Friday, February 07, 2025

'Collateral damage': Trans people 'disgusted' by MAGA — and the Democratic Party



(Photo courtesy Frankie Perez)
Frankie Perez in his Air National Guard uniform.

February 06, 2025

For the last seven months, Frankie Perez has been collecting paperwork, scheduling appointments and taking every needed step to return to the Air National Guard.

Perez, 38, had previously served four years in active duty before leaving in 2015. While he served six years as a reservist, his goal was always to return to active duty.

He is scheduled to take his physical examination as a precursor to returning to service later this month. But, Perez doesn’t know if President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender people, like him, serving in the military will prevent him from returning to service.

“I started all of this before Trump got back into the White House and before all of this happened,” Perez said. “I mean, I knew he was running. I knew what this could mean, and here we are.”

Like many trans people across the country, Perez is uncertain what his future looks like because of Trump’s escalated actions targeting the trans communi

Along with actions to prohibit trans people from military service, Trump has issued several other anti-trans orders, including one to block federal support for gender-affirming medical care to patients younger than 19 and one to ban access to restrooms in federal agencies.

“I was wondering if my recruiter was gonna send me a text to say ‘don’t go,’ but she hasn’t, ” Perez said. “From a legal standpoint, I’ve reached out to somebody who’s in the military that’s actually a lawyer. I may want to fight back if I get a hard no.”

The State Department is no longer issuing U.S. passports with “X” gender markers while the White House has required pronouns be removed from email signatures.

RockAthena Brittain, who is trans, said the moves by the Trump administration are setting the stage “in the public’s mind and in the legal discourse” that paints a picture that “transgender people are dangerous criminals and destroying lives.”

In his most recent action, Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday to ban trans people from playing sports that align with their gender identity.

“Where do we go if we have no place in public or private life?” she said. “It sounds like death to me.”

Trans people and LGBTQ+ serving groups in Nevada said these recent actions have created a lot of fear and unease in the community.

Some say the lack of response from Democratic elected officials to the assault on trans rights is also troubling.

Brittain, who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2024 in a Democratic primary against U.S. Rep. Susie Lee, said she is “disgusted by the so-called Democratic leadership” for not doing more amid growing anti-trans rhetoric.

Democrats, she said, aren’t willing to stand up for the trans community while trans people are “being stripped of our lives.”


“Obviously I’m disgusted with MAGA,” she said.

But Brittain is also disturbed by members of her own party “turning their backs” and pretending it’s fine for trans people to be “collateral damage” out of convenience.

“I don’t think that these democrats on any level are willing to stand up and actually sacrifice themselves for the people that they are supposed to represent,” Brittain said.
‘People are really scared’


Since Trump won the presidency, AJ Huth, director of public affairs and civic engagement for the LGBTQ Center in Las Vegas, said they have received non-stop calls and emails from the community.

“People are really scared,” Huth said. “There is this extra vigilance we all have now.”

Andre Wade, the Nevada director for Silver State Equality, said he’s not surprised by the pace of Trump’s actions against the LGBTQ+ community, specifically the trans community,

“It’s spelled out in Project 2025,” Wade said of the ultra-conservative blueprint for the next Republican president that Trump has been using to draft orders and actions.


The playbook, originally drafted by the Heritage Foundation, outlines numerous anti-LGBTQ policies.

“Trump and the MAGA folks have been signaling they are going to be going this route,” he said. “These orders really point to an attempt to erase trans people and gender-diverse people at the federal level through policy and programs that have been in place.”

These executive orders at their core, Wade said, defines “who the Trump administration thinks are rightful Americans.”

But the orders, in particular the effort to ban trans people from the military, puts America “at a greater risk.”

“With the recent confirmation of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, our national security is in a more precarious position than ever,” he said. “We are also greatly disturbed by the sheer amount of animus present in the executive order—President Trump seems to relish belittling and harassing members of the transgender community.”

Many of Trump’s orders have faced legal challenges that have delayed implementation.

Even if they aren’t able to be fully enforced, Wade said they will still be detrimental to the trans community.

The orders would have “a huge impact on people’s mental health, their sense of safety, their well being and security in knowing they too are part of the American dream,” he said. “We are part of the American dream. We are part of the American fabric.”

Huth said the attacks, while scary, aren’t anything new.

The LGBTQ community in general, she said, has “been the political football for the last 30 years.”

“We’ve made a lot of progress and we know how to fight,” she said. “We know how to keep ourselves safe.”

Huth said she tried to be optimistic at first since the state has passed laws enhancing protections around gender identity and sexual orientation.

In 2023, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo signed several trans protections, including preventing insurance companies from discriminating against trans people on the basis of gender identity..

“At the beginning I was optimistic because Nevada is awesome,” Huth said. “We have some awesome protections so let’s hang in there and take it one day at a time because we’re going to be OK.”

Huth has been unable to figure out if Nevada’s protections could offer some protections to the trans community from the Trump administration’s multiple orders..

“I’ve asked that question to a bunch of people and nobody really knows the answer,” Huth said.

As actions keep rolling out, Huth said she has spoken to “a lot of people in our community who feel very betrayed right now” by some of the Democratic elected officials’ response, or lack thereof.

Huth said she’s beginning to lose confidence in Democratic members of Congress, including those from Nevada.

“People who have been elected who have historically been more progressive Democrats are kind of giving in…That’s a concern. I don’t really understand it.”

Huth declined to name particular elected officials who are undermining her optimism.

Brittain doesn’t share much of the optimism to begin with.

She said she has talked to other trans people who have told her they are optimistic and “hoping for the best.”

But at the same time, “There’s a lot of people in the trans community in this state who are scared to death, who don’t share that hope, who don’t know what to do, because they don’t have enough information or resources,” Brittain said.

Brittain thinks it might be time to leave the state.

“Nevada is not going to protect my family,” she said.

But the question is, if Nevada isn’t safe, where is?
‘We need them to stay in the game’

Five days before Trump’s inauguration, the Republican-controlled House voted 218-206 to pass legislation banning trans girls from competing in women’s sports. The bill hasn’t been taken up in the Senate.

