

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
Jackie Filson, Food and Water Watch, (202) 683-2538 or jfilson@fwwatch.org
Nydia Gutierrez, Earthjustice, (212) 284-8030 or ngutierrez@earthjustice.org
Twelve conservation and community groups, representing millions of people, today sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its decision not to update national standards restricting water pollution from slaughterhouses.
EPA's decision allows thousands of meat and poultry processing plants to continue using outdated pollution-control technology, leading to the contamination of waterways across the country.
The Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice filed today's lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity, Comite Civico del Valle, Environment America, Food & Water Watch, The Humane Society of the United States, and Waterkeeper Alliance.
More than 8 billion chickens, 100 million pigs, and 30 million cattle are processed each year in more than 5,000 slaughterhouses across the country. An estimated 4,700 of these slaughterhouses discharge polluted water to iconic waterways, including the Chesapeake Bay, either directly or indirectly through municipal sewage treatment plants.
"EPA's national standards for water pollution from slaughterhouses are either weak and outdated or nonexistent," said Sylvia Lam, Attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project. "It is well past time for EPA to crack down on this public health hazard. Cleaner plants have already installed technology to lessen the pollution they send into their local rivers and streams. By not updating these nationwide standards, EPA is rewarding dirty slaughterhouses at the expense of the public."
The federal Clean Water Act requires EPA to set industry-wide water pollution standards for slaughterhouses and to review those standards each year to decide whether updates are appropriate to keep pace with advances in pollution-control technology.
On October 24, 2019, EPA announced its decision in the Federal Register that it would not revise the federal water pollution standards for slaughterhouses that discharge processed wastewater directly into waterways, and that it would not create standards for plants that send their wastewater to sewage plants before discharging into rivers or streams. This is despite the fact that EPA identified slaughterhouses as the largest industrial source of nitrogen water pollution without updated standards.
EPA last revised standards for slaughterhouses that discharge polluted water directly into waterways 15 years ago. More than a third of these slaughterhouses are still operating under guidelines that date back to 1974 or 1975.
Meanwhile, EPA has never set standards for slaughterhouses that send their waste to sewage treatment plants before discharging into waterways, even though these slaughterhouses make up a substantial portion of the industry.
"Some of EPA's technological requirements for slaughterhouses date from the mid-1970s," said Earthjustice attorney Alexis Andiman. "Technology has changed a lot since then, and EPA needs to catch up. EPA's failure to update pollution standards for slaughterhouses is illegal--and it allows a major industry to continue cutting corners at the expense of communities and the environment."
Many slaughterhouses are owned by large corporations, with the 100 top slaughterhouse companies each reporting to have received between $83 million and $40 billion in revenues in 2019. The five largest corporations- Tysons Foods, JBS USA, Cargill, SYSCO, and Smithfield Foods - each generated more than $15 billion in annual revenue this past year.
In an October 2018 report, the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) found the average slaughterhouse discharged over 330 pounds of nitrogen per day in 2017 - the amount of pollution in untreated sewage from a town of 14,000 people. About two-thirds of the 98 slaughterhouses studied by EIP discharge to waterways that are impaired by one or more pollutants found in slaughterhouse wastewater. At least 66 of the 98 plants surveyed by EIP are owned by companies that each reported more than $2 billion in annual revenues.
Meat processing plants discharge water contaminated with blood, oil and grease, and fats. This wastewater contains nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, pathogens, and other contaminants. When released into waterways, pollution from slaughterhouses can cause algae blooms that suffocate aquatic life and turn waterways into bacteria-laden public health hazards.
America's largest slaughterhouses are clustered in rural areas, such as eastern North Carolina and portions of Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.
"Smithfield's Tar Heel slaughterhouse northwest of Wilmington, N.C., is the largest pork slaughterhouse on Earth and discharges its waste just upstream from the drinking water intakes for hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians," said Kemp Burdette, Cape Fear Riverkeeper with the nonprofit group Cape Fear River Watch. "The fact that EPA is failing to protect drinking water supplies and ecosystems by allowing slaughterhouses like the one in Tar Heel to operate under extremely outdated guidelines is dangerous and irresponsible."
