On Friday, President Donald Trump enacted four executive orders designed to ease and broaden regulations surrounding nuclear production.
The orders focus on overhauling the Department of Energy’s nuclear energy research, facilitating the construction of reactors on federally owned land, reforming the Nuclear Regulation Authority, and accelerating U.S. uranium mining and enrichment efforts.
Alongside Trump, CEOs from various nuclear energy firms—such as Joseph Dominguez of Constellation Energy, Jacob DeWitt of Oklo, and Scott Nolan of General Substances—joined President Pete Hegses and Secretary of Interior Doug Burgham during the signing of the orders.
President Donald Trump displays an executive order he signed on May 23, 2025, in the Oval Office at the White House. Get McNamee/Getty Images
Before the signing, Burgham remarked that this initiative “reverses over 50 years of excessive regulation on the industry,” and he added that “each of these will address another challenge that has hindered progress.”
Trump referred to the nuclear energy sector as “dynamic,” asserting to reporters, “It’s a dynamic industry. It’s a tremendous industry. It needs to be handled correctly.”
A senior administrator briefing reporters prior to the signing indicated that one executive order aimed at permitting nuclear reactors on federal land is designed to meet rising electricity demands linked to AI technology. They emphasized that “safe and reliable nuclear energy will provide power to vital defense installations and AI data centers.”
The executive order also seeks to expedite the review and regulatory processes for nuclear reactor construction and operation. The fourth order stipulates that the Nuclear Regulation Authority must make licensing decisions for new reactors within an 18-month timeframe, according to officials.
This new timeline aims to “reduce regulatory obstacles and shorten licensing periods” for nuclear reactors.
Dominguez commended the president’s initiative to streamline the nuclear regulation framework, noting, “Historically, regulatory delays have plagued our industry.”
“We often spend too long seeking approval and addressing irrelevant questions instead of the crucial ones,” he added.
Nuclear energy is viewed as a means to transition away from fossil fuels and lower greenhouse gas emissions since it generates electricity without the combustion of coal, oil, or natural gas.
Despite the tripling of solar and wind energy production in the U.S. over the last decade, there remain concerns that current energy sources will struggle to meet soaring energy demands.
Just before the president signed the executive order in his elliptical office, Heggs informed reporters, “We are integrating artificial intelligence across the board. If not, we cannot keep pace. We cannot afford to fall behind. Nuclear energy is essential to powering this.”
Recent reports have projected a 25% increase in U.S. electricity demand by 2030 (compared to 2023), with a staggering 78% rise by 2050, largely due to the surge in AI technology.
Even with the regulatory framework advancing, it may take years to complete the construction and enhancement of nuclear infrastructure. Furthermore, nuclear energy involves significant risks when compared to other green energy alternatives, requiring long-term plans for managing and disposing of hazardous waste, and risks related to potential core meltdowns or terrorist attacks that could release radioactive materials into the environment.
Additionally, Trump signed a fifth executive order on Friday aimed at “restoring trusted scientific rigor as the cornerstone of federal research,” according to officials.
Michael Krazios, head of the White House Office of Science and Technology, informed reporters that this executive order “ensures continued American strength and global leadership in the fields of science and technology.”
The United Arab Emirates and the United States have formalized a Gulf State agreement to establish the largest artificial intelligence campus outside of the U.S., a key development during Donald Trump’s Middle East visit that included multiple AI-related deals.
Nevertheless, the agreement has sparked concerns due to previous administration restrictions based on fears that China could gain access to important technologies.
The deal to construct the campus will enable the UAE to enhance access to state-of-the-art AI chips. While the U.S. and UAE did not specify which AI chips would be featured in the data center, sources informed Reuters of a potential allowance for the UAE to import 500,000 of Nvidia’s most advanced AI chips annually starting in 2025.
Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, was seen on television talking with Donald Trump and UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan at the Abu Dhabi palace on Thursday.
