

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.

The Biden Environmental Protection Agency today prohibited all uses of the toxic solvent trichloroethylene, or TCE. The rule is a crucial victory in efforts to tackle health harms, like cancer, that TCE exposure can cause.
The agency also banned all consumer uses of the chemical perchloroethylene, or perc, which is used for dry cleaning and automotive care products. Perc has been linked to health harms, including damage to the kidneys, liver and the immune system.
“U.S. communities large and small have tap water with potentially harmful levels of TCE, and they may not be aware of this risk,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group.
TCE is a volatile organic compound primarily used in commercial and industrial processes, including as a solvent for industrial cleaning and degreasing. More than 80 percent of TCE is used to manufacture refrigerants. The widespread industrial use of TCE has resulted in significant environmental releases, contaminating drinking water supplies.
“People can be exposed to this toxic solvent at home not just by drinking TCE-contaminated water but also by inhaling it when bathing and washing dishes. The EPA’s final rule will help to finally end most uses of this dangerous chemical,” added Stoiber.
In addition to being linked to cancer, TCE can cause developmental and reproductive harms. These risks are particularly high for workers in settings where the chemical is used. But people can be exposed at TCE-contaminated sites, as well as through drinking water and other water uses at home.
TCE contamination is a problem affecting community water systems serving at least 19 million people across the U.S., EWG has found.
“The Biden EPA should be applauded for taking another important step forward in protecting the health of workers and consumers from the risks of TCE,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs.
In 2023, the agency released its proposed version of the ban and invited public feedback on it. In July the EPA then sent the final version of the rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for mandatory pre-publication review. Completing this review cleared the way for the final rule.
TCE’s toxic history
TCE has a notorious reputation and an infamous history. Many people learned about the risks of exposure to this chemical following the release of the 1995 blockbuster book and film “A Civil Action,” starring John Travolta. Together they tell the true story of a legal fight over companies contaminating an aquifer with TCE, harming the health of people living nearby.
The chemical is found in air, groundwater and soil near industrial facilities, hazardous waste sites and other locations where it was once used. People are exposed to TCE by breathing in its vapors or skin contact with it or with contaminated soil or water.
Americans concerned about the possibility of the chemical in their own drinking water can review EWG’s interactive map of TCE contamination, which is based on data from state drinking water agencies’ water system tests between 2017 and 2019. Or they can simply enter their ZIP code in EWG’s Tap Water Database.
People with TCE-contaminated drinking water can use a carbon-based filter to eliminate it, but costs vary, and some homes may need an expensive whole-house filter. Households relying on private well water should consider testing the water for contaminants to see whether it must be treated.
“Filtering water can often be a way for concerned families to reduce or remove TCE in their drinking water,” said Stoiber. “But people should not have to take on the costs of addressing years of pollution caused by industry.”
Pregnant people, infants and young children are among those most at risk from the dangers of TCE, especially decreased immune function. But the chemical has harmed people throughout the U.S., including servicemembers and their families who drank contaminated water at the military bases where they lived and worked. Former Marines have seen family members battle cancer – in some cases fatal – due to TCE exposure.
Camp Lejeune crisis
One of the worst TCE contamination cases on record in the U.S. is at North Carolina’s Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. The solvent, and other chemicals, contaminated the base’s drinking water for decades, increasing cancer risks for civilian and military personnel. The pollution wrecked lives with health harms and even deaths.
Retired Marine Corps Master Sgt. Jerry Ensminger, who was stationed for many years at the base, lost his daughter Janey, in 1985, at the age of nine from leukemia after she was exposed to toxic chemicals while living there.
Ensminger since then has been an outspoken critic of the federal government’s slow response to contamination of drinking water sources with industrial chemicals, including TCE and the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS.
His campaigning resulted in Congress passing the Janey Ensminger Act, which former President Barack Obama signed in 2012. The law offers affected veterans and family members extended health care and medical services for disorders that may have been caused by exposure to toxic chemicals in Camp Lejeune drinking water.
Mike Partain, a son and grandson of Marine officers, was born at Camp Lejeune. He was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007 at the age of 39. Along with Ensminger, he has for years strongly criticized the federal government’s response to the TCE crisis at the base. He has also condemned its inadequate support for servicemembers and their families harmed by exposure to the chemical and other substances throughout the U.S.
In a statement, Ensminger said, “Mike and I welcome this ban on TCE by the EPA. This is proof that our fight for justice at Camp Lejeune was not in vain.”
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982"The Bandero delivered a gentle but deliberate nudge to the stern of the Antarctic Sea, accompanied by a message: Stop despoiling the ecological integrity of the Southern Ocean," said activists aboard the ship.
An ocean conservation ship operated by anti-whaling campaigner Paul Watson collided Tuesday with a commercial krill trawler off Antarctica in what the fishing vessel's owner described as a "deliberate attack," but activists called "a David-and-Goliath battle against an industrial giant."
