

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.

Nydia Gutiérrez, ngutierrez@earthjustice.org,
Tom Pelton, tpelton@environmentalintegrity.org,
Lori Harrison, lharrison@waterkeeper.org,
Mike Heymsfield, media@aldf.org,
Victory — In response to lawsuits, EPA begins process of mandating pollution reductions
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new water pollution control standards for slaughterhouses and rendering facilities. EPA states in the proposal, which follows lawsuits from community and conservation organizations, that new rules could help to prevent at least 100 million pounds per year of water pollution by strengthening or imposing standards on a fraction of the country’s approximately 5,000 slaughterhouses and rendering facilities, which together are leading sources of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.
On average, a total of more than 17,000 animals are killed each minute in slaughterhouses across the United States. Slaughterhouse byproducts such as fat, bone, blood, and feathers often are sent to rendering facilities for conversion into tallow, lard, animal meal, and other products. Both slaughterhouses and rendering facilities require a near-constant flow of water, and they discharge staggering quantities of dangerous and damaging water pollution into rivers and streams, including millions of pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus, along with bacteria, grease, and other pollutants.
“Pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities disproportionately harms under-resourced communities, low-income communities, and communities of color,” said Earthjustice attorney Alexis Andiman. “We applaud the EPA for taking action to revise the outdated and under-protective standards governing pollution from these facilities. Together with our partners, we look forward to studying the details of the EPA’s proposal and working to ensure that the final standards adequately protect people and the environment.”
“EPA’s proposed rules are a long overdue, important step for reducing phosphorous, nitrogen, and other water pollution from the slaughterhouse industry that harms human health and the environment, including vulnerable and under-resourced communities,” said Sarah Kula, Staff Attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project. “We are evaluating the details of EPA’s proposal and look forward to working with EPA to ensure that any final rules comply with the Clean Water Act and protect downstream communities.”
Water pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities threatens human health and the environment. For instance, exposure to nitrogen compounds in drinking water can cause colorectal cancer, thyroid disease, birth defects, and—in infants under six months of age—methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby syndrome,” a potentially fatal condition. In addition, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution feed algal growth, which can render water unsafe for drinking, unfit for recreation, and uninhabitable for aquatic life. As algae die and decompose, they consume oxygen, giving rise to “dead zones” in iconic waterways such as Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.
Pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities exacerbates environmental injustice. Most slaughterhouses and rendering facilities are located within one mile of populations that, on average, the EPA classifies as “low income,” “linguistically isolated,” or at high risk of exposure to toxic substances. To make matters worse, slaughterhouses and rendering facilities are often located near additional slaughterhouses, rendering facilities, concentrated animal feeding operations, and other sources of pollution, compounding the risks they pose.
The federal Clean Water Act requires the EPA to set water pollution standards for all industries, including slaughterhouses and rendering facilities, and to review those standards each year to determine whether updates are appropriate to keep pace with advances in pollution-control technology. Despite this clear mandate, the EPA has failed to revise standards for slaughterhouses and rendering facilities for at least 19 years. Some slaughterhouses and rendering facilities are still subject to standards established in the mid-1970s. And the EPA has never published national standards applicable to the vast majority of slaughterhouses and rendering facilities, which discharge polluted wastewater indirectly through publicly-owned treatment works—also known as POTWs—even though the EPA has acknowledged for decades that, without adequate pretreatment, pollutants in slaughterhouses and rendering facility wastewater pass through many POTWs into our nation’s rivers and streams.
Today’s proposed rule follows two lawsuits brought by Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Waterkeeper Alliance, Humane Society of the United States, Food & Water Watch, Environment America, Comite Civico del Valle, Center for Biological Diversity, and Animal Legal Defense Fund. This coalition initially challenged the Trump Administration’s decision not to update water pollution control standards for slaughterhouses and rendering facilities in 2019. In response to that challenge, the EPA pledged to strengthen its regulations—but it did not commit to a timeline for doing so. The coalition filed a second lawsuit in December 2022 to press the EPA to act promptly, resulting in an agreement that committed the EPA to propose new standards by December 2023 and publish final standards by August 2025.
“Today, the EPA took a major step towards reducing the massive flow of pollution that slaughterhouses dump into America’s rivers,” said John Rumpler, senior clean water director for Environment America. “If the agency follows through with a strong final rule, it will mark significant progress in reducing threats to wildlife and public health - including toxic algae, pathogens and nitrate contamination of drinking water sources.”
