

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.

Phoebe Galt, Food & Water Watch, pgalt@fwwatch.org
Environmental Groups Urge EPA to Require Meat Processing Plants to Comply with Modern Technology Standards for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution
The federal government tomorrow is scheduled to publish proposed EPA rules that would require pollution reductions from fewer than half of the 3,879 slaughterhouses and meat processing plants that discharge waste to U.S. rivers, lakes, and streams.
The regulations would cut pollution significantly from the largest plants that pipe their waste directly into waterways, but largely ignore the far more numerous meat processing plants that send their effluent first to municipal sewage treatment plants, which are often overwhelmed and not equipped to treat the industrial waste.
Clean water organizations are responding by urging the agency to do more to crack down on slaughterhouses, which are the largest industrial source of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution (so-called “nutrients”) that feeds algal outbreaks and fish-killing “dead zones” in America’s waterways. EPA plans to hold an online public hearing on its proposed rules on Wednesday and a hearing at agency headquarters on January 31.
Dani Replogle, Food & Water Watch Staff Attorney, said: “Slaughterhouses have spent decades polluting our nation’s waters with abandon, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. EPA must seize this opportunity to rein in this dirty industry by enacting the most environmentally protective regulatory option without further delay.”
"It is well past time for slaughterhouses to put in place modern pollution controls that EPA acknowledges are widely available," said Sarah Kula, Environmental Integrity Project attorney. "EPA proposes significant reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus dischargers from big slaughterhouses that pipe their wastes into public waterways, and that is welcome news. But its preferred option would allow thousands of slaughterhouses to continue to dump nutrients into public sewage treatment plants that aren't prepared to handle them. All communities deserve relief from the slaughterhouse industry's harmful nutrient pollution."
Earthjustice attorney Alexis Andiman said: “EPA admits that pollution from slaughterhouses and meat processing plants disproportionately harms under-resourced communities, low-income communities, and communities of color. We applaud EPA for taking action to strengthen the outdated and under-protective water pollution control standards that govern this industry—but we urge the agency to ensure that its new standards protect the people most at risk.”
A coalition of 13 environmental organizations sued the EPA in 2019 and 2022 demanding that the agency follow the requirements of the Clean Water Act and modernize badly outdated technology standards for water pollution control systems for slaughterhouses and meat processing plants, which have not been updated in two decades.
In response to lawsuits, EPA released proposed rules scheduled for publication in the Federal Register tomorrow that include three options for cleaning up wastewater from slaughterhouses. EPA’s “preferred option” would strengthen nitrogen pollution limits and, for the first time, limit phosphorus discharges from an estimated 126 facilities that directly discharge into waterways. The new standards, if adopted, would eliminate nine million pounds of nitrogen per year from these direct dischargers, as well as eight million pounds of phosphorus.
However, EPA’s preferred option is the weakest of the three alternatives it has proposed because it would require no nutrient controls from the 3,708 slaughterhouses and meat processing plants that send their wastewater to municipal treatment facilities, which often lack the necessary technology to treat this pollution. Instead, EPA’s preferred option would only control oil and grease, total suspended solids, and biochemical oxygen demand from about 719 of these indirect dischargers. These indirect dischargers have gotten a free pass for decades.
“Many municipal wastewater treatment plants cannot handle the slaughterhouse and rendering facility waste they receive, likely contributing to 73% of these treatment plants violating their clean water permit limits,” said Kelly Hunter Foster, Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney. “EPA must establish pretreatment pollution limits for this industry rather than allowing it to either pollute waterways or pass their treatment expenses off to impacted communities and citizens that cannot, and should not, bear those costs.”
Fortunately, EPA’s proposal includes a more protective alternative that would require over 40 percent of these indirect dischargers to remove nutrients from the wastes they dump into public sewer systems. EPA estimates that this option would eliminate another 67 million tons of nitrogen and 20 million tons of phosphorus every year. EPA has also publicly acknowledged that nutrient contamination is the most significant contributor to the contamination that keeps so many rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries from meeting the “fishable and swimmable” standards the Clean Water Act promised more than half a century ago.
