

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.

Kyla Bennett kbennett@peer.org
Laura Dumais ldumais@peer.org
“EJ” Employees’ Class Action Pursues Reassignment and Escape from Limbo
For the past two months, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency staff who had been assigned to work on environmental justice issues have been on paid administrative leave, with no agency access, and under orders not to conduct any official business. A legal complaint filed on their behalf by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) aims to reintegrate them into the EPA workforce with new assignments.
In one of his first flurries of Executive Orders this January, President Trump rescinded 30 years’ worth of executive actions directing EPA to address environmental justice concerns to reduce the disproportionate pollution burden on low-income and minority communities. Days later, EPA shut down its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights and placed nearly 170 employees on administrative leave. While some have been brought back, many others remain on paid leave more than two months later with no official guidance on what comes next for them.
In a complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel on behalf of all unassigned environmental justice staff, PEER argues they have been on administrative leave well beyond the statutory limit of no more than 10 days in any calendar year. In addition, the complaint contends the staff are being unfairly and illegally punished because of their prior legitimate assignments.
“EPA’s environmental justice staff has been consigned to internal exile through no fault of their own,” stated PEER Science Policy Director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with EPA. “EPA now treats environmental justice work as a stigma rather than valuable experience.”
Federal merit system principles state that employees cannot be discriminated against on the basis of extraneous issues which have no bearing on the job performance. Many of the environmental justice staff have backgrounds in engineering, public health, program management and specialties such as chemistry which have broad application within other EPA operations but are not allowed to do other work.
“Punishing whole classes of public servants on the basis of ideological bias is the opposite of what the merit system guarantees,” added PEER Staff Counsel Laura Dumais, who filed the complaint. “Each federal employee is entitled to individual consideration of their expertise and experience rather than the one-size-fits-all treatment here.”
###
Read the PEER complaint:
Cover Letter
Attachment 1
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.
"No matter how Republicans design their plan, their promise to take money out of the hands of big insurance companies and put it in the hands of patients will go unfulfilled."
US President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have made a show of criticizing insurance company greed as they stand firm against extending Affordable Care Act tax credits and offer ill-formed alternatives.
But a report published Wednesday by the office of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) explains how a scheme endorsed by Trump and some top Republicans would further enrich insurance giants and big banks.
The report focuses on growing GOP support for a proposal that would give Americans money in tax-advantaged vehicles such as health savings accounts (HSAs) to help cover out-of-pocket costs. Last week, Trump championed the idea in the Oval Office, characterizing the proposal as a way to "forget this Obamacare madness."
In a social media post on Tuesday, Trump railed against "BIG, FAT, RICH INSURANCE COMPANIES" and doubled down on the idea of funding health savings accounts instead of extending the enhanced ACA tax credits.
But Wyden's report argues that "no matter how Republicans design their plan, their promise to take money out of the hands of big insurance companies and put it in the hands of patients will go unfulfilled, because the very arrangements they tout are administered by large financial institutions and the same big insurance companies."
The report notes that Optum Bank, a subsidiary of the corporate behemoth UnitedHealth Group, is one of the nation's largest administrators of HSAs and would be well-positioned to profit from the Republican plan.
"The numerous fees OptumBank charges, including a $20 Outbound Transfer Fee, a several-dollar monthly account maintenance fee, and a $2.50 ATM Transaction fee, flow directly out of consumers’ and patients’ pockets and into the coffers of the nation's largest health insurer," the report observes. "Even a fraction of these revenues adds up to massive profits."
"While some big insurance companies own HSA providers directly, others partner with large financial institutions to operate similar arrangements. Centene, for example, partners with Fidelity; Anthem partners with Bank of America," the report continues. "The common theme across these arrangements is massive profits for financial institutions and big insurance companies."
Wyden's report came as congressional Republicans worked to translate Trump's all-caps social media ramblings into coherent policy. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over healthcare, is leading the effort as tens of millions of people brace for massive premium increases stemming from Republicans' refusal to extend enhanced ACA subsidies.