"EPA has the authority and responsibility to stop slaughterhouses from polluting our water," said Devon Hall, co-founder of the Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help based in eastern North Carolina. "If EPA doesn't do its job, who will?"
Updated pollution standards could lead to significant improvements in waterways across the country, especially in areas where slaughterhouses are concentrated. The most technologically advanced slaughterhouses already release far less pollution than the dirtiest plants, proving that improved technology exists. Under the Clean Water Act, EPA must ensure that all slaughterhouses adopt up-to-date and effective technology.
Quotes from participating organizations:
Humane Society of the United States Managing Attorney for Farm Animal Litigation, Peter Brandt, said: "Billions of animals - most raised in an industrialized system of cruel and extreme confinement - are killed each year at slaughterhouses whose discharges pollute waterways causing harm to aquatic and other wildlife. EPA needs to adequately limit these discharges to protect the environment and the animals and people in it."
Environment America Clean Water Program Director John Rumpler said: "Some of the world's largest meat companies are dumping huge volumes of pollution into America's rivers -- pollution that contributes to toxic algae and puts our drinking water at risk. Surely, it is not too much to ask that those who produce our food stop polluting our water."
Animal Legal Defense Fund Senior Attorney Cristina Stella said: "EPA cannot continue allowing the substantial pollution caused by processing animals at industrial facilities to go unchecked. Slaughterhouses need to be regulated as the industrial polluters that they are."
Food & Water Watch Senior Staff Attorney Tarah Heinzen said: "Unsurprisingly, the Trump EPA is continuing to prop up Big Ag by failing to hold meat companies accountable for the pollution from their slaughterhouses, which has been harming waterways and threatening public health across the country for far too long."
Center for Biological Diversity Senior Attorney Hannah Connor said: "The Trump administration's failure to stop meatpackers from using rivers and streams as sewers for their slaughterhouses is endangering public health and harming wildlife."
Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney Kelly Hunter Foster said: "EPA acknowledges that harmful algal blooms from uncontrolled nitrogen and phosphorus pollution are a major problem in all 50 states - a problem that can sicken or kill people exposed to extremely dangerous toxins, destroy fisheries, and decimate local economies. Slaughterhouses are a major source of this pollution; EPA must take action to protect the public from these dangerous discharges."
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) 683-2500Hegseth also scolded the US media for reporting negative news about the war and insisted that it wasn't a "quagmire."
President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war against Iran has led to energy prices surging across the globe while unleashing political instability across the Middle East.
However, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Thursday that the world needs to show Trump more gratitude for everything he's done.
Speaking at a press conference, Hegseth lambasted US allies who so far have not joined Trump's Iran war, which he launched early on a Saturday morning without any approval from the US Congress.
"The world, the Middle East, our ungrateful allies in Europe, even segments of our own press, should be saying one thing to President Trump: 'Thank you,'" Hegseth said. "Thank you for the courage to stop this terror state from holding the world hostage with missiles while building, or attempting to build, a nuclear bomb. Thank you for doing the work of the free world."
Hegseth: "Our ungrateful allies in Europe, even segments of our own press, should be saying one thing to President Trump -- 'Thank you. Thank you for the courage to stop this terror stage from holding the world hostage while building or attempting to build a nuclear bomb.'" pic.twitter.com/EpuPOUDd6I
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 19, 2026
US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified under oath before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been "obliterated" by US-led airstrikes that were launched last year, and that there "has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability" since then.
Former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent also said Iran had posed "no imminent threat" when he announced his resignation this week.
Despite those acknowledgments by high-level officials, elsewhere in the press conference, Hegseth attacked the US media for reporting negative news about the Iran war.
"The media here—not all of it, but much of it—wants you to think, just 19 days into this conflict, that we're somehow spinning toward an endless abyss or a forever war or a quagmire," claimed the one-time Fox News host. "Nothing could be further from the truth."
Hegseth: The media wants you to think that we're somehow spinning toward an endless abyss or a forever war or a quagmire. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hear it from me.