The coalition of groups is demanding that EPA do more and, at a minimum, adopt the most environmentally protective alternative among the three that EPA has proposed to keep slaughterhouse wastes from overwhelming public sewer systems.
Background: The federal Clean Water Act requires the EPA to set water pollution standards for all industries and to review those standards each year to determine whether updates are appropriate to keep pace with advances in pollution-control technology. Despite this mandate, the EPA has failed to revise standards for slaughterhouses and meat processing plants 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 meat processing facilities, which discharge polluted wastewater indirectly through publicly-owned treatment works.
In response to this failure of EPA to update its standards, the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice sued the agency 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 meat processing plants 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 then 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.
EPA now plans to conduct public hearings on the proposed rule, including an online-only hearing on January 24, 2024, and an in-person hearing at EPA Headquarters on January 31, 2024. To provide comment during the January 24 virtual hearing, participants must register here by 5 pm EST on January 22. To provide comment at the January 31 in-person hearing, participants are encouraged to register here before 5pm EST on January 26.
Supporting materials for the rulemaking can be found at EPA's docket at regulations.govs.gov.
QUOTES FROM ALLIED GROUPS:
John Rumpler, Clean Water Director for Environment America, said: "If the price of a slightly cheaper chicken nugget is dead fish, toxic algae or people getting sick from pollution, I think most Americans would say no thank you. The EPA should strengthen its proposed rule to keep more than 300 million pounds of slaughterhouse pollution out of our rivers and streams, as current technology allows."
Robin Broder, Deputy Director of Waterkeepers Chesapeake, said: “We are disappointed that EPA has chosen the least protective option, which is bad news for the Chesapeake region since we have far more indirect discharging slaughterhouses and rendering facilities than direct dischargers. In our region that is already suffering from nutrient pollution, the lack of limits on nitrogen and phosphorus for the majority of our plants is incredibly short sighted, especially given that the technology to do this exists.”
Rebecca Cary, special counsel for the Humane Society of the United States, said: “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 from this pollution.”
Larissa Liebmann, senior staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, said: "Lax regulations allow industrial animal agriculture to profit while burdening communities with pollution and causing animals immense suffering. With these updated pollution standards, EPA is making slaughterhouses account for some of the costs of addressing their unsustainable business model."
For a copy of the proposed regulations, click here.
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) 683-2500We're not to going create conditions, said the billionaire president who inherited his wealth, "so that somebody that didn't work very hard can buy a home."
President Donald Trump in recent weeks has vowed to make living in the US more affordable, as polls have consistently shown voters are giving him low marks on both his handling of the economy and inflation.
However, Trump undercut this pledge during a Cabinet meeting on Thursday in which he said he wanted—despite a nationwide housing crisis—to actively make housing even more expensive than it is today.
"Existing housing, people that own their home, we're going to keep them wealthy, we're going to keep those prices up," Trump said. "We're not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn't work very hard can buy a home."
Trump: I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people who own their homes. You can be sure that will happen pic.twitter.com/9BupkUmXss
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 29, 2026
Trump added that his administration wanted to "make it easier to buy" a house by lowering interest rates, but then reiterated that he wanted to make houses themselves more expensive.
"There's so much talk of, 'Oh, we're going to drive housing prices down,'" Trump said. "I don't want to drive housing prices down, I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes. And they can be assured that's what's going to happen."
The implications of the president's remarks were obvious to those concerned about the nation's affordable housing crisis and the struggle of working people trying to get by.
As Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director for the Campaign for New York Health, put it: "54% of Americans struggle to afford housing, and over 770,000 Americans are homeless—and Trump doesn't think those numbers are high enough."
A Fox News poll released on Wednesday found that 54% of Americans think the US is worse off now than it was a year ago, while just 31% say the country is in better shape. Just 25% of voters surveyed said they are better off now than they were a year ago, and more than 40% said that Trump's economic policies have personally hurt them.
Given Trump's already low numbers on economic performance, many observers were quick to ridicule him for his pledge to make existing houses less affordable for prospective buyers.