Cassidy has explained to reporters that the emerging GOP plan would entail Americans using existing ACA tax credits—not the enhanced subsidies that are set to lapse at the end of the year—to purchase high-deductible "bronze" plans on the insurance marketplace.
HSA funding from the federal government would then help enrollees cover out-of-pocket costs (HSA funds generally cannot be used to cover monthly premiums). Under the recently enacted Trump-GOP budget law, tax-advantaged HSAs are now available to everyone who buys a bronze plan on the ACA marketplace.
The average deductible for a bronze plan is $7,476 in 2026.
"Half-baked ideas that put more taxpayer dollars into health tax accounts will enrich big banks and insurance companies while saddling Americans with high premiums and deductibles," Wyden said in a statement on Wednesday. "Sending a few thousand dollars to Americans isn’t going to do them much good when they face a giant medical bill for a serious health diagnosis or even routine but expensive care, like giving birth in a hospital."
In a Fox News appearance on Wednesday, Cassidy likened his vision of an ideal health insurance marketplace to bargain-hunting for shampoo.
"By giving the patient the money herself... she becomes a wiser consumer," said Cassidy. "If she goes and gets two types of shampoo and one's a dollar cheaper, she'll get the cheaper one and the other one lowers their price."
Cassidy: "By giving the patient the money herself, she becomes a wiser consumer. If she goes and gets 2 types of shampoo and one is a dollar cheaper, she'll get the cheaper one and the other one lowers their price. One you give her the power of making the decision, she's gonna… pic.twitter.com/52u7IMJkFk
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 19, 2025
Ryan Cooper, managing editor of The American Prospect, wrote in response to the GOP healthcare scramble that "the stupidity is the point."
"For decades now, the Republican Party has been dedicated to the proposition that rich people are too highly taxed and the working and middle classes get too many benefits from the government. With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, they have finally caught the car," Cooper wrote Tuesday. "Medicaid and Obamacare have been slashed to free up budget headroom for tax cuts heavily slanted to the wealthy."
"Republicans don’t have a 'healthcare plan' per se because this is their plan: to take your healthcare funding and give it to Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and the rest of the fascist billionaire class," he added.
Lobbyists working to pass Pharma-backed legislation currently outnumber lobbyists working to oppose it by more than 20-to-1, estimates Public Citizen.
Government watchdog Public Citizen is warning that the pharmaceutical industry is preparing an all-out blitz aimed at sabotaging government efforts to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs.
In a report released on Wednesday, Public Citizen said it found that the major pharmaceutical companies this year have hired more than 500 lobbyists to push for the passage of three pieces of legislation that would undermine the provisions allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices contained in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
The first piece, called the ORPHAN Cures Act, was passed by Congress in July after being stuffed into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. According to Public Citizen, the law will "delay and exempt some of the most profitable drugs—including cancer treatments—from negotiations, representing tens of billions in annual Medicare spending."
The other two pieces of legislation—the EPIC Act and the MINI Act—have not yet been passed, and Public Citizen says that they "would lengthen the already long delay period before small molecule drugs are eligible for negotiation—effectively excluding many medicines from negotiations entirely or shortening the period patients have access to lower negotiated prices to only one or two years."
Public Citizen estimates that there are currently 501 lobbyists who are pushing to pass these laws, while just 24 lobbyists are working to block their passage. In total, notes Public Citizen, this means opponents of the legislation are outnumbered by a ratio of more than 20-to-1.
Steve Knievel, Public Citizen's access to medicines advocate, called on elected representatives to "reject the demands of pharma lobbyists and instead work to make prescription drugs more affordable" for their constituents.
"Instead of handing drug corporations billions of dollars by helping them evade price negotiations," Knievel said, "Congress should pass legislation to empower Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices on all costly medicines and allow all patients to access lower, negotiated prices, even if they don’t have Medicare."