“Many publicly owned wastewater treatment plants are not equipped to treat the waste they receive from one or more of the estimated 3,708 indirectly discharging slaughterhouses and rendering plants across the country, likely contributing to 73% of these facilities violating their clean water permit limits for pollutants typically released by those dischargers,” said Kelly Hunter Foster, Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney. “It is imperative that EPA establish nitrogen, phosphorus, and other pollution limits for these indirect dischargers to ensure that the industry bears its own production costs, rather than polluting or passing the costs on to impacted communities and citizens that simply cannot afford to upgrade their plants.”
“In the Cape Fear Basin the largest slaughterhouses and rendering facilities discharge waste upstream of the largest drinking water intakes. EPA's commitment to updating pollution limits for these facilities is long overdue, but welcome. Strong regulations are essential to protect downstream communities and the environment and anything less would be a disservice to our region,” said Kemp Burdette, Cape Fear Riverkeeper.
"We are encouraged to see the EPA recognize the need to regulate one of the largest industrial sources of nutrient pollution in the country. Pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities harm low-income and communities of color the most," said Robin Broder, Deputy Director of Waterkeepers Chesapeake. "We look forward to studying the proposed rule to see how it will help people in our communities suffering from the flagrant disregard by slaughterhouses and rendering facilities of the public health harms they have caused."
“We are heartened that the EPA has begun the long overdue process of curbing the daily discharge of blood, fat, nitrogen and other pollutants from industrial slaughter and rendering facilities into our waters. Limiting pollution from inhumane factory farming systems will be an important step toward protecting both people and animals, including wildlife impacted by this effluent,” said Rebecca Cary, special counsel for the Humane Society of the United States.
"Lax regulations allow industrial animal agriculture to profit while burdening communities with pollution and causing animals immense suffering," said Animal Legal Defense Fund Senior Staff Attorney Larissa Liebmann. "With these updated pollution standards, EPA is making slaughterhouses account for some of the costs of their unsustainable business model."
“We’re happy to see EPA take this long overdue first step towards cleaning up one of the nation’s dirtiest industries. For too long, corporate meat giants have profited off of under-regulated water pollution - often in communities also burdened by those same companies’ factory farms,” said Dani Replogle, Food & Water Watch Staff Attorney. “We know the meat industry will fight these needed reforms tooth and nail, and we will work to ensure that the final rules are as strong as possible.”
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500“It’s simple: Members of Congress should spend their time in Washington serving the American people, not preparing to cash in big time with a cushy lobbying career after they leave office,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
US Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Rick Scott introduced a bipartisan bill on Thursday to permanently ban members of Congress from becoming lobbyists after leaving office.
Right now, ex-lawmakers are given just a brief "cooling-off" period before they are allowed to return and lobby their former colleagues—one year in the House of Representatives and two years in the Senate.
According to OpenSecrets, about 41% of former members of the 117th Congress have gone on to work for a lobbying firm or client, which Warren (D-Mass.) said raises the prospect that they're "thinking about how they can make money in their next gig while in office."
The bill she co-introduced with Scott (R-Fla.), known as the Banning Lobbying And Safeguarding Trust (BLAST) Act, would replace the cooling-off periods with a permanent ban, forbidding former lawmakers from registering as lobbyists or engaging in the activities that would require them to do so.
It also bans ex-congresspeople from making lobbying contracts, which are often used as loopholes to avoid formal registration.
Those who violate the act could face up to five years in prison for knowing and willful violations.
“It’s simple: Members of Congress should spend their time in Washington serving the American people, not preparing to cash in big time with a cushy lobbying career after they leave office,” Warren said. “It’s long past time to close the revolving door that’s corrupted our government and destroyed public trust in elected officials. This bipartisan bill is an important push to get that done.”
While Warren has a long record of seeking to limit the influence of money in politics, Scott's presence as a cosponsor was a head-scratcher for many observers.
A former healthcare CEO whose company was hit with the largest healthcare‑fraud settlement in US history, he has always been a reliable partner to corporate interests and has been cited as one of the top Republican recipients of fossil fuel and defense industry money.
Nevertheless, Scott described the "revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street" as a major reason trust in institutions is at an all-time low among Americans.
Regardless of his own intentions, Scott is seizing on a sense of distrust among the American public that is both very real and very bipartisan.