"Hello Donald this is your political strategist speaking," George Pearkes, global macro strategist for Bespoke Investment Group, sarcastically wrote. "I am advising you today to please keep saying this stuff."
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) argued that Trump's views on housing prices put him well out of touch with most US voters.
"Trump only sees the world as a rich developer," she wrote in a social media post. "He has never, and will never, care about creating affordable homeownership for working and middle class Americans."
Vox writer Eric Levitz posted a not-so-subtle dig at Trump for straying so easily off message.
https://t.co/qnR9wJiaBX pic.twitter.com/zrafC50Bea
— Eric Levitz (@EricLevitz) January 29, 2026
Polling analyst G. Elliott Morris, meanwhile, said that Trump's inability to stay on message was entirely predictable given his notorious unpredictability.
"Trump launched an affordability-focused midterm campaign for Republicans this week, traveling to Iowa to give a speech about how good his presidency has been for the cost of living," he wrote. "That's going about as well as you'd think. Here POTUS is saying he is going to keep housing prices high."
The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress "have allowed a hugely profitable corporation to avoid paying even a dime of federal income tax on their 2025 US profits."
Tesla, the electric car company led by former Trump administration special government employee Elon Musk, released its annual financial report Thursday, showing that it doubled its yearly income in 2025 over the previous year and brought in $5.7 billion.
The company, whose CEO spent several months rooting out what he claimed was fraud and waste across the federal government, reported "precisely zero current federal income tax" on the billions it made, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).
The group explained that Tesla used accelerated depreciation, reducing the value of its capital assets, while also slashing its tax bill with tax breaks for its executive stock options.
Research and development tax credits netted $352 million in additional tax savings, and the company used "net operating losses stored up from previous years to offset current year income, although it’s hard to know how much of that affects US income rather than foreign income," said ITEP.
Analyzing the financial report, ITEP found that Tesla received over $1.1 billion in federal income tax breaks, paid for by US taxpayers, last year alone—after paying 0.4% of its US profits in federal income taxes over the previous three years.
Over that time period, said ITEP, "the Elon Musk-led company reported $12.58 billion of U.S. income on which its current federal tax was just $48 million... The company reported an effective federal income tax rate of 0.4%. This is a tiny fraction of the 21% tax rate profitable corporations are supposed to pay under the law."
The most it paid in taxes over the past three years was in 2023, when Tesla paid $48 million, at the federal effective tax rate of 1.2%. That was still just a fraction of the $823 million it would have paid if it had paid the federal corporate tax rate. In 2023, the company enjoyed $775 million in tax breaks.
The company's income tax payments worldwide in 2025 totaled $1.2 billion, with more than $1 billion going to China and other foreign governments. Tesla paid $28 million to the US government, "presumably related to tax years before 2025," said ITEP.
The organization noted that the "billion-dollar tax break" enjoyed by Tesla does not appear to be illegal.
However, ITEP said, it illustrates how the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress, by passing changes to corporate tax laws in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) last summer, "have allowed a hugely profitable corporation to avoid paying even a dime of federal income tax on their 2025 US profits."
The organization warned last summer that special business tax breaks included in the OBBBA, including a reinstatement of bonus depreciation and new international rules, would cost the US government $165 billion in revenue in 2026.
"With Trump’s ICE murdering our neighbors, kidnapping children, and terrorizing our streets, do Senate Democrats want to be remembered as fighters or as complicit?" asked one advocate.
Every Senate Democrat, along with a small group of Republicans, voted Thursday to block a government funding package that includes $10 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, setting the stage for a fight over proposals to rein in the agency at the center of US President Donald Trump's lawless and violent mass deportation campaign.
Ahead of the 45-55 vote, progressives voiced concern that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is on the verge of caving to Republicans and relinquishing critical leverage yet again, pointing to the emerging contours of a deal between the Democratic leader and the Trump White House as the January 30 deadline to avert a government shutdown looms. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has called the ongoing talks "very constructive."