One of hundreds of thousands who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, who watched previous foolish… pic.twitter.com/qI3RpGzmy3
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 19, 2026
Hegseth then informed viewers that as "one of hundreds of thousands who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, who watched previous foolish politicians like [Presidents George W.] Bush, [Barack] Obama, and [Joe] Biden squander American credibility," he could credibly claim that "this is not those wars" because "President Trump knows better."
Hegseth also defended the Pentagon's request for $200 billion in funding for the war, telling reporters, "IT takes money to kill bad guys."
The Iran Health Ministry has estimated more than 1,200 Iranians have been killed in Israeli and US strikes since the war began in late February.
A recent analysis of opinion polls conducted by data analyst G. Elliott Morris found that the Iran war is the most unpopular military conflict launched by the US over the span of at least three decades.
“The big takeaway from these numbers is that the new war in Iran is very unpopular,” Morris explained. “Not merely negative-number-so-what unpopular, but worst-ever-support-for-war-when-it-started unpopular. With just 38% of Americans in favor, support for bombing Iran is lower than retrospective support for the war in Iraq was in 2014.”
"The so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Nearly every member of the House Republican caucus voted Wednesday in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that experts say would result in massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, nutrition assistance, and other key federal programs.
The proposed amendment, led by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), would effectively prohibit the federal government from deficit spending, with an exception for declared wars. The final House vote on the amendment was 211-207, well short of the two-thirds support required for passage of a constitutional amendment.
Every Republican who took part in Wednesday's vote backed the proposed amendment. Just one Democrat—Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas—joined the GOP in voting yes.
The vote came as congressional Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, continued to reject efforts to halt a war that is costing US taxpayers roughly $1 billion a day—a price tag that some in the GOP have openly embraced.
The vote also came less than a year after congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump approved a sprawling reconciliation package that delivered another round of tax cuts primarily to the richest Americans and large corporations, while enacting unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
Nonpartisan analysts have estimated that the GOP budget law would add more than $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
“American families don’t need a lecture on fiscal responsibility from the same politicians who just added $4 trillion to the debt with their so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’—one of the most expensive pieces of legislation in American history,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “When it comes to cutting taxes for billionaires, they have never had a problem blowing up the deficit. This amendment is nothing more than a show to cover up their hypocrisy on the debt.”
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said following Wednesday's vote that "the so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits."
"It would force drastic cuts to Medicare, Social Security, food assistance, veterans’ benefits, and other programs American families depend on," said Larson. "My Republican colleagues can say this amendment is about fiscal responsibility all they want, but the reality is that the budget they passed last year ballooned our deficit by $4 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and give ICE a slush fund larger than most nations' militaries."
"Not only would it effectively bar tax increases, but it would allow unlimited tax cuts, thus forcing huge, unacceptable program cuts. It should be roundly rejected."
Ahead of the amendment vote, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) warned that the amendment's passage and ratification by US states would "immediately devastate programs that are appropriated annually, such as housing assistance, education, and scientific and medical research."
"And eventually it would require cutting programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and food assistance," the think tank added. "Claims that these programs would ultimately be protected ring hollow, given their share of the budget. If policymakers decide to shield those programs from cuts, the amendment would require lawmakers to devastate the rest of the federal budget—including Medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance, education, scientific and medical research, farm aid, national parks, transportation, airport security, mine safety—since revenue increases would be so hard to achieve."
Under the proposed amendment, two-thirds support in each chamber of Congress would be required to approve any new tax or increase in the tax rate, hamstringing lawmakers' ability to raise revenue.
"Ultimately, meeting longstanding and broadly popular commitments to seniors’ retirement and healthcare, and managing the future risks associated with higher debt, will require substantially more revenue," said CBPP's Brendan Duke. "This constitutional amendment moves in the opposite direction. Not only would it effectively bar tax increases, but it would allow unlimited tax cuts, thus forcing huge, unacceptable program cuts. It should be roundly rejected."
Federal immigration agents are required to allow parents to "make alternative care arrangements" for their children before they're detained.