Nevada’s entire Democratic House delegation voted against it.

While Lee said the bill was an overreach, in a statement last month she said “I do not support transgender athletes competing in girls’ and women’s sports when fairness or safety is compromised.”

“While I believe governing athletic bodies, like the NCAA, have been slow and inconsistent in updating their policies, the answer is not for the U.S. Congress to institute a nationwide ban for all ages,” Lee said in her statement. “This is an extremely complicated issue that requires very serious deliberation and updated rulemaking by appropriate governing athletic bodies to address the portion of athletics where fairness or safety is an issue.”

Nevada Current sent Lee questions about her statement, including if she would support another version of a legislation restricting trans from sports, and how she plans to address the attacks against the trans community in general.

Her office declined to answer.

The Current also sent Reps. Steven Horsford and Dina Titus questions about how they plan to respond to actions targeting the transgender community.

In an email, Dick Cooper, a spokesman for Titus, said she “always has and always will stand up for the rights of transgender people.” Cooper also pointed to bill Titus has supported, the GLOBE Act, that seeks to protect LGBTQ+ rights internationally.

“Congressman Horsford is focused on defending his constituents, especially those most vulnerable to Trump’s attacks like the trans community,” his office said in an email.

Horsford also cosponsored the Ensuring Military Readiness Not Discrimination Act, which “prohibit all forms of discrimination in our Armed Services, including actions targeting trans individuals.”

Huth urged Democrats to “keep fighting for all of us” and not abandon the trans community.

“Don’t think, ‘oh, we can take a break and be a little transphobic but we don’t have to be homophobic,” Huth said. “It doesn’t work like that. We need them to stay in the game.”
‘One day at a time’

Perez was already serving in the Air Force National Guard when he came out as trans.

“I told folks in my squadron right away, and they were very supportive. It was a small adjustment, but we made it happen.”

While he decided to request an early exit from active duty in 2015 due to personal and family issues, Perez always hoped to return.

Since then, Perez has started a family, went back to school and began organizing with Make the Road Nevada.

Trump signed an executive action banning trans people during his first term preventing Perez from returning to the Guard.

By the time President Joe Biden took office and reversed the ban, Perez was a new father.

The call to return to active duty still weighed on Perez. In early 2024, he decided to take steps to return.

Perez is determined to serve. He said the reason he wants to join the Nevada Air National Guard is to be able to help Nevadans specifically in the face of an emergency.

Huth said the Center is monitoring safety and funding issues at other centers across the country but hasn’t faced in particular threats to either so far.

“As far as the Center goes, we are going to continue to give great primary care and continue to do testing and offer pharmacy services so people can get the medicines they need,” Huth said. “We are going to keep going and take it one day at a time.”

Nevada Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nevada Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Hugh Jackson for questions: info@nevadacurrent.com.

























Federal Judge Blocks Transfer of 3 Trans Women to Men’s Prison


Trans people face a heightened risk of violence when confined in prison facilities that don’t align with their gender.

 Truthout
February 5, 2025

A New York City Department of Corrections bus leaves the City Island Ferry Station in New York.Don Emmert / AFP via Getty Images

Truthout is a vital news source and a living history of political struggle. If you think our work is valuable, support us with a donation of any size.

On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the White House from transferring three transgender women to men’s prisons and denying them gender-affirming health care in compliance with President Donald Trump’s recent executive order.

“Once again, Trump’s executive orders are blocked by judges based on their questionable legality,” LGBTQ legislative researcher Allison Chapman told Truthout. “I can’t imagine the relief felt by these incarcerated transgender individuals upon hearing that they will no longer be forcibly detransitioned.”

The order — one of many anti-trans measures Trump has implemented since taking office — requires the federal government to recognize only two sexes, male and female. It also directs the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house incarcerated people according to this definition, bans federal funding for gender-affirming care for those in custody, and overrides protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) for vulnerable populations, including transgender women.

The plaintiffs, identified by pseudonyms in court filings, are represented by attorneys from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). Until January, they had been housed in women’s units, but were recently removed from the general population and placed in segregation with other transgender women while awaiting transfer to men’s facilities.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, granted their request for a temporary restraining order just hours after a hearing in which a plaintiffs’ attorney argued that the placement of transgender women in men’s prisons subjects them to a substantial risk of violence and sexual assault, constituting cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Related Story

Incarcerated Trans Woman Sues Trump Over Anti-Trans Order Redefining “Sex”
The lawsuit claims Executive Order 14166 caused the woman distress and endangers her safety. By Zane McNeill , Truthout January 28, 2025


“They were terrified at the prospect of these transfers given the serious risk of violence and sexual assault that they face in these men’s facilities,” Jennifer Levi, an attorney with GLAD, told the judge.

“There is no way to keep these women safe outside of a women’s prison,” Levi continued. “We are just asking this court to maintain the status quo.”

Lamberth’s ruling extends further than a January 26 decision by a federal judge in Massachusetts which applied to a single transgender woman in a women’s prison. Instead, Lamberth’s order prevents officials from “implementing” the contested provisions while the case moves forward.

In his ruling, Lamberth noted that the government did not dispute the plaintiffs’ claim that transgender people face a heightened risk of physical and sexual violence when confined in prisons that align with their assigned sex at birth. He also pointed out that only about 16 transgender women are currently housed in women’s prisons, including the three plaintiffs in this case, which challenges the state’s claim that allowing transgender women in women’s facilities has some “deleterious effect on privacy and security.”

“And it is hard to cognize of any public interest in the immediate cessation of their hormone therapy — aside, perhaps, from whatever small sum of money the BOP may save by ceasing administration of these drugs, or the abstract interest in the enforcement of Executive branch policy decisions,” Lamberth wrote in the order. “The plaintiffs’ interests, on the other hand, are not abstract at all.”

Despite Lamberth ruling that the incarcerated transgender women have “demonstrated that irreparable harm will follow if their [temporary restraining order] request is denied,” documents newly obtained by NPR show that a new BOP policy will further erode their rights and protections. The policy mandates that transgender women in federal prisons surrender female-identifying clothing and commissary items, including women’s razors and hair care products.

