

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.

Margie Kelly: mkelly@nrdc.org
Actions Follow Unprecedented Rollbacks of Environmental Protections
Growing concerns that microplastics – tiny plastic particles found in human bodies and the environment – are toxic to human health led the EPA today to identify microplastics as a contaminant of concern in drinking water for the first time. Toxic PFAS and pharmaceuticals were also identified as priority contaminants. Yet, just two weeks ago, EPA announced that it will not issue health standards for any of the drinking water contaminants on its official list.
The following are reactions from NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) experts:
“There is good reason to be concerned about toxic PFAS and microplastics in drinking water, but the EPA’s actions speak louder than its words. The Trump EPA is trying to scrap key PFAS standards and just two weeks ago said it wouldn't issue any new protections for toxins in drinking water. So, which is it?
"Just dumping a load of new pollutants into the purgatory of EPA’s long list of dangerous chemicals in drinking water without issuing new standards will do nothing to remove toxic chemicals from the tap water in millions of Americans’ kitchen sinks,” said Erik D. Olson, Senior Strategic Director of Health.
“The only real way to limit harm to human health and the environment from microplastics is to reduce plastic use and production. Every piece of plastic on the planet today will break down into microplastics. Hoping for some kind of technological fix, while more plastic makes it into our blood and brains, will give a green light to ongoing contamination of generations of people.
“Consider the example of lead. Trying to get lead out of kids’ bodies doesn’t work. The right health solution was to remove lead from paint, and gas, and to replace lead water pipes, to avoid exposure before the damage is done. We need to curb our dependence on plastics before they do more damage to our bodies and the world around us.” said Renee Sharp, Director of Plastics and Petrochemical Advocacy.
Background on Microplastics:
Microplastics are everywhere in our environment. These tiny and sometimes microscopic particles of plastic are present in our air, water, soil, and food; in lakes, rivers, and oceans; even at the top of Mount Everest. Microplastics are also in our bodies, with scientists finding them everywhere from the human heart and brain to testes and placentas. There is a growing concern that microplastics could be harming ecological and human health, in particular digestive, reproductive, and respiratory systems.
There is a growing and highly concerning body of scientific evidence that microplastics are toxic to human health. These microscopic particles of plastic and chemicals have been found in human blood, testicles, and major organs. One study found that a plastic spoon’s worth of microplastics could be present in the human brain.
The plastic industry is aggressively expanding its footprint, even as the harms associated with microplastics come into focus. Annual production of plastic continues to grow exponentially and is expected to nearly triple over the next four decades. The growing use of plastics means microplastics and the thousands of chemicals associated with them will continue to be released into the environment.
Resources:
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700"You can't just redefine how you calculate percentages," said one mathematician in response to Kennedy's claims.
US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday tried to defend President Donald Trump's mathematically absurd claims about prescription drug prices by saying the president has his own unique method of calculating percentages.
During a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) grilled Kennedy about the president's repeated false claims that he has slashed the prices of prescription drugs by as much as 600%, which would mean that pharmaceutical companies are paying consumers to take their medications.
"President Trump has his own way of calculating," Kennedy replied. "There's two ways of calculating percentages. If you have a $600 drug, and you reduce it to $10, that's a 600% reduction."
RFK Jr: "President Trump has a different way of calculating percentages. If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that's a 600% reduction." pic.twitter.com/MjDNADqc8p
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 22, 2026
In fact, such a drop in price would represent a 98.3% reduction, less than one-sixth the size of the president's claims. A 600% reduction in the price of a $600 drug would mean that drug manufacturer paid consumers $3,000 every time they picked up their prescription.
Kit Yates, a mathematician at the University of Bath, marveled at Kennedy's attempts to create an alternate version of arithmetic.
"We've known for a while that the USA's current regime have been out for science, but I never thought they would try to mess with math!" Yates wrote in a social media post. "You can't just redefine how you calculate percentages."
In addition to exposing Kennedy's apparent ignorance of elementary mathematics, Warren shined a light on how the TrumpRx website misleads consumers into thinking they're being offered bargains on prescription drugs that are available elsewhere in generic varieties.
In once instance, Warren noted that TrumpRx is selling a brand-name heartburn medication for $200, whereas a generic version of the same drug is available at Costco for $16. Warren also highlighted a heart arrhythmia drug for sale on TrumpRx for $336, even though a generic version of the drug is available at Costco for $12.
Warren added that, in exchange for making select brand-name drugs available on the TrumpRx website, pharmaceutical companies have gotten exemptions from the president's 100% tariffs on imported patented medicines.
