CALVINIST BLACK PRINCE OF MERCENARIES
Ex-Blackwater CEO’s new pitch for Trump 'could be a precursor to deporting US citizens'
Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, attends a police and military presentation, in Guayaquil, Ecuador April 5, 2025. REUTERS/Santiago Arcos
April 12, 2025
ALTERNET
Former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince and defense contractors are aiming to cash in on deportations to a Central American prison/holding facility.
Prince — the brother of President Donald Trump's former education secretary, Betsy DeVos — hopes his proposal can skirt U.S. immigration laws by designating a section of a sprawling El Salvadoran prison as American territory, Politico reported. Proposed new language claiming “transferring a prisoner to such a facility would not be an Extradition nor a Deportation” raises the specter of deporting U.S. citizens to offsite facilities because "deportation" may only qualify as a "transfer." Politico's Dasha Burns and Myah Ward noted that Prince's proposal "could be a precursor to deporting U.S. citizens" even though the facility is initially only for holding undocumented immigrants.
Trump has already floated plans to deport U.S. citizens.
The facility, which has already drawn accusations of violence and overcrowding from human rights groups, could receive thousands more immigrants from facilities in the U.S. There is no word on how accessible the expanded Central American prison would be to immigrant defense attorneys and affected families, however.
It is unclear how seriously the White House is considering Prince’s plan.
A shooting incident in Nisour Square left 17 Iraqi citizens dead, allegedly at the hands of four Blackwater guards, nearly two decades ago. Intense government investigations, scrutiny, private security reform and criminal charges ensued. In 2014, an American jury found the Blackwater guards guilty of various criminal charges, from murder to weapons offenses.
Trump pardoned Blackwater contractors jailed for the massacre in 2020.
The facility is pitched as a holding pen for “criminal illegal aliens,” but the administration has made it clear that the only criminality necessary for arrest and deportation to an offsite prison is being on U.S. soil.
“[B]ecause they illegally broke our nation’s laws, and, therefore, they are criminals, as far as this administration goes,” said Trump Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in January.
Most immigrants swept up within the last two months do not have criminal records in the United States.
Read the full POLITICO article at this link.
ANTI-DEI, ANTI-WOKE IS PRO WHITE POWER
Trump admin keeps Hitler’s memoir on Naval Academy library shelves — but bans Maya Angelou
U.S. President Donald Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio attend a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 10, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard
April 11, 2025
ALTERNET
After he was sworn in as secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth ordered the U.S. Naval Academy to end diversity practices in admissions and in its circulation of the approximately 600,000 titles available in the academy's Nimitz Library.
On Friday, the New York Times found that the result of that policy has been the wholesale removal of books by authors from diverse backgrounds, while keeping books promoting racism and white supremacy on the shelves. Among the books banned include "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou, the 2010 book "Memorializing the Holocaust" (about how female Holocaust victims are remembered) and a critique of the book "The Bell Curve," which argues that Black men and women are genetically less intelligent than whites.
However, the Trump administration has allowed "The Bell Curve" itself to remain available for Naval Academy students. Adolf Hitler's manifesto, "Mein Kampf," is also available for checkout. And a 1973 book called "The Camp of the Saints," which is about a fictionalized world in which immigrants from developing nations take over the Western world and is reportedly a favorite of Trump advisor Stephen Miller, is also still on the shelf.
"Initially, officials searched the Nimitz Library catalog, using keyword searches, to identify books that required further review," Navy spokesperson Cmdr. Tim Hawkins told the Times. "Approximately 900 books were identified during the preliminary search. Departmental officials then closely examined the preliminary list to determine which books required removal to comply with directives outlined in executive orders issued by the president."
The Times noted that "antiracists were targeted" in particular as part of the purge. But the bans were criticized by some Naval Academy alumni, including Admiral James Stavridis, who was previously the commander of all U.S. forces in Europe.
"The Pentagon might have an argument — if midshipmen were being forced to read these 400 books. But as I understand it, they were just among the hundreds of thousands of books in the Nimitz Library which a student might opt to check out. What are we afraid of keeping from them in the library?" Stavridis said, adding that sailors needed to be "educated and not indoctrinated.
“These are among the most intelligent students in the world, who we are entrusting to go to war,” retired commander William Marks, who is an alumnus of the Naval Academy, told the Times. “What does this say about the Pentagon if they don’t trust these young men and women to have access to these books in the library?”
Gov. Shapiro and Family Evacuated From Governor's Mansion After Arson Attack
"Thank God no one was injured and the fire was extinguished," Shapiro said.
Josh Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania, speaks during a rally.
(Photo: Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Common Dreams Staff
Apr 13, 2025
Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family were evacuated early Sunday morning after an apparent arson attack on the official governor's residence.
"Last night at about 2:00 am, my family and I woke up to bangs on the door from the Pennsylvania State Police after an arsonist set fire to the Governor’s Residence in Harrisburg," Shapiro said in a statement posted on social media.
The Harrisburg Bureau of Fire responded to the fire, which "caused a significant amount of damage to a portion of the residence" before it was "successfully extinguished," the Pennsylvania State Police said in a statement. The fire was in a different part of the house from where the governor and his family were staying.
"While the investigation is ongoing, the State Police is prepared to say at this time that this was an act of arson," their statement read.