The policy also eliminates trainings that “inculcate or promote gender ideology or have done so in the past” and shuts down group programs that “promote gender ideology,” which may include support and group therapy. Additionally, it removes the “transgender visual and pat search exception,” which had allowed incarcerated transgender people to request a guard who matches their gender identity — a protection that helped reduce the risk of sexual assault and other forms of violence. It remains unclear how Lamberth’s order will impact this policy.

Kara Janssen, an attorney representing the three transgender women challenging Trump’s anti-trans executive order, told NPR that the new BOP policy not only violates multiple federal laws, including PREA, but is also “mean and spiteful.”

“It’s stripping away their identities,” Janssen said. “It’s going to create less safe environments for everybody.”



































LA Fires Didn’t Discriminate in Their Destruction — But Recovery Efforts Could


Amid rent gouging, land speculators and insurance woes, the cost of rebuilding may exceed working people’s means.
February 5, 2025

An aerial image shows homes damaged and destroyed by the Eaton Fire in the Altadena neighborhood of Los Angeles County, California, on January 30, 2025.PATRICK T. FALLON / AFP via Getty Images

The Pacific Palisades, Eaton, Hurst, and other fires this winter have brought unfathomable loss to Los Angeles County and marred the new year for many — erasing seaside mansions in the well-heeled Palisades as eagerly as they did less opulent homes in the vibrant historically Black community of Altadena. Still, as attentions turn to rebuilding and recovery, all victims, as Angelenos made equal in loss and grief, may well find their fortunes once again separated out by class and race, like particles strained through successive filters.

These social filtering mechanisms arise in various guises: a flooded rental market ripe for price gouging, the unaffordability of legal representation for claimants to press for insurance payouts, and the risky deals on offer from speculators who have descended to cajole residents into selling burned lots for cheap. For some, their unburned wealth will ease them through legal, financial and bureaucratic barriers to recovery. Other families, like homeowning working people, may have to settle for merely cutting their already disastrous losses.

While the fires were undiscriminating, the city they burned was not. The effects of historical redlining created the Altadena neighborhood, with a population 58 percent people of color. It subsequently thrived — but now, a UCLA study found, its older Black homeowners have been disproportionately harmed by the Eaton Fire. And across burned areas, low-income jobs held by people of color might be permanently eradicated — as many as 35,000 positions. Unfortunately, just as the losses have been, the recoveries will also be marked by unequal realities. Nevertheless, a broad field of local organizers is activating to counteract forms of exploitation that, while exacerbated in the wake of the fires, long preceded their first sparks.

Gouged Out of the Market

Prior to the fires, Los Angeles was already wracked by multiple interlocking housing crises — crises of unaffordable rents, insufficient affordable housing and resultant homelessness, which has reached staggering extents. Now, with tens of thousands of structures destroyed, losses of both housing and employment have sent innumerable desperate people rushing into a constricted market.

Less scrupulous landlords saw opportunity: Rents have been documented rising by leaps and bounds, increasing by 50 percent or more in some egregious cases. This level of price gouging in a market that was already widely unaffordable ensures that the wealthiest victims, able to absorb usurious rates, will be the first in line for shelter.

Related Story

Insurers Are Abandoning Homeowners Over Wildfire Risk But Investing in Big Oil
The firms invested half a trillion in fossil fuels, stoking the crisis that led them to dump thousands of homeowners. By Derek Seidman , Truthout January 30, 2025


Estuardo Mazariegos is the co-director of the Los Angeles office of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), a grassroots nonprofit that organizes communities of color to advocate against housing exploitation, among other injustices. Truthout reached Mazariegos to better understand what sorts of inequalities might mark Los Angeles’s period of fire recovery and housing reconstruction.

Obviously, people with lower incomes are soon weeded out of rental markets at their currently exorbitant rates. But there are knock-on effects as well: “There’s definitely a strain on the overall community because of the impact. Children not going to school, folks finding it harder to get their documentation, finding it harder to access the services that they need. So definitely, lower-income folks have a harder time recovering and finding housing afterwards,” Mazariegos noted.

California Penal Code 396 prohibits price gouging (for rent, defined as increases over 10 percent) during a declared emergency. The state appears to be holding to it: Attorney General Rob Bonta announced he would be pursuing price-gouging landlords; his office has sent hundreds of warning letters, and is beginning to bring forth charges in a couple of cases for violation of the gouging statute.

Rents have been documented rising by leaps and bounds, increasing by 50 percent or more in some egregious cases.

To dissuade gouging, though, the state must be aware of it, and oversight capabilities are limited. Citizen reports have proven essential. It certainly helps make a case against gougers that listings on the popular rental site Zillow contain a price history. Making use of this and other public information, a group of Angelenos — tenant organizers, outraged homeowners, data gatherers, and other volunteers — have united against gouging under the banner of the Rent Brigade.

The Brigade enlists volunteers to seek out and document illegal price increases of over 10 percent and report them to the state. On January 27, the Rent Brigade released a report indicating a 5,065 percent increase in gouging over 11 days, with new listings also appearing far over fair market value.

The chance to profit is also leading some impatient landlords to attempt to evict longtime tenants, who are more likely to have rent stabilization and other protections, so that new tenants can be brought in at a higher rate. To do so, some resort to outright tenant harassment — an astonishingly callous tactic, and a very real problem. The post-fire gouging “results in a secondary outcome: an increase in the harassment of tenants throughout the city to have them self-evict,” said Mazariegos.

Chelsea Kirk is an organizer with the LA Tenants Union and a researcher with Strategic Actions for a Just Economy; she is also one of the advocates spearheading the Rent Brigade effort. Reached for comment, Kirk talked about what her volunteers are seeing and expanded on the Rent Brigade’s current efforts to confront the second-order evictions problem: “We began by tracking instances of rent gouging, and are now crowdsourcing data on evictions, because elected officials aren’t seeing the people being indirectly displaced by the fires. Their stories are being crowded out.”
Wild Speculation

Of course, in crisis, there is opportunity; this is the logic of “disaster capitalism,” also known as the “shock doctrine,” in Naomi Klein’s famous formulation. It’s appearing here in the form of speculators seeking to snap up damaged lots on the cheap. Their approach capitalizes on desperation — a pressing uncertainty among many fire victims that their losses will be remunerated, thanks to the tenuous conditions in insurance — as well as, perhaps, an instinct to strike while fire victims are still in an emotionally vulnerable state, more likely to hastily accede to a devil’s bargain.