"If lawmakers are serious about AI governance, they must create strong, enforceable national protections as a regulatory floor—not wipe out state laws so Big Tech can operate without consequence," said one consumer advocate.
A Republican push to stop state legislatures from regulating artificial intelligence, including chatbots that have been found to pose harm to children, resoundingly failed over the summer, with 99 out of 100 senators voting against the provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—but the previous rejection of the idea isn't stopping President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers from trying again to impose a moratorium.
On Tuesday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that House Republicans should take action against "overregulation by the States" in the AI field.
Claiming that "DEI ideology" in AI models in some states will "undermine this Major Growth 'Engine'" and that "Investment in AI is helping to make the U.S. Economy the 'HOTTEST' in the World"—despite tech industry leaders' warnings that the value of AI investments may have been wildly overestimated and the bubble may be on the cusp of bursting—Trump called on Republicans to include the state regulations ban in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "or pass a separate Bill."
Also on Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told Punchbowl News that the GOP is considering adding language to the NDAA that would effectively ban state AI regulations, which have been passed in both Democratic- and Republican-led states. Those laws would be nullified if Republicans follow through with the plan.
Since the annual defense spending bill is considered a must-pass package by many lawmakers, inserting amendments related to other legislative goals is a common strategy used in Congress.
Trump previously tried to circumvent Congress' rejection of the moratorium in July, when he announced his AI Action Plan.
Emphasizing that the anti-regulatory effort has been rejected by "an alliance of Democrats, Republicans, social conservatives, parents rights groups, medical professionals, and child online protection groups," the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen on Tuesday called Trump's renewal of the push "highly inappropriate" and said it "would risk stripping away vital civil rights, consumer protection, and safety authority from states without putting any federal guardrails in place."
JB Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate at Public Citizen, said that "AI preemption strips away the safeguards states have enacted to address the very real harms of AI."
"Big Tech and its allies have spent months trying to ban states from protecting their own residents, all while refusing to support any meaningful federal AI safeguards," said Branch. "Congress should reject this maneuver outright. If lawmakers are serious about AI governance, they must create strong, enforceable national protections as a regulatory floor—not wipe out state laws so Big Tech can operate without consequence.”
On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing on "AI Chatbot Advantages and Disadvantages," where one witness, psychologist Marlynn Wei, warned that "AI chatbots endorse users 50% more than humans would on ill-advised behaviors."
In September, several grieving parents testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that their children had died by suicide after being encouraged to take their own lives by AI chatbots.
At Tuesday's hearing, Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said that "Congress must be sure to allow states to put in place safeguards that protect their residents."
"There is no reason for Congress to stop states from regulating the harms of AI when Congress has not yet passed a similar law," he said.
Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) also addressed the issue, suggesting it was surprising that the Republican members would bother holding a hearing on the harms of AI when they are planning to strip state lawmakers of their ability to protect their constituents from those harms.
"I'm having real difficulty in reconciling this hearing and all that we've heard about the risks of AI chatbots, especially to our children, with the attempt by the House Republican leadership to ban state-level AI regulations," said Trahan. "Republicans' push for this regressive, unconstitutional, and widely condemned AI policy is real and it's unrelenting."
👀MUST WATCH: @RepLoriTrahan takes down House GOP’s efforts to slip the disastrous AI preemption into the NDAA — wiping out state laws that protect kids, seniors, and veterans. It’s a big handout for Big Tech. pic.twitter.com/8NxdkcDgul
— The Tech Oversight Project (@Tech_Oversight) November 18, 2025
"Let's just say in public what you are pushing in private," she added. "Don't be holding these hearings about the risks of AI chatbots while behind closed doors you kneecap state legislatures from protecting their constituents. I mean, if the AI moratorium is the topic in the speaker's office let's make it so in this hearing room, because the American people deserve to know where you truly stand on AI regulation."