Shapiro was considered a leading contender to serve as former Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate in the 2024 election. He has been floated as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in the 2028 election.
Shapiro and his family celebrated Passover the night before the fire.
In his message, Shapiro expressed gratitude for the first responders.
"Thank God no one was injured and the fire was extinguished," he said.
Police offered up to $10,000 for any information that leads to an arrest and conviction.
"No additional information will be released at this time. However, this is a fast-moving investigation, and details will be provided as appropriate," the police concluded.
The attack comes as there is growing concern over political violence in the U.S., as The New York Times explained:
Recent high-profile incidents of violence directed at political figures have helped feed fear and unease among Americans, polls have shown. Before the presidential election last year, for instance, about 4 in 10 voters said they were extremely or very concerned about violent attempts to challenge the outcome. The assassination attempt against President Trump last summer took place in Butler, Pennsylvania, a little over 200 miles west of Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania's Lieutenant Governor Austin Davis, a Democrat, was one of several state leaders who spoke out against politically motivated violence in their response to the fire.
"I won't speculate on motivations," he wrote on social media, "but I will say that targeting elected officials and their family members with violence is never acceptable. These sorts of acts deter good people from pursuing public service at a time when we despe
FURTHER
The Observance It Deserves
Balmer posted this embroidered Molotov cocktail on his Facebook page.
Facebook
Abby Zimet
Apr 14, 2025
COMMON DREAMS
Which is more astounding: That a right-wing yahoo got into and set ablaze the home of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and his wife and four kids, or that an orange madman - who assails both those who vandalize cars and those who oppose killing brown children as "domestic terrorists" - stayed silent on the attempted murder of a Jewish governor's family while vowing to "look to Christ's love" even "in life’s most difficult moments," presumably like when your house is burning down. Tough call.
In a Sunday press conference, officials said Gov. Shapiro and his family were evacuated early that morning after an apparent arson attack that caused "a significant amount of damage" to the Governor’s Residence in Harrisburg. Shapiro posted that he and his family were asleep at about 2 a.m. when they were awakened by state police and fire officials banging on their door. The fire struck the part of the residence where, hours before, the family had held a Seder dinner to mark the first night of Passover; Shapiro posted a photo wishing, "Happy Passover From the Shapiro family's Seder table to yours." The family was asleep in a different area, and they all escaped uninjured.
By Sunday night, officials announced they'd captured a suspect, Cody Balmer, 38; they said a "methodical" Balmer "targeted" the home, evaded troopers on duty, jumped a fence and got inside long enough to toss a "home-made incendiary device." According to news reports and a social media trail, Balmer has a criminal record; what is evidently his Facebook page reveals hatred for women and Biden - "Biden supporters shouldn't exist" - a fondness for guns, and support for Trump because gas was cheaper under his reign. While the investigation is ongoing, officials say they expect charges against Balmer to include attempted murder, terrorism, aggravated arson and aggravated assault on an enumerated person.
The attack comes amidst rising political violence that's regularly denounced by politicians including Shapiro - "It is not okay, and it has to stop" - and yet both tacitly and brazenly fomented, since the days of "good people on both sides," by a complicit Mobster-In-Chief; says one sage, "Trump's fingerprints are all over this." Critics note that Trump and Attorney General Blondie Bondi have been quick to condemn any small actions of good will they disagree with - from protesting or vandalizing Teslas to speaking up on college campuses against starving or killing children in Gaza - as "anti-Semitism," "hate crimes" and/or "domestic terrorism," all while amassing troops at the border and disappearing "criminal aliens" for seeking safety.
So it was that, even past midnight Sunday, the witch-hunted, hoax-targeted, anti-anti-Semitic guy who wants to "protect" America's women and white people and riches from "domestic terrorism" - while dismissing attacks on Gretchen Whitmer, Paul Pelosi, the seat of democracy itself - had still said not a word about some random bigot trying to burn a Jewish elected official and his family out of their home. Note to mob boss: The "terrorists" and "anti-Semites" are not the righteous students protesting the deaths of innocent Gazan women and children; they are the arsonists trying to burn families as they sleep on the first night of Passover, which celebrates liberation from oppression. Terror, here, resides in the jaundiced eye of the beholder.
Instead, in the kick-off for his new "Faith Office," Trump issued a Palm Sunday message, renewing his promise to "defend the Christian faith" against the "appalling" likes of (devout Catholic) Biden, who planned 2024's Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter as part of his "years-long assault on the Christian faith." Not so for our new Man of the Gospel who doesn't know any of it. "We will never waver in safeguarding the right to religious liberty," he wrote, calling on "Christ’s love, humility, and obedience." His White House has also promised "an extraordinary Holy Week" to honor Easter with "the observance it deserves." No details yet, but the plans evidently include deporting several more brown-skinned college students for setting fire to Gov. Shapiro's home.
Balmer photo on Facebook page
Abby Zimet has written CD's Further column since 2008. A longtime, award-winning journalist, she moved to the Maine woods in the early 70s, where she spent a dozen years building a house, hauling water and writing before moving to Portland. Having come of political age during the Vietnam War, she has long been involved in women's, labor, anti-war, social justice and refugee rights issues. Email: azimet18@gmail.com
Full Bio >
'Scared for my friends’: Scientists fearing retaliation from Trump abruptly withdraw studyApril 11, 2025
ALTERNET
Co-authors working on a scientific paper abruptly pulled its publication because it was a paper on evolution -- and feared retaliation from President Donald Trump's administration.
