

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.

Elizabeth Manning, emanning@earthjustice.org, 907-277-2555
In a win for climate and health advocates, work will continue on Washington’s new building electrification codes
A federal court ruling today allows Washington state to continue updating its statewide building codes to incentivize the use of electric appliances over those that use methane gas, thereby improving public health, saving energy and costs, reducing air pollution, and helping the state meet its statutory climate targets. In denying a request from the gas industry and homebuilding representatives asking the court to block implementation of the new building codes, the court found that industry plaintiffs’ claimed harms were “purely speculative.”
“Washington is committed to addressing climate change and the court will stay out of its way,” Chief Judge Stanley Bastian, U.S. District Court in Eastern Washington, said in his ruling. Judge Bastian said he did not want the further delay of an update to Washington State’s statewide building codes to have a “chilling effect” on other states and local communities wrestling with the important issue of climate change.
The new codes promote electric heat pumps over polluting methane gas in nearly all new commercial and residential buildings and are currently set to take effect in late October.
The code update is a critical tool to combat climate change. Buildings are the second largest carbon-producing sector in Washington state next to transportation, with methane, a potent greenhouse gas, commonly used to heat and cool buildings, cook food, and heat water.
This litigation challenging the new codes is part of a broader fossil fuel industry strategy to delay urgently needed climate and public health action across the nation. Climate and health advocates, and other states and local governments hoping to enact similar building codes, say today’s court decision signals encouraging forward movement in support of building electrification.
Jan Hasselman, senior attorney with Earthjustice: “The movement to phase out fossil gas in homes and businesses is unstoppable. The gas industry cannot stop it with lawsuits, lobbying, or disinformation, and we’re glad the Court agreed to let progress on these important codes continue.”
Dylan Plummer, a senior campaign representative with the Sierra Club: “Today’s ruling upsets the playbook of Big Oil and Gas corporations who are desperate to fight climate action and keep Washington hooked on polluting fossil fuels. As communities demand clean renewable electricity, entities like the State Building Code Council are leading the way to a cleaner and healthier future by putting in place policies to transition buildings off of polluting fracked gas. Our future will be powered by clean, renewable electricity.”
Background
According to state law, the Washington State Building Code Council (SBCC) is charged with reaching the goal of zero emissions from fossil fuels for buildings by 2031. Codes are updated every three years. The new codes, passed last year, are among the most progressive in the country.
Washington’s new building codes were initially set to take effect in July of this year. The SBCC sought amendments to the codes in May along with a delayed implementation date following the success of a legal challenge funded by the fossil fuel industry, when a federal appeals court in California overturned a City of Berkeley electrification ordinance. Even though that decision is being appealed and the Berkeley ordinance could be found lawful, the SBCC proactively decided to revise the new building codes to ensure they would comply with federal law including the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).
EPCA sets national efficiency standards for many household and commercial appliances and prohibits states from setting their own efficiency standards for appliances where they have been set federally to avoid varied efficiency requirements across states. EPCA, however, explicitly allows cities to electrify buildings through local building codes by setting overall efficiency standards that favor electric appliances over burning fossil fuels. States can also establish indoor air quality standards that also favor electricity over polluting methane gas.
The amendments to the codes currently being considered by SBCC will effectively promote energy-efficient heat pumps for virtually all new construction without banning other forms of energy or technology. If the amendments are adopted, the new codes are set to take effect in October. If the SBCC determines it needs more time, the effective date could be later.
The litigation against these codes is part of a broader strategy by the gas industry to undermine and rollback electrification policy with litigation. Earlier this month, Avista, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, was criticized for using ratepayer money to fund litigation in Oregon against the Climate Protection Program, one of the state’s landmark climate policies.
Plaintiffs in the case include the state’s three gas-only utilities (NW Natural, Cascade, and Avista) and construction companies. The defendant is the State Building Code Council. Earthjustice is representing climate and public health groups that have intervened on behalf of SBCC to defend the codes. Those groups include Climate Solutions, the Lands Council, NW Energy Coalition, Sierra Club and Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The Earthjustice attorneys involved in defending Washington’s building codes are Jan Hasselman and Noelia Gravotta.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"In a functional democracy, he would offer his resignation tonight."
A broker for Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly tried to make a "big investment" in a bundle of weapons stocks just weeks before the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, an unpopular assault that Hegseth has aggressively championed.
Citing three unnamed people familiar with the matter, The Financial Times reported on Monday that Hegseth's "broker at Morgan Stanley contacted BlackRock in February about making a multimillion-dollar investment in the asset manager’s Defense Industrials Active ETF... shortly before the US launched military action against Tehran." The bombing began on February 28.
A spokesperson for the Pentagon denied the story, calling it "entirely false and fabricated" and insisting that neither Hegseth nor any of his representatives approached BlackRock about such an investment. But the FT reported that the broker's "inquiry on behalf of the high-profile potential client was flagged internally at BlackRock."
The investment was not ultimately made because the fund—which includes behemoths such as RTX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman—was not available for Morgan Stanley clients to buy at the time.
The purchase would not have been immediately lucrative: Over the past month, the Defense Industrials Active ETF is down over 12%. But the reported allegation that Hegseth's broker sought to make the largest investment in the weapons industry set off alarm bells, particularly amid growing concerns that Trump administration officials are using inside knowledge and manipulating markets to cash in on the war.
"You know, back when the [US government] gave a damn about anti-corruption, this is something we would've seen as a 'no no,'" said Richard Nephew, a former anti-corruption coordinator at the US State Department.
Economist Justin Wolfers wrote of Hegseth that, "in a functional democracy, he would offer his resignation tonight."