With this coming midterm election cycle expected to be the most expensive in history, 72% of Americans said in a Politico poll released last week that there is "too much money from special interest groups in American elections," while just 5% disagreed. This belief was virtually equal between Republicans and Democrats.
And while more Democrats (76%) felt it necessary to curb billionaire control of politics, over half of Republican voters (54%) also agreed that billionaires had "too much influence" over elections.
With more than 1,700 civilians, including hundreds of children, reportedly killed during US-Israeli bombarding of Iran, one advocacy group said that "more pressure and oversight on these war crimes is urgently needed."
While claiming that the subject of civilian casualties is his “passion” before US lawmakers during a US Senate hearing on Thursday, the head of US Central Command was asked directly if he and his team had investigated a litany of reports about civilians being killed or maimed by US bombs in Iran. His answer? No.
Commander Adm. Brad Cooper appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee for a hearing on US Central Command (CENTCOM) and US Africa Command (AFRICOM) concerning the Trump administration's request for $1.5 trillion in military spending authorization for 2027.
During the questioning, Cooper refuted reports that US-Israeli airstrikes have hit 22 schools in Iran and raised eyebrows for his answers regarding cuts to Pentagon programs meant to mitigate harm to noncombatants.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)—who last month led the introduction of a defeated war powers resolution aimed at stopping President Donald Trump's "reckless" attack on Iran—pressed Cooper about US conduct in the war. She cited New York Times reporting that 22 schools and 17 healthcare facilities have been destroyed or damaged since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the illegal war of choice on February 28.
"We have regulations. We have the law of war. We have human rights obligations. We have our own targeting requirements to avoid civilian harm and death," Gillibrand said. "Have you been implementing all the laws that are required under current law to minimize civilian death?"
.@SenGillibrand presses CENTCOM Commander Cooper on the bombing of schools and hospitals in Iran.
Cooper’s response is woefully insufficient, denying that more than one such bombing took place, despite widespread documentation of bombings destroying protected civilian sites. pic.twitter.com/8gy6Zx6eg2
— NIAC (@NIACouncil) May 14, 2026
"We follow all the procedures and have gone above and beyond to, in my case, personally warn the Iranian people of several instances during conflict where they were being potentially used as human targets," the admiral said.
Asked by Gillibrand "how did we then bomb 22 schools," Cooper countered that "there is no indication that we have that has been corroborated."
The Iranian Red Crescent Society claimed last month that at least 60 students and 10 staff members were killed in US-Israeli attacks on 32 universities and 857 schools.
Pressed by the senator on "how many schools" the US has bombed, Cooper retorted that "there is one active civilian casualty investigation from the 13,629 munitions" used to attack Iran.
The admiral was presumably referring to the February 28 cruise missile strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, which killed 156 students and staff and wounded 95 others. Trump and senior administration officials initially denied responsibility for the massacre, but physical evidence, journalistic investigations, and a preliminary Pentagon probe indicate US culpability.
A skeptical Gillibrand repeated her question about 22 schools "and multiple hospitals" being bombed.
"There's no way that we can corroborate that," Cooper replied. "No indication of that whatsoever."
The senator asked for clarification: "There's no way you can corroborate, or no indication of it? Which one?"
Cooper answered, "No indication."
"Well, the indication is what's publicly available," Gillibrand fired back. "There is indication. Have you investigated those claims?"
The admiral replied, "We have not."
Gillibrand continued: "Why have you not? If this is a passion of yours, if you believe that the civilian casualties are not consistent with the law of war and not consistent with human rights obligations... why have you not investigated those allegations when they're publicly being made on the cover of The New York Times?"
The senator then asked how Cooper has "managed the 90% cut to the personnel who are supposed to avoid civilian targets," a reference to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's gutting of the Biden-era Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP), which laid out a series of policy steps aimed at preventing and responding to the death and injury of noncombatants.
The plan, which was implemented after US forces killed an estimated 432,000 civilians since late 2001 during the so-called War on Terror, was skeptically welcomed for its commitment to reducing harm to noncombatants. However, Hegseth said at the outset of the Iran War that US forces would not be bound by “stupid rules of engagement" and would instead prioritize “lethality."
The Pentagon eliminated the entire civilian harm office at Joint Special Operations Command, removed related specialists from target development teams, and slashed CENTCOM's civilian harm mitigation team from 10 people to just one full-time staffer.