Mazariegos confirmed hearing reports of residents receiving unprompted cold calls with lowball offers. “It’s unfathomable, and unconscionable, that folks are getting calls after they lose their entire life’s work,” he said. “Folks are recovering from a moment of ultimate loss.”

It’s not entirely clear who these interests are in every case — but what most concerns Mazariegos and his fellow advocates is the possible intrusion of private equity, already a voracious acquisitor of housing for investment purposes. “We’re on guard right now and really monitoring the situation in burned places, and checking in with folks who are organizing on the ground, seeing who’s calling up [to make underpriced offers], to figure out if it’s private equity. That’s one of the things we’re all concerned about.”


“We began by tracking instances of rent gouging, and are now crowdsourcing data on evictions.”


Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office has stepped in to aid with both the speculation and the price-gouging by issuing two executive orders, a three-month ban on unsolicited below-market offers and a rent increase cap, respectively; the latter order will also help create more temporary housing. These are welcome reprieves. (In addition, Los Angeles City Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martínez have advanced a local motion seeking a yearlong moratorium on evictions and rent hikes.) Still, as Mazariegos pointed out, “This was not necessarily done only because Gavin Newsom did so out of the kindness of his heart. It was community members that stepped up to the plate and said, ‘You need to do something about it now.’”

ACCE helped advocate that the government adopt these protections as part of the Keep LA Housed Coalition, which includes several major advocacy groups. They’re also calling for “a rent freeze and other tenant resources and petitions to keep tenants housed,” as well as better protections and enforcement, Mazariegos said. It’s also worth noting, as Schuyler Mitchell did for Truthout, that a vast network of mutual aid efforts, with varying degrees of official organization, have arisen to help lift up their neighbors in need.


Insured and Unsure


Those who have lost homes face a grim choice: whether to find a home elsewhere and leave behind their community, or stay to face what could well be a grueling rebuilding process.

Blair Miller is the principal project coordinator of the City of Los Angeles’s Economic and Workforce Development Department, leading the department’s real estate group; she is also a former member of the Pasadena Planning Commission and a board member of Heritage Housing Partners, an affordable housing preservation nonprofit. On a call with Truthout, Miller laid out the barriers to reconstruction. She spoke chiefly to concerns in the historic Altadena neighborhood, where she lives. Her own home was very nearly lost in the Eaton Fire. “Altadena was an extremely special place,” she said. “It’s really sad, and I’m not sure what to do about it except to feel sad.”

Many families of color bought homes in Altadena to escape redlining in the 1960s and 70s — far enough back that, by now, many own their houses outright. For many, the fires represent the destruction of life savings and inheritances: wealth that was intended to be amassed generationally, providing descendants with more ease. Miller agreed that while local developers are not necessarily the ones to blame, the lowballing speculators do pose a threat: “When you’re talking about speculative buyers or homebuilders, yeah, there’s gotta be an army of people out there trying to take advantage.” Those types of wheeler-dealers are likely there to quickly flip lots for a profit — in large part, they’re probably “not the same developers who will eventually build,” she believes.

For those who do want to stay and rebuild, insurance may simply not make up the full difference. “Here’s the first problem: People aren’t insured enough to rebuild,” explained Miller. The building costs were at about $500 or $600 per square foot for single-family homes in the area. Those costs are really, really likely to go up. There’s competition for building materials and for labor.”

Some claimants will have riders allowing them to retroactively establish they were not informed that they were underinsured — but those who don’t, Miller added, “are not going to be able to fight their insurance companies, so they’re just going to wind up with not enough money.” There is some chance of state intervention. So far, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara did issue guidance that mandates insurance companies at least provide advance claim payments to victims — though not all are receiving them.

Still, many policyholders, lacking various insurance protections, may also face an insurmountable leap in premiums. Many will be forced to turn to the expensive, low-benefits California FAIR Plan — and even that backup plan’s continued existence as a solvent entity is in major doubt.


The Inevitable Trade-Offs

Rebuilding efforts will form a nexus where various state practices and developer incentives intersect — a balancing act involving calculated trade-offs. First, homeowners and/or developers will face a permitting process that, even “prior to this,” said Miller, “was just a nightmare.” She described an outsourced permitting department with poor interagency communication, which often left would-be builders frustrated. “If the permit process were to continue [post-fire] at the rate it was before, that would push the rebuilding process out to 10 or 15 years.”

That’s a remarkably long time — and an entirely nonviable wait for most. Nevertheless, in the absence of reform, permitting will remain worryingly impaired. Improvements to agency processes are doubly necessary, added Miller, because, “unless you have a group of trained professionals [at agencies] who are empowered to hold the speculators to design standards, then speculators are just going to get ticky-tacky cheap options approved, and throw them up.”

The results of such quick and dirty profiteering would be a blow to a neighborhood’s character, and likely value as well. Yet issues abound should the opposite approach be indulged too far: As Miller said, “If you put lots of design review on it, then people who do want to do good stuff are going to get stuck in this system that was already taking way too long.”

Other trade-offs will involve hedging safety costs against inevitable future fires. There are certain construction decisions that increase fire safety and are more or less zero-cost. But there’s a spectrum of protection: Adding metal roofs and fireproof windows, Miller pointed out, would expand costs considerably. Should such measures be mandated? If they are, “because of the competition for labor and materials, [costs] could go way higher than that,” she said.

“Here’s the first problem: People aren’t insured enough to rebuild.”


Rebuilding in exurban areas now known to be risky involves still more difficult decisions. “Parts of Altadena that burned are very much up in the hills. Are they allowed to build back? Can they ever get insurance?” Miller asked rhetorically. The same question will arise for some of the ultrawealthy-owned properties, which in general are more commonly found at the “wildlife-urban interface,” that were lost in the Palisades fires.