Instead, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell demanded that the FT issue an "immediate retraction," dismissing the newspaper's story as "yet another baseless, dishonest smear designed to mislead the public."
Hegseth has emerged as the most prominent and belligerent cheerleader of the Iran war in the US, and—according to President Donald Trump—the Pentagon chief was the first of the president's advisers to "speak up" in favor of the assault during the internal decision-making process.
Trump has also suggested Hegseth does not want the war to end, saying last week that the Pentagon chief was "quite disappointed" when the president claimed the conflict would be over shortly.
"I don’t want to say this, but I have to," Trump told reporters at the White House. "I said, Pete and General Razin’ Caine, this thing is going to be settled very soon, and they go, ‘Oh, that’s too bad.'"
"It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address," said the state attorney general.
The US Department of Justice on Monday continued President Donald Trump's crusade against transgender youth competing in sports in line with their identity by suing the Minnesota Department of Education and the state's high school league.
"The United States files this action to stop Minnesota's unapologetic sex discrimination against female student athletes," says the complaint, filed in a federal court in the state by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.
"The state of Minnesota, through its Department of Education, and the Minnesota State High School League require girls to compete against boys in athletic competitions that are designated exclusively for girls and share intimate spaces, such as multiperson locker rooms and bathrooms, with boys," the complaint continues. "This unfair, intentionally discriminatory practice violates the very core of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972."
The Associated Press noted that "the administration has filed similar lawsuits against Maine and California, and has threatened the federal funding of some universities over transgender athletes, including San José State in California and the University of Pennsylvania."
Tim Leighton, a spokesperson for the league, told the AP that it does not comment on threatened or pending lawsuits. According to The New York Times, Emily Buss, a spokesperson for the state department, said Minnesota's leadership was reviewing the complaint while remaining "committed to ensuring every child—regardless of background, ZIP code, or ability—has access to a world-class education."
While Trump and his allies have aimed to stop all trans women and girls from competing as they identify—including at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles—the fight with Minnesota specifically traces back to the president's February 2025 executive order, after which the administration began investigating the state.
The Minnesota Department of Education gets over $3 billion in federal funding. Democratic state Attorney General Keith Ellison sued to stop the administration from pulling that money last April. In September, the US departments of Education and Health and Human Services concluded that the state agency and league violated Title IX, and the case was referred to the DOJ in January.
In a Monday statement, Ellison said that the DOJ's lawsuit "is just a sad attempt to get attention over something that's already been in litigation for months."
"Donald Trump is currently facing an unpopular war that he launched, rising gas prices, massive health insurance price hikes, and a partial government shutdown caused in part by his ICE agents killing two Minnesotans in broad daylight," Ellison said, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address."
The DOJ filing about trans student-athletes came less than a week after Ellison and other Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration over its refusal to cooperate with state investigators probing the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents earlier this year, as well as the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was wounded but survived.
“Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," said one critic. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
Critics denounced the top Democrat on the US House Intelligence Committee after he said Monday that he would vote to extend a highly controversial authorization for warrantless government spying sought by President Donald Trump that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times under various administrations.
While acknowledging that many of his Democratic colleagues will vote against reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they do not trust Trump to use the provision's sweeping surveillance powers legally, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) signaled that he would support renewal and vote against any efforts for privacy protections.
“There’s a lot of people who are going to switch from yes two years ago to no today," Himes told The Hill. "Because even though Donald Trump’s been president for five years, and he has never abused the program—I would know it pretty much in real time if he did—even though that’s true, people don’t trust Donald Trump."
"And you know, that word came up a lot in the classified briefing; there’s a huge trust gap here," he added. "So there’s going to be a lot of people switching on the Democratic side from yes to no.”
While Section 702 ostensibly limits warrantless surveillance to non-US citizens, such spying also captures the communications of Americans. The measure has been abused at least hundreds of thousands of times, including to spy on protestors, congressional donors, journalists, and others.
“Donald Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," Sean Vitka, executive director of the pro-democracy group Demand Progress, said in a statement Monday. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
"But instead, Rep. Jim Himes is failing his critical role as an overseer of intelligence agencies and using his political power to lobby his fellow Democrats in service of the Trump administration domestic surveillance agenda," Vitka continued. "It is unforgivably cynical and reckless for Rep. Himes to make it easier for this administration to spy on Americans, especially at a time when government agencies’ have made it clear that they intend to supercharge surveillance with [artificial intelligence], and when their misuse of these powers is horrifically on display.”
Nearly 100 civil society groups including Demand Progress are urging congressional Democrats to "stand firm" and vote against Section 702 reauthorization without reforms, including closing the so-called data broker loophole.
Among the Democratic lawmakers reportedly considering voting against the extension is Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who voted for reauthorizing Section 702 in 2024—when Congress extended the spying power until April 20, 2026.
“I supported it because I felt very comfortable that... additional guardrails were safeguarding Americans’ privacy in a sufficiently significant way as to justify the importance of getting this information on an urgent basis," he told The Hill. "And as a former prosecutor, I know how difficult it can be to get a search warrant, and especially in these cases where there often isn’t even probable cause, but my vote was taken on the expectation that the law would be implemented as written."
“And we now have an administration that has routinely, repeatedly, regularly—and seemingly and intentionally—violated numerous laws, undermined the Constitution, attacked our democracy, and simply cannot be trusted with the privacy information that is included in the materials gathered and potentially searched," Goldman continued.
"So unless I receive a lot more information about every single search for a US person that has been done by this administration since they came into office, I don’t see how I can possibly support the reauthorization," he added.