The paper “was months of work, but at the same time I know the current situation, and I’m scared for my friends in the U.S.,” said a European evolutionary biologist speaking anonymously for fear if retaliation. “I told them, ‘If you think it is too dangerous, don’t do it.’”
The co-authors, who are legal immigrants, told fellow researchers they feared deportation for daring to publish a paper on evolution, according to Washington Post reporter Mark Johnson. One of the co-authors had just lost a job because of a canceled government grant and the other feared more canceled grants for even broaching the topic in a nation riddled with anti-science. Both worried they might lose their residency if their names appeared on a “controversial article” despite being in the U.S. legally, Johnson writes.
One of the paper’s editors, European astrobiologist Michael L. Wong, confirmed authors pulled their submission from the Royal Society journal because of the nation’s embrace of anti-science.
“I was so looking forward to reading this paper because I think the ideas in it are potentially transformative,” said Wong. “But the fact that people, scientific researchers, are afraid of just engaging in normal scientific discourse, putting their well thought out ideas into the public sphere so that everybody can see them, read them, come to their own conclusions about them and then debate them ― it is so disheartening.”
United States officials have detained French scientists entering the United States after daring to criticize President Donald Trump's cuts to science funding, and international scientists are increasingly leery of traveling to the U.S. The Washington Post obtained an email from the French National Centre for Scientific Research advising U.S. visitors that they could have their laptops and cellphones seized and examined at the border and their spoken or written criticisms of U.S. government used against them while in the country.
“I have friends who are currently afraid to have a layover in the U.S.,” a University of Toronto molecular biology student told the Post. The student also spoke anonymously out of fear of retaliation.
Read the full Washington Post article at this link.
'No One Voted to Slaughter Hummingbirds': Trump's DOI Guts Bird Protections, Again
"Trump is breaking the law and flouting a court order by handing the fossil fuel industry and polluters this blank check to kill millions of migratory birds," one advocate said.
A ruby-throated hummingbird flies over a mimosa tree in Saugus, Massachusetts, on July 22, 2023.
(Photo: Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)
Olivia Rosane
Apr 12, 2025
COMMON DREAMS
The Trump administration moved on Friday to weaken protections for migratory birds threatened by industrial activities, including oil and gas operations.
Acting Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Gregory Zerzan restored an opinion from the first Trump administration that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) "does not apply to the accidental or incidental taking or killing of migratory birds," despite the fact that this opinion was already ruled illegal in federal court.
"Trump is breaking the law and flouting a court order by handing the fossil fuel industry and polluters this blank check to kill millions of migratory birds," said Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The United States has lost billions of birds over the past 50 years, and that decline will accelerate horrifically because of this callous, anti-wildlife directive. No one voted to slaughter hummingbirds, cranes, and raptors, but this is the reality of Trump's illegal actions today."
"We're not going to succeed in addressing the crisis facing birds and other wildlife if we let this and other historic rollbacks stand."
The new directive comes as birds in the U.S. are under threat, with their numbers falling by around 30% since 1970. A number of factors are responsible for this decline, among them the climate emergency, habitat loss, falling insect populations, window strikes, and outdoor cats. However, conservationists toldThe New York Times that industrial activities would be a greater threat if not for the protection the law provides.
For example, Zuardo told the Times that if U.S. President Donald Trump's interpretation of the law had been in effect following BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010—which likely killed over 1 million birds—the company would not have been charged the around $100 million in fines that went to support bird conservation after the disaster.
Friday's directive is part of an ongoing effort over the course of both Trump administrations to weaken the MBTA so that it only targets the purposeful killing of birds, dropping enforcement against accidents such as as oil spills, drownings in uncovered oil pits, trappings in open mining pipes, and collisions with power lines or communication towers.
In 2017, lead Interior Department lawyer Daniel Jorjani issued an initial legal opinion claiming the MBTA only covered purposeful killings. This interpretation was struck down by a federal court in 2020, which argued that the act's "clear language" put it in "direct conflict" with the Trump opinion.
This didn't stop the Trump administration from issuing a final rule attempting to enshrine its interpretation of the MBTA at the end of Trump's first term, which was widely decried by bird advocates.
"We're not going to succeed in addressing the crisis facing birds and other wildlife if we let this and other historic rollbacks stand," Erik Schneider, policy manager for the National Audubon Society, said at the time.
However, months into the presidency of Joe Biden, DOI principal deputy solicitor Robert T. Anderson withdrew the initial 2017 Trump administration opinion after an appeals court, following the request of the U.S. government, dismissed the Trump administration's earlier appeal of the 2020 court decision.
"The lower court decision is consistent with the Department of the Interior's long-standing interpretation of the MBTA," Anderson wrote.
Later, the Biden administration also reversed the formal Trump-era rule weakening the MBTA.
Now, in his second term, Trump is coming for the birds again. The Biden-era withdrawal was one of 20 Biden-era opinions that the Trump DOI suspended in March. It was then officially revoked and withdrawn on Friday.
In justifying its decision, Trump's DOI cited the president's January 20 executive order "Unleashing American Energy," which calls on federal agencies to "suspend, revise, or rescind all agency actions identified as unduly burdensome," making it clear the weakening of protections is largely intended to benefit the fossil fuel and mining industries.
