

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 “We applaud the EPA for taking action to revise the outdated and under-protective standards governing pollution from these facilities.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"The DNC should select a new leader who demonstrates competence, creativity, moral clarity, and a relentless commitment to actually changing the broken Democratic Party brand.”
The disastrous release of the Democratic National Committee's 2024 election "autopsy" report on Thursday has brought about a reckoning for the committee's chair, Ken Martin, who is facing calls to resign from legislators and other influential figures in the party.
The 192-page report, written by strategist Paul Rivera in the wake of former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss to President Donald Trump, was panned as amateurish and incomplete, even more than 18 months after the election. Rivera was reportedly fired on Friday.
Aside from being filled with glaring spelling and factual errors and containing several unfinished sections and self-contradicting annotations, it neglected key issues widely believed to have contributed to the Democratic nominee's defeat: Most acutely, her continued backing of Israel as it perpetrated a genocide in Gaza, her inability to address working- and middle-class voters' concerns about affordability, and the shambolic attempt by former President Joe Biden to run for a second term despite his old age and his earlier indications he would serve for only four years.
Many Democrats now see it as a damning indictment of Martin, who was elected as DNC chair last year in part on promises to conduct a thorough and transparent review of the party's defeat. Not helping was his sudden pivot in late 2025 to attempt to bury the report he once championed, only releasing it this week after it leaked to CNN despite mounting pressure from party members.
On Friday morning, Axios quoted an ideological mix of Democratic legislators describing the report's release as the final straw for Martin.
"He should resign," Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) told Axios, citing "his lack of leadership" and saying it is "utterly nuts it took us this long to release the autopsy."
In a radio interview Thursday, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said in response to a caller who argued Martin should be replaced: "I agree... Having what we have right now is not doing it."
Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) told Semafor that "there doesn't seem to be a plan to turn things around and the clock is ticking... I believe it's time for him to move on."
Despite a push by Martin's allies to arm state party chairs with talking points expressing that they are "fully confident in his leadership," NOTUS reported that inside private DNC group chats and one-on-one conversations, dissension is brewing, and there is even talk of forcing a vote of no confidence to oust the chairman.
"People feel gaslit" by Martin's flip-flopping, one unnamed DNC member told the outlet. "You kept telling people it was coming, then when you didn’t release it, you didn’t even tell everyone the real reason why.”
“While I don’t believe that there are enough votes to pass a vote of no confidence yet, I think there’s more of a permission structure now to have a more open conversation about it,” said another member who NOTUS described as an ally of Martin's. “If they think this is going to make things go away, no, this is only going to ramp up now.”
That's the hope of many in the party's grassroots, who said the entire saga demonstrated Martin's unfitness for a role with major responsibilities as Democrats head into existentially important elections in 2026 and 2028.
Dan Pfeiffer—a former Obama administration staffer whose Pod Save America podcast cohosts held Martin's feet to the fire as he fought to keep the autopsy hidden—called the release "a disaster of his own making."
"He didn’t pick a qualified person to run the autopsy. The fact that he was apparently shocked by the work product shows there was no oversight of the process," Pfeiffer said on social media. "Once he saw that the report was poorly done, he just decided to start lying to everyone about why it wasn't being released."
"In '28, the DNC will set the primary calendar, decide how delegates are awarded, sponsor the debates, and put on the convention," he said. "If no one trusts the DNC, it will be harder to unite the party around the eventual nominee."
Amanda Litman, the president of Run For Something, a group that recruits progressive candidates for office, said in a video posted to social media Thursday that putting together a report composed of "pure gibberish," without access to any of the underlying interviews or materials that buoyed its conclusions, called into question the DNC's ability to be "a fair, competent... conductor of the Democratic presidential primary."
"Ken Martin is not up to the task of being DNC chair—the most important part of which is preparing to run the presidential primary process with trust and competency—and should resign," she added on Friday.
David Hogg, who served as the DNC vice chair in 2025 before being pushed out by Martin over his efforts to support primary challengers against some entrenched party elders, said the autopsy saga was a "demoralizing joke" for the party.
In a release from his political action committee, Leaders We Deserve, Hogg said, "Martin should resign, and the DNC should select a new leader who demonstrates competence, creativity, moral clarity, and a relentless commitment to actually changing the broken Democratic Party brand."
