

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.

Jaclyn Lopez, Center for Biological Diversity, (727) 490-9190, jlopez@biologicaldiversity.org
Matt Rota, Healthy Gulf, (504) 377-7840, matt@healthygulf.org
Glenn Compton, ManaSota-88, (941) 966-6256, manasota88@comcast.net
Chandra Rosenthal, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, (303) 898-0798, crosenthal@peer.org
Milton Cayette, RISE St. James, (225) 717-7171, miltoncayette@cox.net
Environmental, public health and union groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency today for approving the use of radioactive phosphogypsum in roads. The groups also petitioned the agency to reconsider its Oct. 20 approval.
The EPA has long prohibited use of phosphogypsum in roads because it contains uranium and radium that produce radionuclides linked to higher risks of cancer and genetic damage.
The agency ignored its own expert consultant, who found numerous scenarios that would expose the public -- particularly road-construction workers -- to a cancer risk the agency considers to be unacceptably dangerous.
Because the phosphogypsum is likely to be used in roads within 200 miles of phosphogypsum storage stacks, most of which in are Florida, the approval may also affect hundreds of protected plants and animals and their critical habitat.
"This shameless, political favor to the fertilizer industry will have devastating, long-term environmental and human health effects," said Jaclyn Lopez, Florida director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Americans should be outraged that the agency charged with protecting us from harm has greenlighted the construction of radioactive roads."
Since 1989 the EPA has required phosphogypsum to be stored in mountainous piles called "stacks," because if dispersed, the material would present an unreasonable public health threat from radon gas emissions that would continue for generations given their radioactive 1,600-year half-life.
The EPA has also found that phosphogypsum contains appreciable quantities of radium-226, uranium, uranium-238, uranium-234, thorium-230, radon-222, lead-210, polonium-210, chromium, arsenic, lead, cadmium, fluoride, zinc, antimony and copper.
Phosphate ore, mined largely in Florida, is transported to fertilizer plants for processing by chemically digesting the ore in sulfuric acid.
"This is a slap in the face to the Gulf communities and workers who will be most impacted by this decision," says Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of Healthy Gulf. "Building radioactive roads is about the dumbest idea I've heard of in my 30 years in the environmental protection field. We won't let this stand."
"The distribution of phosphogypsum will unnecessarily expose workers, the environment and the general public to otherwise avoidable radiation exposure. To allow the use of phosphogypsum as a construction material is the height of irresponsibility," said Glenn Compton, chair at ManaSota-88.
For every ton of phosphoric acid produced, the fertilizer industry creates five tons of radioactive phosphogypsum waste. The phosphogypsum must be stored in stacks, and the resulting radon gas emissions must be limited.
The majority of these stacks are in Florida, but can also be found in Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
"This about-face by EPA is a big gift to the fertilizer industry. EPA has completely ignored the science and bypassed public input," said Chandra Rosenthal, director of Rocky Mountain PEER. "Though the Southeast will bear the brunt of this egregious decision, Wyoming and Idaho are also threatened by this idiotic radioactive roads assault."
"Central Floridians will bear an especially heavy burden of the dispersion of phosphogypsum in roads which are subject to erosion, sinkholes, abandonment and lagging maintenance," said Brooks Armstrong, president at People for Protecting Peace River. "Gypstacks pose a troubling threat in our area, and we do not want the situation worsened by having this radioactive waste beneath our feet as well."
"We're not in favor of building roads out of radioactive material, there's enough pollution in the air, water and land," said Milton Cayette treasurer with RISE St. James. "We don't need any more radioactive waste to be dispersed in the environment."
"The Sierra Club has fought to limit the environmental and health impacts of phosphate mining in Florida for more than 35 years. The proposed action would reverse decades of important safeguards," said Craig Diamond, Sierra Club Florida executive committee chair.
In Florida there are 1 billion tons of radioactive phosphogypsum, and the fertilizer industry adds approximately 30 million tons each year.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has authorized an additional 100,000 acres of phosphate mining in Florida, with at least 95% of that phosphate ore to be processed into fertilizer.
Today's lawsuit was filed on behalf of Center for Biological Diversity, construction unions, Healthy Gulf, ManaSota-88, People for Protecting Peace River, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), RISE St. James, and Sierra Club and its Florida Chapter by attorneys with Earthjustice and Center for Biological Diversity.
PEER protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. We work with current and former federal, state, local, and tribal employees.