Trump Proposal Called a 'Death Sentence for Plants and Animals on the Brink of Extinction'
"Humanity's survival depends on biodiversity, and no one voted to fast-track extinction," one conservationist stressed. "This is a five-alarm fire."
A green sea turtle swims in the bay of Muelle Tijeretas near Santa Cruz island, part of the Galapagos archipelago, on February 17, 2025.
(Photo: Ozge Elif Kizil/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Jessica Corbett
Apr 12, 2025
COMMON DREAMS
A leading conservation group is sounding the alarm over a new Trump administration attack on threatened and endangered species: an attempt to redefine "harm" as it relates to a key federal law.
The law? The Endangered Species Act (ESA), a longtime target of U.S. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, despite being signed in 1973 by then-President Richard Nixon.
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) on Tuesday noticed that the Department of the Interior—now led by Trump appointee Doug Burgum, a billionaire ally of the fossil fuel industry—sent a proposed rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review.
The Monday proposal is not yet available, but on a public online dashboard it is titled, "Redefinition of 'Harm.'" There is also a Tuesday submission from the Department of Commerce titled, "Defining 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act."
CBD called it "the first step toward stripping habitat protections from rare plants and animals headed toward extinction."
"The malignant greed driving these policies threatens to greatly increase destruction of the natural world and turbocharge the extinction crisis."
Under the ESA, people cannot "take" an endangered species of fish or wildlife—and take is defined as "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect." Within that definition, harm means injuring or killing wildlife.
The law states that "such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering."
Noah Greenwald, CBD's co-director of endangered species, explained Tuesday that "weakening the definition of harm would cut the heart out of the Endangered Species Act and be a death sentence for plants and animals on the brink of extinction."
"The Trump administration has been systematically killing protections for our air, water, wildlife, and climate like a vicious cancer," he continued. "The malignant greed driving these policies threatens to greatly increase destruction of the natural world and turbocharge the extinction crisis. We'll keep fighting for each and every one of these plants and animals."
"Unless habitat destruction is prohibited, spotted owls, sea turtles, salmon and so many more animals and plants won't have a chance," Greenwald warned. "Humanity's survival depends on biodiversity, and no one voted to fast-track extinction. This is a five-alarm fire."
The redefinition push is just part of the GOP's assault on the ESA. As Common Dreamsreported in late March, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have been working to advance a pair of laws, the ESA Amendments Act, which aims to streamline regulatory and permitting processes, and the Pet and Livestock Protection Act, which would strip federal protections from the gray wolf within 60 days and prohibit judicial review of the action.
There have also been direct attacks on the law from the White House. When Trump returned to office in January, he swiftly declared a "national energy emergency" intended to deliver on his promise to "drill, baby, drill" for climate-wrecking fossil fuels. A section of the executive order effectively says the ESA can't be an obstacle to energy development, which concerned conservationists.
"This executive order, in a lot of ways, is a gift to the oil and gas industry and is being sold as a way to respond to the emergency declaration by President Trump," Gib Brogan, a campaign director with conservation group Oceana, toldThe Associated Press in January. "There is no emergency. The species continue to suffer. And this executive order will only accelerate the decline of endangered species in the United States."
CBD's Greenwald also blasted the order at the time, declaring that "with U.S. oil production at an all-time high, the real national emergencies are the extinction crisis and climate change."
"We're losing plant and animal species at an unprecedented rate, and our planet is heating up with dangerous speed," he stressed, just weeks after the conclusion of the hottest year in human history. "Extinction and climate change are chewing up the web of life that ultimately supports virtually everything we know and love, and Trump's order will only accelerate the destruction."
"This executive order is a death warrant for polar bears, lesser prairie chickens, whooping cranes and so many more species on the brink of extinction," he added. "This unconscionable measure is completely out of step with most Americans, an overwhelming majority of whom support protecting species from extinction and preserving our natural heritage. We'll use every legal tool we can to ensure dangerous fossil fuel projects don’t drive species to extinction."
The president continues to pursue fossil fuel-friendly executive actions. On Tuesday, he signed multiple orders that aim to boost the coal industry—which Jason Rylander of CBD's Climate Law Institute said "take his worship of dirty fossil fuels to a gross and disturbingly reckless new level."
"Forcing old coal plants to keep spewing pollution into our air and water means more cancer, more asthma, and more premature deaths," Rylander noted. "This is yet another assault on efforts to preserve a livable climate, and it's now abundantly clear that Trump's promise to give America the cleanest air and water was a bold-faced lie."
Any Trump EPA Attempt to Stop Regulating Climate Pollution Won’t Stand up to the Facts
The science on climate change is so indisputably well-established, that it’s hard to see how any court would uphold a challenge to it.
A man fills his car up with gas at a Brooklyn station in New York City.
(Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Rachel Cleetus
Apr 13, 2025Union of Concerned Scientists/Blog
In a blitz of destructive actions announced by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin last month, he specifically called for a reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. A formal proposal for reconsideration of the finding (and all the agency regulations and actions that depend on it) is expected this month.
The science underpinning the Endangerment Finding is airtight, but that won’t stop the Trump administration from setting up a rigged process to try to undo it and give a blank check to polluters. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) will fight back to defend climate science and protect public health safeguards.