"Think about that: Big Pharma makes billions of dollars in tariff relief by listing their drugs on TrumpRx, and then they don't even lower the costs on many of these drugs," she said. "That is a great deal for Big Pharma."
Warren's analysis of TrumpRx's pricing scheme echoes a March report from the Center for American Progress (CAP), which found that the president's prescription drug website offered genuinely lower prices on “exactly one” of the 54 medications listed.
CAP also found that nearly one-third of the drugs available on the TrumpRx website have generic alternatives that were cheaper than what was being offered, and that the website made no mention of this.
Reuters reported in December that at least 350 branded medications are set for price hikes in 2026, including “vaccines against Covid, RSV, and shingles,” as well as the “blockbuster cancer treatment Ibrance.”
Later in the Senate Finance Committee hearing, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ridiculed Kennedy for claiming that, under Trump's leadership, "the American people are now paying the lowest costs in the world rather than the highest for prescription drugs."
"That is an absurd statement," Sanders said. "Nobody in the world believes that."
"I'm the billionaire who wants to tax people like me more. I'm the billionaire who's willing to stand up to the monopolies and the people who are ripping off Californians."
In a California gubernatorial race characterized by a lack of clear progressive choices and the specter of an all-Republican general election under the state's so-called "jungle primary," a hedge fund billionaire who believes that plutocrats like himself should pay more taxes is gaining progressive support.
On Tuesday, Farallon Capital founder Tom Steyer was endorsed by Our Revolution, the progressive political action group launched as a continuation of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) kneecapped 2016 presidential campaign.
Our Rev said that Steyer "has stepped forward with a platform that is clearly aligned with the priorities of our movement—single-payer healthcare, taxing extreme wealth, bold climate action, and getting money out of politics."
Steyer was interviewed Tuesday by The Lever's David Sirota, who asked about Our Revolution's support for a plebiscite to "tax billionaires like yourself," and how he squares "being the progressive movement's choice in this race while being one of the people who there's a ballot initiative to tax more."
The California Billionaire Tax would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on people worth $1 billion or more, to be paid in annual installments of 1% over five years. According to Forbes, Steyer is currently worth $2.4 billion.
"Well, David, I think people like me who are billionaires should pay more taxes," Steyer said.
"I'm the billionaire who wants to tax people like me more," Steyer added. "I'm the billionaire who's willing to stand up to the monopolies and the people who are ripping off Californians. I've done it for 15 years and I'll keep doing it."
That message has been echoed in one of Steyer's campaign ads, in which he asserts that "it's time for billionaires like me and big corporations to buy into the future of California and be willing to pay more."
Steyer continues:
A lot of people in California are acting as if we have a zero-sum game and they're defending their wealth and they're trying to make sure that they minimize their taxes. I am not scared about paying more money. Working Californians are being priced out of this state. It is not okay. We are creating more than enough money in this state for us all to succeed together without anybody suffering... [I] think that everybody who succeeded in this state owes a huge debt to the people who built this state and the working people who make this state run and work their asses off.
"We need to change our tax system," Steyer concludes in the ad. "We need more revenue. We need to be fair and I pledge to do all of those things. This is not rocket science."
In addition to his stance on taxation, Steyer has gained progressive support by funding climate initiatives, opposing the Trump administration's deadly anti-immigrant crackdown, and pouring more than $120 million into efforts to impeach President Donald Trump and in support of Proposition 50, the successful state ballot measure to redraw the state's congressional map in retaliation for Trump-backed Republican gerrymandering in Texas. He is also a prolific philanthropist.
On the flip side, the fact that Steyer is a hedge fund billionaire whose heavily self-funded campaign is the opposite of grassroots continues to fuel skepticism among progressives, many of whom view the mere existence of billionaires as an abject public policy failure. Steyer also came under fire over the revelation that his portfolio had been invested in private prison stocks decades ago.
Steyer said during his interview with Sirota that he doesn't agree with the assertion that billionaires are a public policy failure.
"I think that phrase obviously goes back to Karl Marx," he said. "And I believe if someone wants to come to California who has an idea to change the world and forms a company around it and it does really well and as a result they make a lot of money, that's fine with me."
With a dearth of progressives to choose from, more and more left-leaning groups and individuals are throwing their support behind Steyer. These include Courage California, Third Act, the California Teachers Association and other labor groups, and state lawmakers including Assemblymen Ash Kalra (D-25) and Alex Lee (D-24).