However these tensions play out, it’s evident that the wealthy are better poised to navigate them. “They’ll have the ability to hire an architect and a contractor,” noted Miller. “Because they’ll be ready faster, they’ll be able to get to the front of the line. So, they’ll probably be building faster, unless the county does something to take care of that.”

In other words, a capricious process of bureaucracy, claims and counterclaims by various stakeholders, warped incentives to profit and a complex set of cross purposes will be set in motion as Los Angeles County neighborhoods rebuild — a process that will inevitably disadvantage and frustrate many fire victims. Throughout it all, as in so many other realms of this world, the very wealthy will quickly find themselves at considerable advantage.

As the bitterly familiar result of inequality, it seems evident that the residents who populated beautiful neighborhoods like Altadena, especially the less wealthy and people of color, are less likely to come through the process to their benefit — and less likely to regain what they’ve so painfully lost.

“Yes, there is an immediate need and impact in the burned areas,” Mazariegos said of the crisis. “But this is just like throwing a rock in a pond. There are ripples, and the ripples are starting to be felt across the region. And it’s low-income people and communities who have been historically underinvested … that will feel these effects the most.”


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Tyler Walicek is a freelance writer and journalist in Portland, Oregon.


Murder of the Dead. First Published: Battaglia Comunista No. 24 1951; Source ... murderer also of the dead: “But as soon as people, whose production ...




FASCISM OPPOSES HUMAN  & CIVIL RIGHTS

Trump Administration Plans Criminal Investigations Into Corporate DEIA Programs


The attorney general’s directive sparks concerns over the Trump administration’s impact on civil rights protections.
Truthout
February 6, 2025

Pam Bondi, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the Justice Department as attorney general, listens during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on January 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C.Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post via Getty Images


On Wednesday evening, newly appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi distributed over a dozen memos to multiple divisions within the Department of Justice (DOJ), including one signaling that private-sector DEI initiatives may face potential criminal investigation under a recent executive order by President Donald Trump.

“President Trump issued Executive Order 14173 … making clear that policies relating to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (“DEI”) and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (“DEIA”) ‘violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws’ and ‘undermine our national unity,’” the memo states.

Trump’s Executive Order 14173 mandates the dismantling of DEI programs within the federal government and halts related hiring, mischaracterizing these initiatives as discriminatory. It also directs executive branch agencies to aggressively scrutinize private-sector DEI efforts through civil compliance investigations.

While legal experts emphasize that “[w]ithout congressional action, the DEI Executive Orders alone won’t dismantle existing federal antidiscrimination laws,” civil rights advocates warn that recent actions by the Trump administration show that it is weaponizing these laws against the very groups they were designed to protect.

“[T]he administration is not only undoing decades of federal anti-discrimination policy, spanning Democratic and Republican presidential administrations alike, but also marshalling federal enforcement agencies to bully both private and government entities into abandoning legal efforts to promote equity and remedy systemic discrimination,” ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, wrote in a commentary about the order.

Related Story

Trump Orders Federal Agencies to Prepare to Fire Workers in DEI Programs
The order ignores several studies that show DEI’s benefits and baselessly claims such programs create more prejudice. By Chris Walker , Truthout January 22, 2025


For instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was established under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to investigate discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, and other protected characteristics, has announced plans to scale back enforcement of policies protecting transgender people since Trump’s inauguration. It also recently instructed staff to stop processing LGBTQ-related discrimination complaints. Similarly, last month, Acting Labor Secretary Vincent Micone issued a directive instructing the Department of Labor to “immediately cease and desist” enforcing anti-discrimination and affirmative action requirements for government contractors, in compliance with Trump’s anti-DEI order.

Now, Bondi’s anti-DEI directive, issued in accordance with Trump’s executive order, instructs the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division — historically tasked with safeguarding the rights of marginalized groups — and the Office of Legal Policy to take action against private companies that prioritize workforce diversity through DEIA programs. The directive sets a March 1 deadline for these departments to submit a report with their “recommendations” on how to “encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including policies relating to DEI and DEIA.”





The memo requests a list of business “sectors of concern within the Department of Justice” and seeks to identify the “most egregious and discriminatory DEI and DEIA practitioners in each sector.” It also calls for details on “litigation activities” and “other strategies” to act against private companies implementing DEIA programs.

Additionally, Bondi’s memo states that the DOJ will coordinate with the Department of Education to ensure that universities comply with the Trump administration’s new anti-DEIA mandate.

“It is clear as someone who studies Black critiques of white supremacy — framed by Republicans as DEI — that this Trump admin initiative could very easily result in criminal penalties for those researching & teaching [about] regimes of oppression & movements for liberation,” historian William Horne said on Bluesky. “A criminalization of critique.”

The directive further suggests that certain private companies could face criminal penalties for their DEIA initiatives. Bondi specifically instructs the Civil Rights Division and the Office of Legal Policy to outline “specific steps or measures to deter the use of DEI and DEIA programs or principles,” including “proposals for criminal investigations and for up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” targeting companies within the identified “sectors of concern.”

“They are seeking to criminalize integration efforts across public life. We must be clear eyed and direct about what’s happening here,” investigative journalist Nikole Sheri Hannah-Jones said on Bluesky. “We have not witnessed this blatant of a comprehensive governmental attack on integration since the Civil Rights Movement.”

These aggressive measures have already drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, who argue that the Trump administration may be overstepping its constitutional boundaries. For example, Slate jurisprudence writers Jeremy Stahl and Mark Joseph Stern have said that Bondi’s memo may be “egregiously unconstitutional” and that “[t]he Trump administration is overplaying its hand on this issue and is racing toward a legal battle that it is likely to lose.”

In fact, the administration’s aggressive stance on DEI programs has already sparked legal challenges. Earlier this month, a coalition — including a restaurant group, the city of Baltimore, chief diversity officers, and professors — filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over his anti-DEI executive order, arguing that the president’s actions are unconstitutional. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that the order is “unconstitutionally vague” and fails to clearly define what constitutes an illegal DEI program, which enables enforcers to “engage in discriminatory enforcement.”