In an earlier post, I laid out some of the history and context for the 2009 science-backed Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. These findings followed from the landmark 2007 Mass v. EPA Supreme Court ruling which held that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are unambiguously air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. Together, these establish the clear basis for EPA’s authority and responsibility to set pollutions limits for heat-trapping emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other sources of these pollutants, under the Clean Air Act.
There is nothing mysterious about the heat-trapping attributes of greenhouse gases, nor their impact on public health. It’s called science.
Attacks on the Endangerment Finding and EPA’s Clean Air Act authority from industry interests are nothing new. Importantly, courts have repeatedly upheld both, including in a resounding 2012 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals–D.C. Circuit in Citizens for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. But those who have long sought to overturn or weaken regulations to limit heat-trapping emissions now have Administrator Zeldin in their corner. And he has shown himself to be an unbridled purveyor of disinformation and proponent of harmful attacks on bedrock public health protections, as my colleague Julie McNamara highlights.
The details of what will be included in the reconsideration proposal are unclear at this point. But we do know some of the trumped-up lines of attack the Zeldin EPA could advance to try to invalidate these findings because many of these tired arguments are outlined in EPA’s reconsideration announcement.
Here are the facts:
Fact No. 1: The Science Backing the Endangerment Finding Is Beyond Dispute
Every major scientific society endorses the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change driven by GHG emissions. The Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) and the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report are two major recent authoritative summaries of peer-reviewed climate science, which show that the science on climate change has only become more dire and compelling since 2009.
The impacts of climate change on human health are also starkly clear and backed by overwhelming evidence. Here’s the main finding from the NCA5 chapter on public health, for instance:
Climate change is harming physical, mental, spiritual, and community health through the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme events, higher incidences of infectious and vector-borne diseases, and declines in food and water security. These impacts worsen social inequities. Emissions reductions, effective adaptation measures, and climate-resilient health systems can protect human health and improve health equity.
As just one example, climate change is contributing to worsening extreme heat, which exerts a punishing toll on people’s health, including that of outdoor workers. Heat is already the leading cause of extreme weather-related deaths in the United States, and studies show that heat-related mortality is on the rise.
Looking around the nation, with communities reeling from extreme heatwaves, intensified hurricanes, catastrophic wildfires, and record flooding, climate impacts are the lived reality of all too many people. To deny that or obfuscate about the underlying causes is not only disingenuous, but actively harmful and outright cruel.
Fact No. 2: The Law Requires an Independent Scientific Determination of Endangerment, Unhindered by Cost Considerations
A Finding of Endangerment under the Clean Air Act is specifically focused on a threshold scientific determination of whether the pollutant under consideration harms public health or welfare. Costs to industry of meeting any subsequent regulations are not relevant per the statute.
The original Endangerment Finding was reached in the context of the vehicle emissions, per section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, partially excerpted below:
The administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
In its 2012 decision, the D.C. Circuit was also clear is noting that “By employing the verb ‘shall,’ Congress vested a non-discretionary duty in EPA.” That duty is not circumscribed by cost considerations.
Of course, the impacts of climate change are themselves incredibly costly and those costs are mounting as heat-trapping emissions rise. Unsurprisingly, the social cost of greenhouse gases, a science-based estimate of those costs, is another metric that the Trump EPA is seeking to undermine in yet another blatant attempt to put a thumb on the scale in favor of polluting industries.
Fact No. 3: EPA Used Well-Established Methodologies in Its Assessment of Six GHGs
As noted in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the EPA defined the pollutant contributing to climate change as “the aggregate group of the well-mixed greenhouse gases” with similar attributes. The attributes include that they are sufficiently long-lived, directly emitted, contribute to climate warming, and are a focus of science and policy.
The EPA used a very well-established scientific methodology to combine emissions of GHGs on the basis of their heat-trapping potential, measured in carbon-dioxide equivalents. In the case of passenger cars, light- and heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles—the transportation sources EPA considered for the original Endangerment Finding—they emitted four key greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons.
False, glib claims in the reconsideration announcement baselessly accuse the 2009 Endangerment Finding of making “creative leaps” and “mysterious” choices. There is nothing mysterious about the heat-trapping attributes of greenhouse gases, nor their impact on public health. It’s called science. Once again, relying on the mountain of evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature would make that readily apparent.
Fact No. 4: EPA Has the Responsibility and Authority to Regulate Major Sources of GHGs
The Cause or Contribute Finding—which specifically established that greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles contribute to the pollution that harms public health—may also come under attack. This finding has been extended to other major sources of GHGs, including power plants and oil and gas operations. However, the Trump administration could attempt to use accounting tricks to avoid regulating emissions—as it has tried before.
In its first term, the administration attempted multiple underhanded maneuvers along these lines, including in the context of methane and volatile organic compound regulations in the oil and gas sector. For these regulations, the administration split up segments of the source category, designated them as separate source categories, used that manipulation to claim inability to regulate certain segments, and asserted that methane emissions from the remaining segments were too small and regulating them would not provide additional benefits, so those too could not be regulated. Separately, in the final days of the administration, EPA released an absurd framework attempting to set thresholds for determining “significance,” trialed in the context of power plants.