The Captain Paul Watson Foundation (CPWF) said on Facebook that, as part of its Operation Krill Wars campaign, the Bandero is currently targeting "two of the largest Norwegian trawlers operating in Antarctic waters, the Antarctic Endurance and the Antarctic Sea,"—both of which are owned by Aker QRILL Company of Lysaker, Norway.
"Earlier today, both trawlers released lines into the water to move the Bandero, a dangerous maneuver that could have disabled our ship," the foundation alleged. "In response, the Bandero delivered a gentle but deliberate nudge to the stern of the Antarctic Sea, accompanied by a message: Stop despoiling the ecological integrity of the Southern Ocean."
Aker QRILL is owned by New York City-based American Industrial Partners and Norwegian billionaire Kjell Inge Røkke, and calls itself "the world's leading krill company."
Company CEO Webjørn Barstad responded to the incident by claiming in an interview with Reuters that "our crew were put at risk in some of the most remote waters on Earth, and only luck avoided potential environmental damage."
"If the steel plates... had ruptured, it could have caused a spill," Barstad added. "It was probably just luck that it didn't cause more damage."
CPWF scoffed at the company's claims of danger, saying on Facebook that "I understand your need to play the victim while you scoop life from the sea."
As the Operation Krill Wars campaign explains:
Krill is the keystone species of the ecosystem in Antarctica. The majority of Antarctic species are reliant on krill as their primary food source or krilI is the the food source of their prey. From the great whales down to the penguins, seals, and seabirds, all rely on an abundance of krill to survive.
Currently the quota set by the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is 620,000 tons which is said to represent 1% of the total biomass of krill. However the fishing of krill is in concentrated areas, meaning that the likelihood of ecological collapse in those areas is far more likely.
After the near extinction of several large whale species in the 19th and 20th centuries, conservation efforts in the later half of the 20th century and 21st century have seen whale populations recovering. Though not back to their pre-commercial whaling numbers, this increase in whale populations obviously requires a greater amount of krill for food. Yet what we are seeing is a greater extraction of krill by human commercial enterprises.
“If the ocean dies, we die,” Paul Watson said in a statement. “Krill are the blood of the sea. Without them, the whales, penguins, fish, and birds will starve, and the ocean will fall silent.”
Watson is best known as the co-founder of Greenpeace and, later, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. He has dedicated his life to defending marine wildlife—especially mammals like whales—from harm. A controversial figure, Watson was arrested and jailed in Greenland in 2024 on an international warrant issued by Japan over his anti-whaling activism. However, he was freed after Denmark—which controls Greenland's foreign affairs—refused Japan's extradition request.
CPWF said that the issue of ocean exploitation must be "confronted legally and brought to global attention."
"We are here in the Southern Ocean to oppose a crime against nature and humanity—aggressively, but nonviolently," the group said Wednesday. "We welcome the opportunity to defend our actions in court and expose the true cost of krill fishing to the world."
The Bob Brown Foundation, an Australian green group, defended CPWF in a statement Wednesday calling "for the complete end to krill fishing in Antarctica."
"The krill fishing industry is fully aware of the damage they cause, such as killing whales in their nets, yet they do all they can to greenwash krill products," said Bob Brown Foundation Antarctic and marine campaigner Alistair Allan. "We applaud the brave actions of the Captain Paul Watson Foundation, who are ensuring that the plunder of krill does not go unchallenged.”
“Krill is violently sucked out of Antarctica’s fragile wilderness all for products we don’t need, such as fish farm feed, pet food, and supposed health products," Allan added. "It’s time for the world to boycott all products with krill in them."
"Even though the US has no ancient empire, it now claims to represent the 'West' and uses European history to justify its brutal military aggression on the Iranian nation," said a spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry.
As President Donald Trump and his allies invoke the conquests of ancient empires to justify waging war across the Middle East, a leading Iranian diplomat says they have adopted a "fascist mindset."
"Even though the US has no ancient empire, it now claims to represent the 'West' and uses European history to justify its brutal military aggression on the Iranian nation," wrote Esmaeil Baqaei, the spokesperson for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a post to social media Tuesday.
The regional war launched at the end of February by the US and Israel has entailed numerous attacks on civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, residential areas, and water and energy facilities in Iran and Lebanon.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) said on Tuesday that at least 1,598 civilians have been killed in Iran, including 244 children. The Lebanese Health Ministry said on Wednesday that at least 1,318 people had been killed since Israel began its assault on Lebanon, including 125 children.
As Baqaei pointed out, multiple figures in Trump's orbit have justified the carnage by portraying the war as an existential conflict of civilizations.
He referenced a comment made by former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, who is now one of MAGA World's most popular podcasters.
In a recent episode of Bannon's War Room show, he called for "total war" against Iran and said the US was "gonna go back and redo what Alexander the Great did 2,300 years ago."