The American Prospect's David Dayen reported Thursday morning that a possible framework under consideration would separate the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding measure—which includes $10 billion more for ICE—from the other five appropriations bills currently before the Senate.
A short-term continuing resolution—reportedly as short as two weeks and as long as six—would keep DHS funded at last year's levels as negotiations over ICE reforms continue.
Schumer said his caucus has coalesced around a series of demands, including: a prohibition on federal immigration agents wearing masks, an end to roving ICE patrols, a body camera requirement, and use-of-force polices that align with those of local and state law enforcement.
"Body cameras and new training are not nearly enough to reverse the damage and terror that CBP and ICE have inflicted on our communities."
Dayen noted that while Schumer said Senate Democrats are "united" on ICE reforms, "these asks represent quite a bit less than other demands expressed by senators over the past week."
"Arguably many of these conditions are already part of ICE and [Customs and Border Protection] standards; the problem is a lack of enforcement," Dayen wrote. "Indeed, a new directive sent to ICE agents late Wednesday night instructed them to avoid talking to community members ('agitators,' to use their word) and to only target immigrants with criminal charges or convictions. That would encompass a good chunk of the Schumer demands."
From me: Chuck Schumer's legislative demands for DHS funding are so narrow they almost mirror what ICE/CBP have just announced in Minneapolis. Just as Republicans were conceding the need to negotiate, Democrats pre-negotiated themselves into mush.https://t.co/UoblF3XnLN pic.twitter.com/s5y40PjIjT
— David Dayen (@ddayen) January 29, 2026
Britt Jacovich, a spokesperson for MoveOn Civic Action, expressed skepticism about the Senate Democratic leadership's demands in a statement Thursday, warning that they don't go far enough.
“With Trump’s ICE murdering our neighbors, kidnapping children, and terrorizing our streets, do Senate Democrats want to be remembered as fighters or as complicit?" Jacovich asked. "Body cameras and new training are not nearly enough to reverse the damage and terror that CBP and ICE have inflicted on our communities."
Following Thursday's vote blocking the appropriations package, Jacovich said that "Senate Democrats must continue listening to the pleas from Minnesotans, parents, schoolteachers, clergy, and the majority of Americans who want ICE reined in and hold the line until we can finally unmask these reckless agents, get ICE out of our homes, and bring families back together."
Kate Voigt, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, said lawmakers' vote against the appropriations package "is a testament to the power of the people, who made their voices heard and relentlessly called on their senators to rein in ICE’s abuses."
"Public opinion is firmly against the violence, chaos, and abuse of our rights being inflicted by the Trump-Vance administration’s cruel mass deportation agenda. The American people don’t want to live in Stephen Miller’s dystopian police state," said Voigt. "We applaud the senators refusing to be complicit in these police state tactics. Now we need them to insist on real, enforceable changes to rein in ICE and Border Patrol’s increasingly dangerous immigration enforcement operations. These safeguards aren’t just common sense—they're critical to the integrity of our laws and our freedom."
Despite mounting public pressure and nationwide anger over ICE atrocities—ideal conditions for a bold reform push—progressives are wary of Schumer's ability to secure concrete changes given that, over the past year, he has engineered two Democratic surrenders in high-stakes government funding fights.
Organizer Aaron Regunberg on Thursday shared a new petition—hosted at MoveOn.org—calling on Schumer to step aside as leader of the Senate Democratic caucus.
"Chuck Schumer is poised (again) to throw away Democrats' leverage with a deal that allows ICE weeks of completely unrestrained terror in the streets, so that once public outrage has subsided and Democrats are in a much weaker position, they can (maybe) negotiate some unenforceable reforms that ICE will abide by as much as they've abided by every other law they're currently breaking," the petition reads.
"Because of the incredible organizing of hundreds of thousands of Americans on the ground, and the ultimate sacrifice of heroes like Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, Democrats were finally in a position with real leverage," the petition continues. "To abandon that fight now, as Schumer is doing, is downright complicity. Americans, Democrats, and Renee and Alex deserve so much better. Chuck Schumer must resign."