has already been involved in a scandal surrounding their use of deleting message apps when a journalist was accidentally invited into a private Signal chat last year, which contained the administration's plans for an imminent strike on Yemen. The messages in that chat were reportedly set to delete after one week, before later being changed to four, which would have also violated the Presidential Records Act.
“President Trump has repeatedly made clear his contempt for laws governing presidential transparency and proper recordkeeping,” said American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. “The Presidential Records Act exists to ensure transparency of presidential decisions and safeguard the historical record for the American people."
"Given President Trump’s well-documented history of mishandling sensitive information and presidential records," he added, "the White House must assure the public that these communications are secure and being preserved and protected in full compliance with the law.”
The group has requested that the White House counsel disclose any other messages Trump may have sent using auto-deleting apps and ensure that any messages sent through mobile messaging programs are properly preserved.
“People may not simply be gunned down by the government, and the Trump administration’s claims to the contrary risk making America a pariah state," said one attorney in the case.
Relatives of two Trinidadian men killed during the Trump administration's internationally condemned bombing spree against boats allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea filed a wrongful death lawsuit Tuesday against the United States.
Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41, were killed in one of the at least 36 strikes the Trump administration has launched against civilian boats in the southern Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean since last September. According to the lawsuit and the Trump administration's own figures, at least 125 people have been killed in such strikes, which are part of the broader US military aggression targeting Venezuela.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts by lawyers from the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School on behalf of Joseph's mother Lenora Burnley and Samaroo's sister Sallycar Korasingh. The complaint alleges that the US violated the Death on the High Seas Act, which allows relatives to sue for wrongful deaths at sea, and the Alien Tort Statute, which empowers foreign citizens to seek legal redress in US federal courts.
According to the lawsuit:
On October 14, 2025, the United States government authorized and launched a missile strike against a boat carrying six people traveling from Venezuela to Trinidad. The strike killed all six, including Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian nationals who had been fishing in waters off the Venezuelan coast and working on farms in Venezuela, and who were returning to their homes in Las Cuevas, in nearby Trinidad and Tobago.
The October 14 attack was part of an unprecedented and manifestly unlawful US military campaign of lethal strikes against small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean... The United States has not conducted these strikes pursuant to any congressional authorization. Instead, the government has acted unilaterally. And Trump administration officials, including President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have publicized videos of the boat strikes, boasting about and celebrating their own role in killing defenseless people.
"These premeditated and intentional killings lack any plausible legal justification," the lawsuit asserts. "Thus, they were simply murders, ordered by individuals at the highest levels of government and obeyed by military officers in the chain of command."
Burnley said in a statement announcing the lawsuit: "Chad was a loving and caring son who was always there for me, for his wife and children, and for our whole family. I miss him terribly. We all do."
“We know this lawsuit won’t bring Chad back to us, but we’re trusting God to carry us through this, and we hope that speaking out will help get us some truth and closure," she added.
Korasingh said, “Rishi used to call our family almost every day, and then one day he disappeared, and we never heard from him again."
“Rishi was a hardworking man who paid his debt to society and was just trying to get back on his feet again and to make a decent living in Venezuela to help provide for his family," she added, referring to her brother's imprisonment for taking part in the 2009 murder of a street vendor. "If the US government believed Rishi had done anything wrong, it should have arrested, charged, and detained him, not murdered him. They must be held accountable.”
Trump officials have offered very little concrete evidence to support their claims that the targeted vessels were smuggling drugs. Critics allege that's why attorneys at the US Department of Defense reportedly inquired about whether two survivors of an October bombing in the Caribbean could be sent to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) maximum security prison in El Salvador, which has been described by rights groups as a "legal black hole."
The survivors were ultimately returned to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador. Some observers said their repatriation showed the Trump administration knew that trying the survivors in US courts would compel officials to explain their dubious legal justification for the attacks, which many experts say are illegal.
Trump officials also considered sending boat strike survivors to the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but that would allow their lawyers to sue for habeas corpus—a right granted by the US Supreme Court in its 2008 Boumediene v. Bush decision during the era of extrajudicial imprisonment and torture of terrorism suspects, as well as innocent men and boys, at the facility. The Trump administration has even revived the term “unlawful enemy combatant”—which was used by the Bush administration to categorize people caught up in the War on Terror in a way that skirts the law—to classify boat strike survivors.
The Trinidadian and Tobagonian government has also been criticized for hosting joint military exercises with the United States in the Caribbean Sea amid Trump's boat-bombing campaign.
ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman said Tuesday that “the Trump administration’s boat strikes are the heinous acts of people who claim they can abuse their power with impunity around the world."
“In seeking justice for the senseless killing of their loved ones, our clients are bravely demanding accountability for their devastating losses and standing up against the administration’s assault on the rule of law," he added.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy argued that “these are lawless killings in cold blood; killings for sport and killings for theater, which is why we need a court of law to proclaim what is true and constrain what is lawless."
"This is a critical step in ensuring accountability, while the individuals responsible may ultimately be answerable criminally for murder and war crimes," Azmy added.
Hafetz said that "using military force to kill Chad and Rishi violates the most elementary principles of international law."
“People may not simply be gunned down by the government," he stressed, "and the Trump administration’s claims to the contrary risk making America a pariah state.”
Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, contended that Trump's "lethal boat strikes violate our collective understanding of right and wrong."
“Rishi and Chad wanted only to get home safely to their loved ones; the unconscionable attack on their boat prevented them from doing so," Rossman added. "It is imperative that we hold this administration accountable, both for their families and for the rule of law itself.”