The Trump administration's directive to federal immigration agents on the detention and deportation of parents of minor children is clear: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents must accommodate a parent's "efforts to make alternative care arrangements for their minor child(ren) prior to detention."
But a report released Wednesday by the Women's Refugee Commission (WRC) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) reveals that many parents, including dozens whom the groups interviewed at deportee reception centers in Honduras, have been forced to quickly leave their children in the "informal care" of friends, relatives, or even babysitters—many of whom are also vulnerable to deportation under the Trump administration—leaving them in precarious situations while traumatizing both parents and children.
According to the recently deported parents the group's researchers interviewed—many of whom reported symptoms associated with psychological trauma, such as an inability to eat or sleep, physical pain, and "acute emotional distress" with "uncontrollable crying and visible panic"—ICE agents frequently did not follow the agency's own guidelines to ask anyone they arrest whether they have children and to give parents an opportunity to take their children with them.
"They didn’t ask me anything," said one 22-year-old mother of a two-year-old. "They didn’t talk to me, only to yell at me, to humiliate. They never said: ‘You have a daughter, you can bring her,’ because I would have brought [my daughter], she is very attached to me."
Some parents told the researchers they had been ignored when they told arresting officers that they had children. One mother had three of her children with her when she was detained outside a hospital where she had gone to a medical appointment, and her three other children were at home. She was "dismissed" when she told the officers about her other children, and the family was separated.
Parents told researchers about being forced to abruptly leave their children in precarious situations—or even entirely alone.
A father who was arrested after leaving his three-year-old daughter with a babysitter said he begged the federal agents to allow him to go inside and tell the caretaker what was happening; his wife had already been detained.
"They didn’t ask me anything. They didn’t talk to me, only to yell at me, to humiliate. They never said: ‘You have a daughter, you can bring her,’ because I would have brought [my daughter], she is very attached to me."
“They just kept yelling at me to get on the ground,” he told the researchers. “I tried to get away but they threw me to the ground and wouldn’t let me say anything. They beat me really badly.”
The babysitter stayed with the child for 11 days when the father didn't return home.
A mother whose husband had previously been deported was forced to leave her four children entirely alone until their grandmother could get to them from out-of-state.
Michele Heisler, a physician with PHR, told The Guardian Thursday that ICE's refusal to follow its own directives on detaining parents "is going to create a really high burden of mental health distress."
“For a toddler, they are left with a sense of abandonment that’s kind of imprinted,” she said. “It’s hard for all of us to understand why there is this gratuitous level of cruelty happening."
DHS has repeatedly claimed that it does not separate children from their parents despite numerous reports showing otherwise.
The Trump administration weakened its protections for families in its "Detained Parents Directive" last year, eliminating a guideline that stipulated ICE agents must take into consideration whether or not an individual is a parent or legal guardian when deciding whether to detain or deport them at all.
But agents are still required to allow parents to bring their children if they are deported, and to decide what happens to their children when they are detained or removed from the country.
WRC and PHR called on Congress to codify parental interest protections, including a right to reunification with their children before and after deportation. They also urged Congress to require ICE to coordinate with state child welfare agencies to facilitate reunification and to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to appoint a national coordinator on child welfare.
DHS appropriations bills must prevent "ICE, CBP, and other immigration agencies from using any appropriated funds for enforcement that violates laws or DHS policy pertaining to family separation, specifically the Detained Parents Directive."
Democrats in the Senate have vowed to block funding for ICE and other DHS agencies until the Trump administration agrees to immigration enforcement reforms, with the demands mainly relating to federal agents wearing masks during enforcement operations and entering private property without judicial warrants.
The report released Wednesday warned that the "scope and scale of these types of family separations is likely to worsen" as the impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—the law that provided $170 billion for immigration enforcement—are "fully realized" in the coming months.
WRC and PHR said they "aim to prevent further family separations and reunify separated families by documenting systemic violations of existing family unity policies, identifying reforms to protect children and parents, and working with receiving countries like Honduras to establish systems to ensure prompt reunification of separated families."