This irrational approach could be used to artificially segment components of power plants or the power system, for example, and then claim no regulations are required. This kind of rigged math wouldn’t fool a kindergarten child, but there’s no telling where this administration might go in its desperate attempt to undo or weaken regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
Zeldin’s Relentless Subversion of EPA’s Mission
Under Administrator Zeldin, EPA’s mission to protect public health and the environment has been completely subverted. His shocking rhetoric lays bare how far he will go to protect polluters at the expense of the public. Here he is, for instance, crowing about going after 31+ EPA regulations and guidance, as well as the enforcement of pollution standards meant to protect all of us:
Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen. We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion…
EPA even set up an email address for polluters to send an email to get a presidential exemption from complying with regulations on toxic pollution, such as mercury emissions, regulated under the Clean Air Act!
Zeldin is fervently committed to dismantling public health protections and rolling back enforcement of existing laws passed by Congress. Going after the Endangerment Finding is an integral part of this all-out assault because, in the Trump administration’s harmful calculation, revoking the finding is a potential means to rolling back all the regulations that depend on it.
Ironically, some utilities and oil and gas companies have spoken out in favor of keeping the finding intact, as they fear a greater risk of climate damages lawsuits in the absence of EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Of course, this just exposes that they know their products are causing damage. What they seek is the weakest possible exercise of EPA authority so they can continue to reap profits while evading accountability for those harms.
We Can Fight Back With Science
But none of this is a foregone conclusion. The legal and scientific basis for the Endangerment Finding is incredibly strong. The false claims Zeldin and other opponents have trotted out are full of bombast but weak on substance.
The science on climate change is so indisputably well-established, that it’s hard to see how any court would uphold a challenge to it. That’s not to say Zeldin won’t try to find a cabal of fringe “scientists” to try to attack it, but they’re unlikely to succeed on the merits.
Public comments on the proposal to reconsider the Endangerment Finding can help set the record straight on facts. And if the Zeldin EPA ignores them and finalizes a sham finding or revokes the finding with a faulty rationale, that will be challenged in court.
UCS will be closely following the details of EPA’s proposal to reconsider the Endangerment Finding when it is released. And we will let you know how you can add your voice to bolster this crucial science-based finding, and the public health protections that flow from it. So, stay tuned!
© 2023 Union of Concerned Scientists
Rachel Cleetus is the policy director with the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Full Bio >
IRS Collaboration With ICE Threatens Its Core Mission
Using the IRS and its resources for immigration enforcement violates privacy laws and undermines public trust in the agency, impacting its ability to collect revenue.
A sign for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seen outside its building on February 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
Attempts by the Department of Homeland Security to secure private information from the Internal Revenue Service on people who file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number is a violation of federal privacy laws that protect taxpayers. It is also a change that could seriously damage public trust in the IRS, which could jeopardize billions of dollars in tax payments by hardworking immigrant families.
The recent memorandum of understanding between the IRS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—which led to the resignation of the Acting IRS Commissioner—establishes procedures for requesting taxpayer information under IRC section 6103(i)(2) for criminal investigations. But that section is clear: Taxpayer information is confidential unless Congress specifically authorizes disclosure. No such authorization exists for routine immigration enforcement.
Using the IRS and its resources for immigration enforcement is a departure from the agency’s core mission, which is to administer tax laws. What’s more, federal privacy law unambiguously protects all taxpayer information, meaning tax returns and taxpayer information must remain confidential except under very specific circumstances that do not include immigration enforcement. This weaponization should worry all filers, because if this can be done without congressional authorization then it can be done to other groups as well.
Every 10-percentage point drop in the income tax compliance rate of undocumented immigrants would lower federal tax revenue by $8.6 billion per year, and state and local tax collections by $900 million per year.
Besides the privacy implications, there are other important considerations when we look at how this will affect immigrant families.
We know that undocumented immigrants pay taxes. Recent Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy research finds that undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in taxes in 2022, with more than a third of that amount ($37.3 billion) going to states and localities.
Deporting immigrants on a large scale would cause most of those revenues to vanish from public coffers. Both income and sales tax revenues would be reduced as these individuals would no longer be in the U.S. earning taxable incomes and making taxable purchases.
We predict a $7.9 billion reduction in annual revenue for every 1 million undocumented people who exit the country, with $2.5 billion of that coming out of state and local budgets.
But these figures almost certainly understate the true revenue cost of deportations. They don’t account for losses to business outputs and workforce declines in sectors like construction and agriculture. They don’t consider the effects these efforts will have on documented immigrants who may be erroneously swept up in this. And they don’t try to measure how deportations may lead immigrant families to retreat from public view, constrained to less formal, off-the-books employment at jobs less likely to withhold income tax from paychecks.
Our analysis suggests that every 10-percentage point drop in the income tax compliance rate of undocumented immigrants would lower federal tax revenue by $8.6 billion per year, and state and local tax collections by $900 million per year.
Marco Guzman is a senior analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Full Bio >
Elon Musk’s Death Drive
Is it possible that by promising to end “death by bureaucracy,” he has willfully sowed the seeds of his own political demise?
CEO of Tesla and SpaceX Elon Musk wields a chainsaw as he leaves the stage alongside Newsmax anchor Rob Schmitt at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on February 20, 2025 in Oxon Hill, Maryland.
(Photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Common Dreams
On Saturday, April 5 hundreds of thousands gathered across the United States rallying under the banner of “hands off.” The protest was against the devastation wielded by the Trump government on public services, consumer protections, public healthcare, and trade freedom. The protesters’ ire turned especially to Elon Musk’s work with the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) radically downsizing U.S. government spending. “Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Elon Musk has to go!” They chanted
The scenes of public dissent were in sharp contrast to the image of Musk, just a few months ago, taking the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington raising a chainsaw high in the air with boyish glee. “This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,” he extolled, referring to his aggressively ruthless ambition to ax $2 trillion from the U.S. federal budget.
The April protests are a sign that Musk’s fresh-faced jubilance and billionaire-funded political luck might be running out at the hands of his own destructive impulses. As Musk wantonly fights against what he calls “civilizational suicidal empathy,” is it possible that by promising to end “death by bureaucracy,” he has willfully sowed the seeds of his own political demise?
He represents a very particular marriage of politics and capitalism that has no respect for the law, believing that the masters of industry should also be the masters of the world, unencumbered by stuffy bureaucrats trying to stymie their pursuit of greatness.
Musk portrays himself as the billionaire version of the classic vigilante: the man (almost always) who takes the law into his own hands in search of a self-styled brand of justice and effectiveness. A significant part of Musk’s cultural cache is that he exploits the vigilante myth, portraying himself as the savior of an America dream destroyed by corrupt and inefficient democratic institutions.
President Donald Trump described Musk’s vigilante appeal well: “Elon is doing a great job, but I would like to see him get more aggressive. Remember, we have a country to save.” Destruction, redemption, and emancipation driven by masculine emotion is at the heart of Musk’s DOGE endeavor.
Vigilantes achieve their ambitions through self-justified law breaking, reflected in Musk’s DOGE being condemned as illegal. With unwavering confidence in their own convictions, vigilantes feel justified in using whatever powers they have to ensure what they think is right is enforced—and in Musk’s case that is a lot of power.
Unlike the vigilantes we see on television or in the movies, Musk is not a violent avenger seeking justice through the barrel of a gun (or even at the end of chain saw). His weapons are not firearms but money and power. He is portrayed as “the DOGEfather” in vigilante reference to Don Corleone, the eponymous anti-hero of 1972 gangster film The Godfather.
Musk acts out billionaire vigilantism par excellence. He represents a very particular marriage of politics and capitalism that has no respect for the law, believing that the masters of industry should also be the masters of the world, unencumbered by stuffy bureaucrats trying to stymie their pursuit of greatness.
The aggression of Musk’s ambition to slash government and upturn the institutions of democracy appears to be turning against up him. His popularity is nosediving as his unpredictable and conflict-ridden behavior escalates. Musk may have taken the stereotype of the vigilante to such extremes that he is exercising a death wish not just on his own political career but on very idea of the heroic billionaire savior.
The tides are certainly changing. Musk may have used his wealth to influence the presidential election last year, but this month his $25 million spend could not secure Trump’s preferred candidate Brad Schimel in the campaign for as seat in Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Tesla’s sales around the world have plummeted, with people seemingly embarrassed at the prospect of being seen to be associated with Musk. Many are putting bumper stickers on their cars with slogans such as “I Bought This Before We Knew Elon Was Crazy.” In Britain social media campaigners Everyone Hates Elon orchestrated a public art project where people took sledgehammers to a donated Tesla Model S. Their purpose was “to create a debate about wealth inequality.”
Employees are not far behind. Musk practically begged them not to sell Tesla stock holdings. Meanwhile investors are calling for Musk to resign as CEO of Tesla as he gets more and more embroiled in political controversy and Tesla’s market value stumbles. In the the not too recent past conservatives rallied behind the slogan “go woke, go broke.” This is rapidly turning around to “go MAGA, go broke.”
Musk’s outlandish death drive might end up killing the vigilante myth he trades on rather than killing American democracy. Time will tell, but for now there are plenty of reasons to hope that it will.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Carl Rhodes is professor of organization studies at UTS Business School in Sydney, Australia. His research critically investigates the relationship between business and politics, with a special focus on justice, equality, resistance, dissent, and democracy. His latest book is “Stinking Rich: The Four Myths of the Good Billionaire” (Bristol University Press, 2025).
Full Bio >
Today’s ‘Death Squad’ Dems Enable the Trump-Backed Slaughter in Yemen, Gaza, and Beyond
The truth is that a number of Democratic members of Congress, whom millions of people see as leading the resistance, actually ally with Trump on foreign policy.
A man carries his child near the rubble of a building targeted by the United States' aerial attacks on March 20, 2025, in Sanaa, Yemen
(Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images)
Stephen Zunes
Apr 14, 2025The Progressive
On March 15, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz informed fellow Trump Administration officials through their now-infamous Signal chat that a U.S. missile attack had resulted in the collapse of an apartment building filled with Yemeni civilians. Vice President JD Vance replied, “Excellent.”
Democrats on Capitol Hill have since expressed outrage—not at the deaths of innocent civilians, or at the United States’ unprovoked attack on a sovereign country, but at the fact that the conversation was not more carefully shielded from the public.
The Trump administration claims to have resumed bombing in Yemen to stop the Houthi rebels’ attacks on shipping vessels in the Red Sea, despite the fact that the Houthis, who serve as the de facto government of much of the country, had ceased those attacks months ago. Scores of Yemeni civilians have died since the United States resumed the bombing last month. Air strikes have denied tens of thousands of people in this impoverished country access to electricity and drinking water. The Democratic leadership in Congress has refused to condemn this destruction or attempt to invoke the War Powers Resolution, which was enacted in 1973 to limit a president’s ability to engage in armed conflict without the consent of Congress.