The voting machines ban was part of a broader effort aimed at letting the federal government "take control over elections from US states," reported Reuters.
A group of Trump administration officials last year pushed a plan to ban half of voting machines currently used in the US based on disproven conspiracy theories about the 2020 election being stolen by former President Joe Biden.
According to a Friday report from Reuters, Trump adviser Kurt Olsen asked the US Department of Commerce to declare components of machines produced by Dominion Voting Systems to be national security risks.
Reuters' sources said that Olsen's idea came as part of a brainstorming session "about how the federal government could take control over elections from US states, an idea publicly aired by Trump."
Some officials at the Commerce Department began exploring legal justifications that could be used to ban half of all voting machines, but the effort ended because "Olsen and other administration staffers working with him failed to provide evidence to justify such a move," Reuters reported.
In place of the Dominion voting machines, Olsen pushed a scheme to force all affected states to hand count ballots, a process that some election experts say would be both more time consuming and prone to error.
Alex Halderman, a University of Michigan computer science professor, told Reuters that "changing to hand counting would be chaotic,” adding that "it might facilitate cheating.”
Olsen, a former Trump campaign lawyer who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, was hired by the White House last year to investigate that very same election, which Trump lost to Biden by 4.5 percentage points in the popular vote and by 74 votes in the US electoral college.
The report on the election machine-banning effort comes as Trump has pushed an unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering scheme, which has resulted in an electoral map that elections analyst G. Elliot Morris projects could result in Republicans maintaining control of the US House of Representatives while losing the nationwide popular vote by three points.
Democrats have accused the president of pushing to rig the 2026 midterm elections.
The president also issued an executive order that places new restrictions on mail-in voting, which the president has falsely claimed was used by Democrats to steal the 2020 election from him.
Additionally, Trump and allies such as right-wing podcaster Steve Bannin have suggested deploying federal immigration agents to polling places in November, a move that critics contend would be an unprecedented and unconstitutional federal voter intimidation campaign.
"It's just a shadow!" declared one unconvinced skeptic, but the internet will not be satisfied so easily when it comes to Retired US Navy Vice Admiral Robert Harward's bizarre appearance on the right-wing network.
"Are we going to pretend dude isn't wearing a mask?"
Retired US Navy Vice Admiral Robert Harward appeared on the Fox News show "America's Newsroom" with Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino earlier this week to defend US President Donald Trump's war in Iran, but clips of the interview have now gone viral—sparking wild conspiracy theories and people desperate for an explanation—as it looks like Harward was wearing a high-quality silicon or latex mask the entire time.
One really has to see it to believe it, especially in an age of deep fakes and other online misinformation. However, as people pulled recordings from their own devices and verified that the circulating clip of the broadcast had not been doctored, the questions only deepened.
WTF pic.twitter.com/LUjli4de6U
— Mr. Sausage (@MrSausageGet) May 21, 2026
"What in the Jim Carey have I just been looking at?" asked one social media user in response to a clip highlighting the appearance of what looks like the seam of a mask at Harward's neckline.
Harward is a regular guest on Fox News and other right-wing media outlets, using his status as a former Navy SEAL to add credibility to his hawkish views on foreign policy.
Here is the full 10-minute and unedited segment that includes Harward as it was posted to YouTube by Fox News:
- YouTube www.youtube.com
With so many images and previous clips of him available, online sleuths were providing side-by-side comparisons to make the case for the mask theory—even as they poked fun at the absurdity of the situation.
Meanwhile, skeptics like Adam Keiper, editor of The Bulwark, insisted that what appeared to be a mask was actually just an optical illusion caused by the particular lighting in the Fox News production setup.
"Dying of laughter seeing so many [online commenters] taking seriously the notion that this Fox News guest was wearing 'a very realistic face mask'—because they see his neck and they apparently have no idea how lighting and shadows work," said Keiper.
"I laughed too," said one respondent to Keiper's post. "Then I watched the actual Fox clip. Either they manipulated the clip before uploading, or he had neck surgery. I try hard not to fall for conspiracies and vet everything I can. But something strange is going on here."
"It's just a shadow!" Keiper exclaimed as others remained unconvinced.