"We will keep holding Republicans accountable for raising prices on families and fighting to end Trump’s senseless trade war," said Rep. Suzan DelBene.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a resolution to overturn President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada, and Democratic lawmakers are vowing to keep the pressure on their Republican counterparts.
The House voted to roll back Trump's Canada tariffs by a margin of 219 in favor to 211 against, with six House Republicans crossing the aisle to back the measure. Among Democrats, only Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) voted in favor of keeping the tariffs in place.
According to Politico, the vote on ending Canadian tariffs was just the start of a number of votes House Democrats have planned aimed at rolling back the president's taxes on imported goods.
"Senior House Democrats plan to call up at least three more resolutions that will force many Republicans to choose between protecting their tariff-hit districts and pleasing their MAGA voter bases," Politico wrote, "not to mention their loyalties to a president who has, up until this week, not tolerated any House GOP dissent on the matter."
In an interview with Axios, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) said that he planned to push a resolution overturning Trump's tariffs on Mexican goods next.
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) released a statement celebrating the vote to repeal the Trump tariffs, while warning her Republican colleagues that there will be "no more hiding" on the issue.
"This is the first vote to restore congressional authority and repeal Trump’s tariffs," she said. "We will keep holding Republicans accountable for raising prices on families and fighting to end Trump’s senseless trade war. The Senate must now take up this measure."
In a video posted on social media, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) outlined the damage that Trump's tariffs have caused both to US consumers and international relations with longtime allies.
"Canada has been our close friend and ally for more than 200 years," Beyer explained. "Donald Trump promised to lower the cost of living, but his tariff regime is doing the exact opposite. These tariffs have done nothing but hurt the American people."
Trump's tariffs crushed our economy, raised prices, and alienated our allies.
Republicans passed rules preventing the House from voting to stop him.
We defeated that 'gag rule' last night, and now we're voting on ending Trump's tariffs on Canada.
Here's why I'm voting YES: pic.twitter.com/cwbOT2apKQ
— Rep. Don Beyer (@RepDonBeyer) February 11, 2026
Ontario Premiere Doug Ford hailed the vote to end the tariffs and expressed hope that it was the start of better relations between the US and Canada.
"Thank you to every member from both parties who stood up in support of free trade and economic growth between our two great countries," he wrote. "Let’s end the tariffs and together build a more prosperous and secure future."
Trump, however, has shown no signs of backing down and vowed to support primary challengers against any Republicans who joined with Democrats to roll back his tariffs.
"Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!" Trump wrote in a Wednesday Truth Social post.
"Innocent civilians will pay with their lives to force regime change," warned US Rep. Ilhan Omar.
US Rep. Ilhan Omar on Wednesday condemned the Trump administration's oil blockade against Cuba as part of an "economic war designed to suffocate an island" and force regime change, a longtime goal of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other right-wing American officials.
"The US oil blockade on Cuba is cruel and despotic," Omar (D-Minn.), the deputy chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in a social media post as fuel and food shortages and public health outcomes in Cuba continued to worsen due to the Trump administration's ramping up of the decades-long strangulation of the island nation's economy.
Omar, who visited Cuba along with other progressive lawmakers in 2024, warned that "innocent civilians will pay with their lives to force regime change," and called for the immediate lifting of the US blockade, which most of the international community views as illegal.
Omar's demand came after the Wall Street Journal reported that "children are being sent home from school early, people can barely afford basic food like milk and chicken, and long lines have sprung up at gas stations" as the Cuban people reel from the Trump administration's decision to deprive the country of oil from Venezuela—previously Cuba's largest supplier—and threaten economic retaliation against any nation that sends fuel to the Caribbean island.
"The last oil delivery to the country was a January 9 shipment from Mexico, which has since halted supplies under US pressure," the Journal noted. "President Trump’s executive order on January 29 called Cuba 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' and warned of new tariffs for any country that supplies oil to the island. The new measures go on top of a comprehensive set of US sanctions on Cuba that began in the early 1960s."
One Cuban, 36-year-old Raydén Decoro, told the Cuba-based Belly of the Beast that "the future is extremely uncertain, but something has to happen, somehow, because we’re the ones suffering the most."
"Electricity is impossible to get, food is getting more and more expensive," said Decoro. "Right now, fuel is only available in dollars, and inflation keeps rising."
Earlier this week, Omar joined other progressives in the US House in introducing a resolution calling for the annulment of the Monroe Doctrine, an assertion of US dominance of the Western Hemisphere that the Trump administration has openly embraced and expanded.
