

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 press secretary, efitzgerald@earthjustice.org
This week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to update pollution rules for some of the most hazardous chemical manufacturers, including facilities that emit the potent carcinogen ethylene oxide. The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by seven community and advocacy groups in December of 2020. A federal court in D.C. this week entered a consent decree that binds EPA to begin this new rulemaking in 2022 and issue a new final rule no later than spring 2024.
EPA will update the rules for more than 200 facilities in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, or SOCMI, a category of plants that include some of the biggest known emitters of ethylene oxide, chloroprene, and other harmful air toxics. SOCMI plants are especially concentrated in Texas and Louisiana. They disproportionately affect Black, Latino, and low-income communities. Other states with SOCMI facilities include West Virginia, Illinois, and Ohio.
"We applaud EPA for finally committing to update air toxics standards for chemical and petrochemical plants and address the plants' unacceptable health risk, including from ethylene oxide emissions," said Kathleen Riley, Earthjustice attorney. "Communities living and working near these facilities have been waiting far too long for EPA action. They will accept nothing less than a strong, health-protective rule from an administration that has promised to address environmental justice."
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review and revise its emission standards "as necessary" at least every eight years, but EPA hasn't done so for SOCMI in over fifteen years. All while communities suffered from excess cancer-causing pollution. Communities urge EPA to include fenceline monitoring in the new rule and remove so-called malfunction loopholes that industry uses to circumvent pollution limits.
"We've been highlighting the dangers of petrochemical facilities like the proposed massive Formosa Plastics complex for years. It's important that EPA is finally recognizing the need to review and update the national rules for this type of toxic facility, that are far too weak and fail to protect public health," said Sharon Lavigne with RISE St. James. "This action is another reason why Formosa Plastics should not be allowed to go forward and should be stopped immediately. People in St. James are already ill and dying from pollution, and we will be urging EPA to issue robust new rules that protect our community's health once and for all."
In the spring 2021, the Office of Inspector General urged EPA to review and update the health risk and technology-based standards for plants that emit ethylene oxide or chloroprene. EPA has never evaluated the full health risks from SOCMI facilities, because the last rulemaking took place before EPA's 2016 finding that the cancer risk from ethylene oxide is much more severe than previously understood. EPA's health risk assessment approach is outdated and needs reform to follow science and advance environmental justice.
"Requiring EPA to comply with its statutory duties to review and update these standards in an important step for the health of fenceline communities, who must daily live with the toxic air spewed by petrochemical facilities in the Gulf and other parts of the country," said Patton Dycus, Senior Attorney with Environmental Integrity Project.
Communities need stronger air toxics rules, as industry groups have proposed massive new petrochemical complexes like Formosa Plastics in St. James Parish, Louisiana, to take advantage of current weak national rules.
"Significant air pollution reductions by EPA will improve the air quality for fenceline environmental justice communities living next to industrial chemical facilities," said Wilma Subra with Louisiana Environmental Action Network. "Long term exposure has brought dire health impacts to communities, which deserve to be able to breathe clean air. This is the case particularly for community members living in heavy industrial facility areas in Louisiana and Texas."
"Actions by EPA to reduce the significant air pollution being emitted into frontline Environmental Justice communities from the chemical manufacturing sector are long overdue," said Jane Williams, chair of the Sierra Club's National Clean Air Team. "Protecting frontline communities hosting these facilities is an essential part of any strategy to address environmental justice by the Biden-Harris Administration in any meaningful and direct way."
"For years communities in the Houston Ship Channel have faced unacceptable cumulative impacts to our health from these chemical plants' toxic air pollution, combined with other hazardous sources EPA has a responsibility to protect us from," said Juan Parras, with t.e.j.a.s. "It's a relief that EPA is finally recognizing the need to act on these standards. Now we're looking for EPA to follow through with strong new protections that end dangerous malfunction loopholes, include fenceline monitoring for toxic pollutants like ethylene oxide, and use the agency's full legal power under the Clean Air Act so we can finally breathe clean air."
This week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to update pollution rules for some of the most hazardous chemical manufacturers, including facilities that emit the potent carcinogen ethylene oxide. The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by seven community and advocacy groups in December of 2020. A federal court in D.C. this week entered a consent decree that binds EPA to begin this new rulemaking in 2022 and issue a new final rule no later than spring 2024.
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"Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing."
Elon Musk's vault to trillionaire status following the public debut of his rocket company SpaceX came on the heels of an analysis showing the devastating impact of his destruction of the US Agency for International Development on millions of people in countries facing or on the brink of famine.
The analysis, authored by Council on Foreign Relations expert and longtime aid worker Sam Vigersky, noted that Musk's targeting of USAID during his tenure as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) resulted in the transfer of the Food for Peace program to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), an agency "without international humanitarian or disaster-response expertise."
Vigersky found that the USDA this year chose just seven countries to receive American grain under the Food for Peace program: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, El Salvador, and Rwanda. The latter two countries, Vigersky noted, "do not meet an emergency threshold" for assistance.
"Meanwhile, the country facing the largest hunger crisis in the world—Sudan—did not make the list. Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing. In fact, more than 40% of Sudan’s community kitchens, a lifeline for the displaced, have closed in the past six months as funding dried up, according to Islamic Relief," Vigersky reported. "Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Yemen were also passed over. Millions of people in those countries live one step from famine, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the UN-backed monitoring system that uses a standardized five-point scale (five being famine) to measure the severity of food insecurity."
Experts assessing the global impact of USAID's decimation at the hands of billionaire US President Donald Trump and the world's first trillionaire, who bragged publicly about "feeding USAID into the wood chipper," estimate that hundreds of thousands of people have already died as a result of the large-scale loss of humanitarian assistance—and millions more will die in the coming years if swift action is not taken to restore aid.
"The impacts of the cuts were immediate and tragic," Nicholas Enrich, a former USAID employee who became a whistleblower, wrote in The Boston Globe on Friday. "Health clinics and emergency ambulance services shuttered overnight. Clinical trials were deserted. Thousands of healthcare workers lost their jobs. Lifesaving food and medicine was left to expire in warehouses. According to conservative estimates, in the year since USAID was dismantled, 750,000 people have died as a result of the cuts. For the first time in a generation, more children died in one year — 2025—than in the previous year."
Oxfam has estimated that a 10% tax on Musk's $1 trillion fortune would generate enough revenue to end extreme poverty worldwide for a year.
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."