Today, it is the majority of congressional Democrats who are allying with a Republican President to support war crimes and undermine international humanitarian law.
Those same Democratic leaders have expressed little opposition to President Donald Trump’s support of Israel’s ongoing occupation forces in Lebanon, which violate the terms of the cease-fire agreement made between Israel and Lebanon last fall. Nor have the Democrats objected to Trump’s support for Israel’s violation of its 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria, or his defense of the ongoing large-scale seizure of Palestinian lands and destruction of villages in the occupied West Bank.
And it’s not just Israel. The Democratic leadership has also backed Trump’s arms shipments and other support for oppressive Arab dictatorships, including Morocco, whose illegal annexation of Western Sahara he recognized in 2020, violating a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions and a landmark ruling of the International Court of Justice.
Soon after Trump launched his war on Yemen, Israel’s far-right government tore up its cease-fire agreement with Hamas, which was the product of months of negotiations led by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the indicted war criminal feted this week in Washington, D.C., relaunched devastating air strikes as Israeli troops re-occupied large swathes of the territory, forcing the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people.
More than 1,000 Palestinians, primarily civilians, have been killed in these post-cease-fire attacks, including more than 300 children. The recent execution-style slaying of 15 paramedics and rescue workers in clearly marked ambulances by Israeli forces, who attempted a coverup by burying the victims and their vehicles in a mass grave, has sparked international outrage.
Meanwhile, both Netanyahu and Trump are pushing forward with their plan to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip of surviving Palestinians in order to develop resorts there, per Trump’s aspiration. Rather than try to force 2.3 million people out by bayonet point, the U.S. and Israel appear determined to drive out the population by bombing civilians and blocking food and medicines from entering the besieged enclave, forcing the remaining population to flee in order to survive.
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has sponsored Joint Resolutions of Disapproval over some of Trump’s continued backing of Netanyahu.
“As a result of Israel’s blocking of humanitarian aid into Gaza, many thousands of children there face malnutrition and even starvation,” Sanders said. “Sadly, and illegally, much of the carnage in Gaza has been carried out with U.S.-provided military equipment. Providing more offensive weapons to continue this disastrous war would violate U.S. and international law.”
Among the weapons included in the resolution are 35,000 two-thousand-pound bombs, which have caused thousands of civilian casualties over the past 18 months. The international outcry over these war crimes was so great that even President Joe Biden suspended their shipment last spring. Trump insisted that such arms shipments should be resumed, however, and the majority of Senate Democrats are supporting him.
Indeed, only 14 Democratic Senators voted for Sanders’ resolutions to block the transfer of these and other deadly weapons.
This was not a result of political pressure. Only 15% of Americans and just 5% of Democrats support additional military aid to Israel. Senate offices were flooded with calls to support the resolutions in a campaign organized by a wide array of peace, human rights, and religious organizations. Despite this, more than 70% of Senate Democrats sided with Trump and the arms industry over the wishes of their constituents.
The truth is that a number of Democratic members of Congress, whom millions of people see as leading the resistance, actually ally with Trump on foreign policy.
While Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)—a prominent supporter of Trump’s massive arms transfers—was widely praised for his marathon speech warning of the dangers of Trump’s policies, few pointed out that Booker expressed support for Trump’s backing of Israel’s far-right government and autocratic Arab allies during his address and joined the majority of Democrats if voting against limiting arms shipments.
Instead of challenging Trump’s Middle East policies, today’s opposition party resembles the so-called “Death Squad Democrats” who backed former President Ronald Reagan’s policy in Central America. The difference is that such Democratic militarists were then in the minority. Today, it is the majority of congressional Democrats who are allying with a Republican President to support war crimes and undermine international humanitarian law.
Had today’s Democrats been in office 40 years ago, they would have likely backed arming the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, the death squads in El Salvador, and the Guatemalan genocide against the indigenous Mayans. A few years earlier, they would have probably supported former President Richard Nixon’s carpet bombing of Vietnam.
Perhaps today’s Democratic Party leadership assumes that the threat to basic government institutions and our very democracy posed by the Republicans is so great that progressive voters will support their candidates even if they side with Trump on such issues as offensive military operations, arms control, human rights, and international law.
This is not necessarily the case, however. Polls have shown that Democratic support for Israel’s war on Gaza was the number one issue among the 19 million voters who backed Biden in 2020 but did not vote for Kamala Harris in 2024.
Indeed, a case could be made that, given the closeness of the presidential election and some key congressional races, Democratic support for Israel’s wars on its neighbors cost them the White House and both houses of Congress.
A growing number of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters do see opposing ethnic cleansing, undeclared wars, massacres of civilians, and other crimes as a fundamental principle that’s worth defending. Even if that means standing up to the party’s leadership.
© 2023 The Progressive
Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he serves as coordinator of the program in Middle Eastern Studies. Recognized as one the country's leading scholars of U.S. Middle East policy and of strategic nonviolent action, Professor Zunes serves as a senior policy analyst for the Foreign Policy in Focus project of the Institute for Policy Studies, an associate editor of Peace Review, a contributing editor of Tikkun, and co-chair of the academic advisory committee for the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.
Full Bio >