Alongside the anti-DEI directive, Bondi issued additional memos yesterday on other far right policy matters, including reinstating the death penalty, cracking down on sanctuary cities, and implementing a strict return-to-office mandate.




Major Unions Sue DOGE to Block Musk Labor Department “Power Grab”

DOGE’s sweep of the federal government has “already been catastrophic,” the suit says.

February 6, 2025

President of the AFL-CIO Liz Shuler speaks at a rally against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in front of the U.S. Department of Labor on February 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C.Al Drago / Getty Images

Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.

AFL-CIO and other major unions are suing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in hopes of preventing the rogue agency from “raiding” the Department of Labor and gaining access to the personal information of potentially millions of American workers.

In the lawsuit filed Wednesday, the coalition of federal employee unions say that DOGE has been going after federal agencies and seizing their data in moves that experts have said are illegal and raise major questions about the integrity of Americans’ data and Musk’s apparent power to gut the government with little to no oversight despite his seeming status as a private citizen without clearance.

The group seeks court intervention to stop DOGE from targeting the Department of Labor in its sweep against federal agencies, through a restraining order or administrative stay. DOGE has already demanded that department employees give them access to “anything they want — or risk termination,” the lawsuit says.



A restraining order has been granted to temporarily block the Labor Department from handing information over to DOGE while the court rules on the lawsuit, The Washington Post’s Lauren Kaori Gurley reported on Thursday.

“At every step, DOGE is violating multiple laws,” the lawsuit says. “DOGE seeks to gain access to sensitive systems before courts can stop them, dismantle agencies before Congress can assert its prerogatives in the federal budget, and intimidate and threaten employees who stand in their way, worrying about the consequences later. The results have already been catastrophic.”



The lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of AFL-CIO and affiliated unions, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Communications Workers of America (CWA). The Economic Policy Institute also joined the suit.

“Today, they will come for the Department of Labor. On information and belief, the pattern will be the same: they will demand that DOGE staff be granted access to systems that they are legally barred from; they will fire any employee who protects the integrity of those systems; and they will claim power and authority that Congress has never granted them with respect to agency staff and Department programs,” the suit says.

“Elon Musk has absolutely no business raiding the Department of Labor to obtain the sensitive personal information of workers,” AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said in a statement. “It’s outrageous that Musk thinks he has the authority to access private data on workers from an agency that’s entrusted with protecting the fundamental rights of working people. With this lawsuit, we intend to stop Musk’s power grab cold.”

On the same day the lawsuit was filed, AFL-CIO and affiliates held a rally outside of the Department of Labor to protest Musk’s government pillaging campaign. Thousands attended, according to Zeteo.

Lawmakers like Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) attended the rally, condemning the rogue billionaire’s reported plans to raid the department.

“We don’t get the benefits and the support and the protections but for the fact that workers organized, and they pushed back, and they fought. And when we don’t get it, we shut it down,” said Tlaib to the crowd.

DOGE has spent the last weeks sweeping through the federal government, taking a machete to seemingly indiscriminately eviscerate agencies. Its seizure of the Treasury Department’s payment system, including data on Americans’ social security numbers and financial information, has particularly raised concerns about data privacy in the hands of Musk’s group of young tech workers acting as DOGE operatives.

Some have noted that Musk’s sweep, while widespread, appears to be prioritizing agencies that are investigating Musk’s companies for violations.

The lawsuit raises concerns, for instance, that DOGE could access sensitive information within the Department of Labor, including workers’ data as well as information on investigations by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into SpaceX, Tesla and The Boring Company.

Previous investigations have found that Tesla’s injury rate is far higher than that of the rest of the automobile factory industry, for instance. The Lever has also reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which Musk and his operatives have been trying to shut down entirely, had been investigating Musk’s Starlink as of 2022.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Monday that the administration is allowing Musk to determine and “excuse himself” if certain issues are a conflict of interest for him.

Labor advocates have also long warned that the Trump administration would go after the Department of Labor as a way to attack the resurging labor movement in the U.S. One of Donald Trump’s first moves in office was the dismissal of Jennifer Abruzzo, the general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board who has been key in advancing labor rights in recent years, as well as labor board member Gwynne Wilcox, despite Trump not having the statutory power to dismiss labor board members for political reasons.



The EPA Has Suffered Decades of Attacks — But Trump’s Are the Worst Yet


Trump’s Project 2025-stoked sabotage of the Environmental Protection Agency will unleash rampant carcinogens in the US.
February 5, 2025

Contractors for the Environmental Protection Agency remove household hazardous waste as they search through homes damaged and destroyed by the Eaton Fire in the Altadena neighborhood of Los Angeles County, California, on January 30, 2025.PATRICK T. FALLON / AFP via Getty Images


Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.

Just over two weeks into Donald Trump’s second presidential term, his intentions are clear: to weaken and destroy the federal government. He has already unconstitutionally usurped congressional power and given Elon Musk’s unelected team complete access to the Treasury’s payment system, while taking a hatchet to longstanding, life-saving federal institutions. We are witnessing a blatant attempt to burn our governmental structure to the ground, destroy any semblance of checks and balances, and allow billionaires and their corporations free rein without consequences.

What does this mean for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has protected the environment and human health for nearly 55 years, including by regulating air pollution, banning dangerous chemicals like DDT and working to reduce carbon emissions? Trump is revealing the fragility of our government: Progress often takes years of pressure, compromise and monumental amounts of work — consider the recent limits on the dumping of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) known as “forever chemicals” submitted by the Biden administration last fall, or the agonizing process of passing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Now, Trump and his right-wing allies are attempting to destroy both with a snap of his fingers.

Speaking days into the Trump presidency — before some of the most horrifying orders came down — Matthew Tejada, senior vice president of environmental health at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told Truthout that concerns about the future of the EPA can be broken down into three buckets: The White House may seek to roll back or revoke hard-earned environmental regulations and protections, withhold funds that the EPA is charged with disbursing for energy and environmental projects, and weaken the agency by attacking federal employees and the institution itself.