Some progressives are reluctantly backing Steyer due to the very real possibility of an all-Republican general election under California's open primary—in which the top two vote-getters advance, regardless of party. The "jungle primary" is set for June 2.
The latest weighted polling shows Trump-backed Fox News host Steve Hilton leading the race with 16% support, followed closely by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco at 14%. Those Republicans are trailed by Steyer (13%) and other Democrats: former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (13%), former Congresswoman Katie Porter (10%), and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan—the top choice of numerous Big Tech billionaires—at 5%.
Erstwhile Democratic frontrunner and now former Congressman Eric Swalwell suspended his race for governor and quit Congress earlier this month amid mounting allegations of rape and other sex crimes that he has denied.
"We like to frame our wars as virtuous, but they are not," says Ben Rhodes.
Ben Rhodes, who served deputy national security advisor under former US President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2017, has done a fair number of mea culpas in the years since he left government service. But a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday punctuates with a fresh admission: "We like to frame our wars as virtuous, but they are not."
Rhodes comes to this statement circuitously as he writes about recent time spent with Graham Platner, the US Army and Marine veteran who served tours in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as an infantryman who is now running as a Democrat for the US Senate in Maine to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
Platner, who has recently opened up a double-digit lead against his primary rival, two-time Maine Gov. Janet Mills, has been an outspoken anti-war voice since putting his hat in the ring for elected office and Rhodes, who cut his teeth defending the forever wars during the Obama years, says Democratic Party leaders—and voters wherever they are—would be wise to listen to what he has to say.
"The forever war has been destroying America from within, like an organism that must keep growing to survive, filling us with fear of outsiders and contempt for one another," writes Rhodes.
Most Democrats, observes Rhodes, don't talk about war the way Platner does, and that's not just a feature of his wartime experience compared to those in positions of power or paid to pontificate for think tanks or on the corporate news networks.
After traveling around with Platner on the campaign trail in Maine, Rhodes concludes that "Americans must change their relationship to war itself."
"One reason we have a hard time reckoning with the forever war is that it undermines our own story," he continues. "We like to think of America as a force for good, acting out of enlightened self-interest, our military fighting for freedom around the globe. Is that really what’s been happening?"
In their conversation, Platner explained that "most people get it," suggesting those who live and work in the real world, outside of DC or within media echo chambers, understand the costs of the nation's endless wars. “Do you think this country should spend more on schools and hospitals and less on bombs?" asked Platner rhetorically. "A lot of people are like, yeah, that’s pretty obvious.”
When Platner had his epiphany that the wars he fought in Iraq and Afghanistan were a mistake, Rhodes said he, still working for the White House in those years, was exactly the kind of person the soldier was thinking of when he said that the "people running the war didn’t even seem to know the point of the war," calling it "a self-licking ice cream cone" that could not admit its failures.
"Listening to [Platner] talk, I knew intuitively what he was saying," writes Rhodes. "I would have been one of those people back in 2011, believing that what we were doing was helping Afghans."
For someone so enmeshed in the politics of US war-making and defending the foreign policy of past US governments from criticism, Rhodes confesses the pitfalls of American exceptionalism and where it can lead. And again, he quotes Platner:
We are so broken emotionally when it comes to our politics that we’ve literally created this story that it’s inherent in being a competent political leader to kill civilians. If you’re not willing to do some hard things and drop some bombs, then you’re not up to the task of power. I think it’s the opposite. You’re not up to the task of being in power if you do not think about the cost of violence. If that’s not at the front of your mind, then I don’t think you are morally in the right place to be in positions of power.
Such an argument directly implicates not just past presidents, but certainly US President Donald Trump, currently waging a new war of choice against Iran, as well as his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who openly celebrates the killing prowess ("lethality") of the US military while characterizing the laws of war as impediments.
Contextualizing why he has come to conclude that contemporary US wars lack virtue, Rhodes writes that the conflicts we have been waging abroad for most of this century have also done tremendous and lasting damage here at home. "They resemble," writes Rhodes, "a declining empire sowing chaos along its periphery as a matter of strategy: Economic and political elites profit while the Americans who fight suffer along with the places they attack."
As Platner told Rhodes, such admissions must be spoken about publicly in order for them to lead to meaningful change in the country. And voices like Platner's, argues Rhodes, must be listened to because the "visceral and moral reckoning he advocates is the only way to truly dismantle the forever war, change our priorities and detoxify our country."
"To save ourselves, we must stop this cycle of violence," Rhodes concludes. "We must find meaning not in our capacity to kill or control others, but in each other."