STEVE BANNON: If we're gonna go to war, let's go to total war. And what I mean by total war, let's shut down everybody trading with them. Let's go to UAE and say, hey, you’ve got like two hours to go to Dubai and shut it all down. The Pirate Cove in Dubai. Gotta stop. We gotta… pic.twitter.com/t4xDqSmCS5
— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) March 28, 2026
Bannon was referring to the Macedonian general's famous invasion of Persia in 330 BCE. Alexander's conquest, which led to the absorption of Persia, was carried out with historic brutality—from the mass killing, displacement, and enslavement of countless people to the razing of entire cities like Persepolis and Tyre.
Similarly, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), perhaps the most vocal proponent of a full-scale invasion of Iran, asserted on Fox News Sunday that with overwhelming military might, the US could end a “2,000-year-long conflict,” as if to imply that the modern hostilities between the West and Iran are ancient and intractable when they are actually less than 50 years old.
"Such distorted historical references are revealingly similar to Nazi and fascist thinking," Baqaei said, said, pointing to the German and Italian dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
"Adolf Hitler justified invading other countries by invoking 'Lebensraum' and praising the Roman Empire," he said. "Mussolini used the glory of the Roman Empire to excuse his aggressions in North Africa."
Baqaei's comments also come as Israel has launched a ground invasion of southern Lebanon, which it has suggested will result in an indefinite occupation. Defense Minister Israel Katz has described plans to fully demolish Lebanese villages adjacent to Israel's border without allowing displaced residents to return.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Israeli officials are also privately discussing plans to press Lebanon's Christian and Druse communities to "force out any Lebanese from neighboring Shiite Muslim communities who have sought refuge among them as Israeli bombardments flatten Shiite towns.”
Some figures in Israel's growingly influential far-right have described the conquest of Lebanon as part of a broader project to establish "Greater Israel," which would expand the nation's territory to neighboring states across the Middle East and clear out local populations to be colonized by Jewish settlers.
The expansionist vision, and the accelerating violent displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank by Israeli settlers, has been described by critics as an eerie parallel to the Nazi goal of creating "Lebensraum" by pushing out or killing ethnic groups viewed as racially inferior, particularly Jews, in order to create "living space" for Germans.
Portrayals of the war in Iran as a civilizational clash are omnipresent among Trump's closest allies. Some, like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, portray it as part of a holy "crusade" by Christendom against the Muslim world. Others like White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt have described it as a war to defend "Western civilization" from "brutal terrorists" who want to destroy it.
Baqaei said, however, that comments lionizing the war as a renewal of bloody old-world conquest is "reviving" a "dangerous pre-World War II fascist mindset—torpedoing the very modern values of human rights and international law the West claims to stand for."
The majority of Supreme Court justices expressed "profound skepticism toward the government’s revisionist history of the 14th Amendment, with most sounding downright hostile," wrote one legal reporter.
Some legal experts who listened to oral arguments at the US Supreme Court on Wednesday came away with the impression that a majority of justices were skeptical of President Donald Trump's executive order that unilaterally reinterprets the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
During the hearing, many observers noted that some conservative justices—including John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett—all asked pointed questions of US Solicitor General John Sauer, who was presenting the case in defense of the Trump executive order that declared an end to birthright citizenship in the country, despite more than a century of legal precedent.
After listening to the arguments, Georgetown University Law Center professor Steve Vladeck predicted that the final verdict would be "7-2 to block the executive order," and maybe even an 8-1 vote.
"This wasn't (and won't be) close," said Vladeck.
Cornell Law School professor Michael C. Dorf shared Vladeck's view that a clear majority of the court would likely vote to strike down the Trump order, but he cautioned that it could give the court cover to issue less extreme rulings that would nonetheless erode Americans' rights.
"Don't get me wrong: I'm relieved that this case is shaping up as either 8-1 or 7-2 against the Trump executive order," Dorf explained. "But the case is a gift to the Supreme Court. By rejecting an outlandish position, it will earn credibility as apolitical, even as the Overton window moves far to the right."
Elie Mystal, justice correspondent at The Nation, said after watching the hearings that he simply could not imagine a majority of the court ruling in Trump's favor.
"What I don't think is a possibility is 5-4 Trump wins," he wrote. "We have [Amy Coney Barrett]. We have Roberts. We almost certainly have Gorsuch (possibly as a concurrence). I CANNOT count to five on a Trump win here. So... good. I mean, terrible that it's gotten his far. But good."
Author and former CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wasn't ready to make a full prediction on the outcome of the case, but he did note that "the birthright citizenship argument is going poorly for the Trump Administration."
Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern found that the Supreme Court hearing "quickly shaped up to be a blowout against the administration," with seven justices expressing "profound skepticism toward the government’s revisionist history of the 14th Amendment, with most sounding downright hostile toward the pseudo-originalist theory cooked up to legitimize the policy."
In fact, Stern thought that the administration's arguments before the court were so unconvincing that he found it "alarming" that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito appeared convinced by its rationales.
All the same, he predicted that Trump's birthright citizenship order "is about to go down in flames."