We are already seeing Trump attempt all three avenues of EPA sabotage predicted by Tejada, who previously worked within the EPA’s Office for Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. Within his first weeks in office, Trump withdrew Biden’s forever chemical reform plan, sought to keep lead in Americans’ drinking water and froze already allocated Inflation Reduction Act funds. Trump has also appointed chemical and oil industry insiders to the agency, fired every scientist on two of the EPA’s most influential science advisory panels and seems poised to attempt mass firings of EPA staff.

Rollbacks to Existing Protections

Environmental organizations like NRDC have been preparing for legal fights over rollbacks of EPA rules and protections. On January 22, the Trump administration announced the EPA was withdrawing Biden’s proposed regulations on PFAS. The regulations, which set limits on the amount that chemical plants can dump into the water supply, had been heavily pushed for and celebrated by advocates.




Trace amounts of forever chemicals, which are strongly linked to cancer, can be found in virtually every human’s blood. “It is in every single one of us, across the entire planet,” Tejada told Truthout. “It is ubiquitous. It is scary. We only know the literal tip of the iceberg of how dangerous this stuff is in our bodies, and all of us have it.” PFAS were used for decades in the production of nonstick coatings, waterproof clothing and fabrics and cardboard food packaging. Although some PFAS are banned in some states, others are still in use, and chemical plants continue to dump the dangerous chemicals into the water supply.

“If they take down those regulations we have on the books now, they’re consigning another generation to be exposed to these forever chemicals, without even beginning the process of getting them out of our environment,” said Tejada.

Trump is also threatening long awaited improvements to the Lead and Copper Rule. In October 2024, after decades of pressure and lawsuits from advocates, Biden’s EPA unveiled rules that aim to replace all lead drinking water pipes within the next 10 years. Now, Trump and congressional Republicans are attempting to repeal these regulations and ban the EPA from ever mandating lead pipe replacement in the future. As an NRDC adviser told The Guardian, Trump is “saying let them drink lead.”

“Nobody in this country really wants to continue to live with lead,” said Tejada. “Stepping back from it now would consign literally tens, if not hundreds of millions of people that are alive today, and are yet to even be born, to growing up in an environment where they are exposed to lead every time they take a sip out of their faucet.”


Within his first weeks in office, Trump withdrew Biden’s forever chemical reform plan, sought to keep lead in Americans’ drinking water and froze already allocated Inflation Reduction Act funds.

Advocates also fear that Trump will seek to overturn the endangerment finding, a federal ruling that empowers the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. On his first day in office, he ordered the EPA to make a recommendation within 30 days on the “legality and continued applicability” of the finding. What’s more, Project 2025 also recommends eliminating the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, instead turning enforcement duties over to the states. “If you take away enforcement, then the rest of the system just kind of doesn’t matter,” said Tejada. “The rules you pass, the permits that polluters have to receive … that all falls apart if industry knows that nobody’s going to come knocking to make sure that they’re playing by the law.”

He also noted that traditional methods of fighting in the courts don’t always work the same way against someone like Trump, who has no regard for following the rules.

“Even though we will challenge them in court, as will other folks … this administration has been so emboldened, they will go out there and make those claims, and it effectively freezes stuff in place,” Tejada explained. When Trump inevitably freezes or eliminates protective regulations, a federal judge can issue an injunction, instructing agencies to resume their work until the legality is sorted out. But the Trump administration has shown that it may ignore such orders, pressuring agencies to obey, even in the face of a conflicting judge order.

The massive mandate of protecting the environment already keeps the EPA stretched to capacity, even under the best of conditions. “We’re barely holding this thing together: Making our society work; keeping our economy going; offering a modicum of protection for people so they aren’t scared every time they take a sip of something, or a bite of something, or lay their head down on a pillow,” he said. “And we have a supreme agent of chaos now in the White House who understands that, and understands his ability to completely upset those systems to his own advantage.”
Slashing Funds

Each year, the EPA awards more than $4 billion in grants, technical assistance, and other assistance to governments, nonprofits, and other entities.

Among dozens of other executive orders, on January 20, Trump froze spending that was already authorized and approved by Congress through the Inflation Reduction Act. On January 27, his Office of Management and Budget (OMB) followed up with a wildly unconstitutional freeze on all federal financial assistance, grants and loans. The vague and poorly written memo, which asserts that federal spending should not be used to “advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering,” appears to apply to scheduled payments for disaster relief, hospital funding, school lunch programs and other food assistance, cancer research, and infrastructure and transit funding. The following day, shortly before the OMB order was set to go into effect, Medicaid payment portals were already down in some states.

Minutes before the scheduled start to the freeze, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan temporarily blocked it, ordering federal payments to continue until the legality of the freeze could be worked out in the courts. Days later, in a second lawsuit, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued another temporary block. In a transparent attempt to dismiss the lawsuits, the administration rescinded its memo, but not necessarily the spending freeze, throwing everything into further confusion. On February 3, Judge AliKhan followed up with a restraining order, instructing OBM to order departments to release all frozen funds. Legal experts agree that the president has no power to indefinitely pause federal spending, as the “power of the purse” constitutionally belongs to Congress.

Meanwhile, Inflation Reduction Act funding remains frozen: pausing projects, creating widespread confusion, and leaving invoices for already approved and completed work unpaid.

“Right now is when the [Inflation Reduction Act] money is finally starting to hit the ground,” Tejada said. “It’s finally rolling out of the government, touching down in people’s communities — buying solar panels, putting people to work, building resilience centers. So all of that, right now, is in jeopardy, just as it was about to get started.”

He added: “Hundreds of thousands of individuals across this country, at every level of our society, have put in so much time and energy and effort to make the best use of these resources, to put them to work in the ways that Congress intended. And for all that to potentially now be snatched away, just as the … meaningful part of the work is actually getting started, would be a tragedy on top of a tragedy.”
Attacking EPA Staff

Trump is also waging attacks on employees across the federal government. On his first day in office, he effectively reinstated his own October 2020 “Schedule F” order, which had initiated the process of stripping employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants in “policy-related” positions, making it easier to fire and replace them. President Joe Biden not only rescinded Trump’s 2020 order, but also used the official rule-making process to establish safeguards making it more difficult for Trump to bring it back. But in another power grab, Trump’s Office of Personnel Management claims he does not need to follow official steps to unwind Biden’s protections, and can do so with a simple executive order.