The resolution, led by Reps. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) and Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), calls for "the termination of all unilateral economic sanctions imposed through executive orders, and working with Congress to terminate all unilateral sanctions, such as the Cuba embargo, mandated by law."
“This administration's aggressive stance toward Latin America makes this resolution critical," said Velázquez. "Their 'Donroe Doctrine' is simply a more grotesque version of the interventionist policies that have failed us for two centuries."
“Reality doesn’t lie: Coal is a rapidly dwindling relic of the past, not a solution for the future," said one climate action advocate.
“The 19th century called, and it wants its fuel source back," said the president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council on Wednesday as President Donald Trump announced his latest attempt to prop up the pollution-causing, expensive coal industry with taxpayer funds—this time by ordering the Pentagon to purchase electricity directly from coal-fired power plants.
"While Americans are demanding clean, affordable energy, the Trump administration is using our tax dollars to prop up the nation’s dirtiest, least efficient power plants," said Manish Bapna of the NRDC.
At an event at the White House, Trump directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to sign long-term, taxpayer-funded contracts with coal plants that would likely have otherwise been retired in the coming years, to purchase energy to power military installations.
"Hard to think of a dumber 21st Century energy and security policy than Trump's insistence that the Pentagon buy more coal power," said the Military Emissions Gap, a UK-based project that monitors military emissions data.
Trump also announced $175 million from the Energy Department to upgrade six coal plants in Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia, and was presented with a trophy naming him the “Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal" by the Washington Coal Club.
The Trump administration's persistent efforts to cancel the planned closures of large coal plants have been challenged not only by more than a dozen state governments, but by the owners of at least one of the facilities and two utilities in Colorado.
The utilities, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and Platte River Power Authority, accused the administration of violating the Takings Clause of the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which states that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
They argued in a regulatory filing last month that “the costs of compliance fall directly on their members and customers, who must now pay."
Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program, told the Washington Post that the administration's decision to compel coal plants to continue operating has raised household "energy bills while providing negligible benefits to consumers.”
“Each of the five plants were slated to retire because they are expensive to operate and there are cheaper sources of power available to meet consumers’ needs,” Peskoe told the Post. “Plant owners aren’t just flipping a switch to turn the plants back on—they are spending millions on maintenance, renewing expired coal contracts and rehiring workers.”
“It’s no wonder fossil fuel lobbyists are handing Trump an award today. Trump asked them for campaign cash and promised to return the favor—and now he is."
Bapna said Trump's latest actions on coal were the result of the president's campaign promise to fossil fuel executives, whom he asked for $1 billion in campaign donations and pledged to gut climate regulations in return.
“It’s no wonder fossil fuel lobbyists are handing Trump an award today. Trump asked them for campaign cash and promised to return the favor—and now he is," said Bapna. "The rest of us are left to pay the price: more heart disease and asthma attacks, higher utility bills, and more frequent unnatural disasters. This is a raw deal for our wallets, our health, and our future.”
Julie McNamara, associate policy director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed out that Americans will face higher electricity bills and be forced to pay for the new Department of Defense contracts at a time when "people and businesses across the country are struggling with rapidly escalating electricity costs" while other countries around the world expand their use of far cheaper renewable energy sources.
"The country has real solutions at hand—yet instead of pushing ahead with investments in the fastest, cheapest, cleanest resources available, the Trump administration is actively doing everything it can to stop the deployment of new solar and wind projects, to stop investments in energy efficiency, and to stop the buildout of modern grid infrastructure," said McNamara.
“Reality doesn’t lie: Coal is a rapidly dwindling relic of the past, not a solution for the future," she added. "The Trump administration’s flailings come with real consequences. Forcing the use of increasingly unreliable and relentlessly uneconomic coal plants will risk outages and send high electricity costs higher. Recklessly slashing health, safety, and environmental standards will harm people’s health and the environment. And opting for hollow statements and short-term bailouts fails to meaningfully deliver for the coal-dependent communities requiring actual, durable transition solutions."
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, suggested that Trump's latest handouts to coal firms "ignores basic economics" while also proving that "coal can't compete without a taxpayer-funded bailout."
"Our military is one of the largest consumers of energy in the world," said Alt. "Instead of improving the efficiency of our military and the quality of life for those serving our country, this order saddles taxpayers with inflated energy costs while exposing millions of Americans to more toxic pollution from old, inefficient plants."