Cooper told Gillibrand that he would be "happy to provide any report" on the matter.
Iranian officials and human rights groups say more than 1,700 Iranian civilians have been killed by US and Israeli attacks since February 28. US and Israeli use of artificial intelligence systems to select bombing targets exponentially faster than any person has also raised concerns regarding a lack of meaningful human oversight. One former IDF officer said AI enabled a “mass assassination factory” in Gaza, where more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said after the exchange with Gillibrand that "Cooper’s response is woefully insufficient, denying that more than one such bombing took place, despite widespread documentation of bombings destroying protected civilian sites."
"More than 1,700 civilians, including hundreds of children, were killed in the bombardment of Iran," NIAC added. "Dozens of schools and hospitals were damaged and destroyed by the dropping of massive bombs in urban areas. More pressure and oversight on these war crimes is urgently needed."
"What we're seeing is the public experience how more spending does not actually keep them safe," said a researcher at Brown University's Costs of War Project.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday released yet another ad pitching President Donald Trump's proposed $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget, as new polling showed major skepticism over the idea.
In his latest pitch for the record-breaking defense budget, the former Fox News host insists that "America is not in decline," even though the US has been unable to compel Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz despite having spent nearly $1 trillion on defense in 2025.
"We remain the strongest military power on Earth," Hegseth continued. "But that power requires renewal. And with global threats that are constantly evolving, it's time to make a $1.5 trillion investment."
The $1.5 trillion investment is a GENERATIONAL DOWN PAYMENT on America’s national defense.
This investment guarantees the United States maintains overwhelming strength and unmatched deterrence against any adversary for generations to come. pic.twitter.com/2zOSlZkzNr
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) May 14, 2026
A $1.5 trillion military budget would be over 50% more than the 2025 US defense budget and more than four times the money spent on defense by China, the world’s second-biggest defense spender.
Among other things, Hegseth said that the budget would invest $18 billion into Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" missile defense shield, which the Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday estimated would cost $1.2 trillion to create, deploy, and operate over the first 20 years of its existence.
Hegseth also said that the Pentagon would be increasing its investment in artificial intelligence by "800%," although it's not at the moment clear how well AI helps militaries effectively fight wars.
The defense secretary concluded his video by insisting that "we are expanding our strength, we are restoring our deterrence, and we are putting America first."
USA Today reported on Thursday that a new poll conducted by ReThink Media and the Costs of War Project at Brown University finds that nearly 60% of Americans think the proposed Trump Pentagon budget is too large, including 40% who say $1.5 trillion is "much too high" to spend on defense.
Breaking the figures down by party, 87% of Democrats said the defense budget was too high, along with 54% of independents, and even 30% of Republicans.
Jennifer Greenburg, a researcher with Brown's Costs of War Project, told USA Today that Americans were broadly skeptical that plunging more taxpayer money into the Pentagon is really necessary given that the US already doles out more for defense than the next four biggest spenders—China, Russia, Germany, and India—combined.
"In real time, I think what we're seeing," said Greenberg, "is the public experience how more spending does not actually keep them safe."
In a column published by The New York Times on Wednesday, longtime national security reporter Noah Shachtman argued that Hegseth's $1.5 trillion proposal was "less like a budget and more like a trip to an endless casino buffet" in which the Pentagon spends money in "gut-busting proportions."
Shachtman also noted that the proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget comes at a time when the Trump administration has wrecked traditional oversight mechanisms, thus making waste and fraud far more likely at a Pentagon that's never passed an audit.
"One of their early actions was to fire and replace the Pentagon’s inspector general, whose office looks into claims of fraud and abuse in military contracting," Shachtman explained. "The independent office that tests whether our weapons actually work has been gutted."
Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued in an analysis published on Tuesday that Hegseth's budget pitch at congressional hearings this week was particularly baffling because there is really no imperative behind it on par with the Cold War or the post-9/11 defense buildup.
"Despite presenting no strategic necessity for the largest year-over-year Pentagon spending increase since World War II," Freeman wrote, "Hegseth repeatedly claimed the $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget was a sound financial decision, arguing in the Senate hearing that 'at every level we have made it a fiscally responsible budget.' Yet, the fact is that the entirety of this proposed increase in Pentagon spending would be deficit financed, effectively going on Uncle Sam’s credit card."