Trump and congressional Republicans are attempting to ban the EPA from ever mandating lead pipe replacement in the future.

Trump’s new EPA head, Lee Zeldin, voted against the environment 86 percent of the time during his tenure in the House of Representatives, according to the League of Conservation Voters. A group of utilities has already written to Zeldin, asking him to roll back Biden-era regulations on coal ash and greenhouse gas emissions. Trump also appointed a host of industry insiders to the agency, including Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry lobbyist, and Lynn Dekleva, who worked for 30 years at DuPont, a long-time producer and dumper of forever chemicals.

Meanwhile, Trump also fired every scientist on two important EPA science advisory panels, demoted many other EPA experts, and in a further effort to demoralize staff and encourage resignations, ordered all federal employees to return to the office full time instead of working remotely. In late January, more than 1,100 EPA employees — most of whom had been at the agency for less than a year or who had recently moved into new positions — received emails notifying them that they are on “a probationary/trial period,” and that “the agency has the right to immediately terminate you.”

“It’s bad,” Marie Owens-Powell, president of a union that represents thousands of EPA workers, told CBS, referring to agency morale. “I’ve been with the agency for over 33 years and I’ve never seen anything like this.”

This is exactly what Trump and his allies want. Trump’s nominee to run the OMB, Russell Vought, was one of the main architects of Project 2025 and the Schedule F order, and is a major proponent of Trump’s current unconstitutional attempts to withhold funds authorized by Congress. In a 2024 speech, he outlined exactly what is happening now:


We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so. We want to put them in trauma.

Tejada warned that Project 2025 proposals like reinstating Schedule F and moving whole agency campuses across the country “will effectively shut down huge parts of our government, not just for days or weeks, but for years. And we’ve seen over and over again from past government shutdowns how unpopular that is with the American public. People are failing to connect the dots that what this administration is threatening to do is not a shutdown of our government for a few days, but literally for years.”
The EPA’s History as a “Punching Bag”

The EPA has been under assault before. But in many ways, the threats it faces today are unprecedented.

“EPA has been a punching bag since it was first created,” Tejada told Truthout. The agency was established in 1970 under President Richard Nixon, at a moment when the dangers of pollution were becoming impossible to ignore, from oil spills, to lifeless lakes, to deadly smog and chemical odors permeating cities, to the Cuyahoga River literally catching fire. In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, which required federal agencies to assess the environmental impact before beginning major projects, and directed the president to assemble the Council on Environmental Quality. The following year, sensing a growing environmental consciousness, Nixon created the EPA.

The EPA faced its first major challenge from Nixon himself. After Congress overrode his presidential veto on the Clean Water Act of 1972, he refused to release half of the funding mandated by Congress in the legislation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled he had no power to withhold the funds. Congress further limited the president’s power to withhold spending in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 — the very law that Trump and his allies are now trying to steamroll with his federal spending freeze.

A decade later, in 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned on deregulation, arguing that the health effects of pollution were overblown. Although environmental deregulation was unpopular with the public, Reagan rejected a moderate policy plan created by Republican environmentalists, instead adopting recommendations from the relatively new right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation.

Reagan appointed Anne Gorsuch — Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother — to head the agency. According to a 2018 paper in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH): “Gorsuch demoralized, marginalized, and reorganized EPA staff. In her inaugural speech … Gorsuch told employees, ‘We’re going to do more with less and we’re going to do it with fewer of you.’” Higher-ups developed hit lists of career staff they wanted gone, and EPA staffing levels dropped 21 percent over two years. Gorsuch also disbanded the EPA’s Office of Enforcement, causing civil enforcement cases to plummet.

Career staff at the EPA fought back. Hundreds of former employees calling themselves “Save EPA” leaked documents to Congress, prompting an investigation into Gorsuch’s handing of the Superfund program, which is dedicated to cleaning up highly contaminated sites. When Gorsuch refused to turn over subpoenaed documents, 55 House Republicans joined with Democrats to hold her in contempt of Congress. Amid the growing controversy, the White House forced Gorsuch to resign, reinstating Nixon’s original EPA head, William D. Ruckelshaus, for the remaining two years of the term.

In the following years, the EPA was generally supported by presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, although Republicans gained control of Congress under Clinton in 1994 and managed to shrink its budget. According to the AJPH article, as fossil fuel-funded conservative think tanks and media outlets grew in influence, “Many EPA employees remember 1994 as a watershed after which environmental policy and science became more politicized.”

This politicized atmosphere continued under George W. Bush, whose administration prohibited EPA employees from mentioning climate change. The AJPH article outlines how Bush’s attacks on the EPA were less confrontational than Nixon’s, “relying on delaying decisions and undermining science rather than on cutting budgets.”

Writing in 2018, one year into Trump’s first term, the paper’s authors analyzed the ways in which Trump’s assault on the EPA differed from Reagan’s and Bush’s. Their analysis holds truer than ever in 2025: “The Republican Party has shifted to the right and now controls the executive branch and both chambers of Congress (unlike in the early Reagan administration). Wealthy donors, think tanks, and fossil fuel and chemical industries have become more influential in fighting regulation. In the broader public, political polarization has increased, the environment has become a partisan issue, and science and the mainstream media are distrusted.”

Over the years, Tejada said the EPA has come to hold a key role in everyday life. “Not that everything has been perfect.… But if you look at the environment that we lived in in 1970, versus today, EPA has been wildly successful at cleaning up the environment in our country.”

“I think a lot of people don’t understand that its ability to have been as successful as it has been, has largely been due to the steady leadership and commitment of the institution and the people who inhabit it,” he continued. “And those people are now under threat in a way that they have never been. If they actually make moves to really gut the staff, to eliminate institutional memory and knowledge? A next president can’t just fix that. You’re talking about generations of value that can pretty quickly be extinguished, and that will take generations to rebuild.”

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.



Katie Rose Quandt is a freelance journalist in the Bronx who writes about justice and inequality. Follow her on Twitter: @katierosequandt.