This agreement marks a significant win for the UAE, as it navigates its long-standing relationships with allies while also engaging with China, its largest trading partner. The Gulf nation is investing billions to establish itself as a leader in AI. However, its ties with China have previously limited access to U.S. chips under the former Biden administration.
This transaction illustrates the Trump administration’s belief in its ability to securely regulate chip management by mandating that U.S. companies oversee their data centers.
While the U.S. has led in AI technology and innovation, China has recently become a formidable competitor. Despite Trump’s optimism, there are concerns that significant agreements with Gulf countries could diminish U.S. control over this rapidly growing technology, coupled with fears that China might leverage these data centers for its own advantages.
Leading CEOs from AI and semiconductor firms, including OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Nvidia’s Huang, seem supportive of such transactions, as they present opportunities to showcase their products on a global scale and derive substantial benefits.
According to the White House, the AI contract encompasses investment, construction, and funding in U.S. data centers that match the scale of those in the UAE.
“The agreement also commits the UAE to align its national security regulations more closely with those of the United States.
The focal point of the announced contract is a 10-square-mile (25.9 square kilometers) AI campus in Abu Dhabi, boasting a capacity of 5 gigawatts for AI data processing.
The campus will be developed by G42, a company backed by Abu Dhabi, but U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick stated that “U.S. companies will manage data centers and supply American-managed cloud services throughout the region.”
In a U.S. fact sheet, Qualcomm, a chip manufacturer involved in AI engineering centers, noted that Amazon Web Services, the cloud division of the technology and commerce firm, will collaborate with local partners to enhance cybersecurity and cloud integration.
Historically, the U.S. pursued protective measures to limit China’s access to advanced semiconductors.
Regulations are being relaxed under Trump, and AI Czar David Sacks informed Riyadh on Tuesday that the Biden administration’s export controls “are not intended to include friends, allies, or strategic partners.”
Granting the UAE access to cutting-edge chips made by companies like Nvidia signifies a substantial change.
“This transition will enable the UAE to strengthen its technological partnership with the U.S. while sustaining trade relations with China,” said Mohamed Soliman, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.
“It doesn’t imply a severance from China; rather, it reflects a reorientation of our technology strategy to adhere to U.S. standards and protocols, especially in key areas like computing, cloud computing, and semiconductor supply chains,” he stated.
AI was a key topic when Bin Zayed Al Nahyan visited Washington on the last day of Biden’s administration.
G42 and MGX, the state-affiliated entities spearheading the UAE’s AI investment initiative, have also invested in U.S. firms such as OpenAI and Elon Musk’s Xai, while Microsoft committed $1.5 billion to G42 last year.
The companies indicated that the agreement was bolstered by security guarantees, and under U.S. influence, G42 has started dismantling previous Chinese hardware and divesting from Chinese investments.
Nonetheless, Chinese firms like Huawei and Alibaba Cloud continue to operate in the UAE, and the flow of AI chips to China has been monitored by various nations, including Malaysia, Singapore, and the UAE, according to sources who spoke with Reuters in February.
Donald Trump has expressed concerns to Apple and its executives regarding a plan that encourages high-tech companies to relocate cell phone manufacturing from India back to the US.
The US President mentioned a “minor issue” with Tim Cook from Apple after reports surfaced indicating that the company is considering shifting mobile phone assembly operations from China to India targeting the US market.
“I encountered a small issue with Tim Cook yesterday,” Trump stated while in Qatar on Thursday. He referred to Apple’s recent commitment of investing $500 million (£37.5 billion) in the US, adding:
The intricate manufacturing process of the iPhone involves over 1,000 components sourced globally, mainly assembled in China. Although Apple keeps its production details under wraps, analysts suggest that approximately 90% of iPhones are assembled domestically.
Nevertheless, rising trade tensions between Washington and Beijing have reportedly led to increased production in India.
“I told Tim… we have supported you well, and we’ve tolerated all the facilities you’ve established in China for years, and now we expect you to build [for] us. We said, “We are not interested in you building in India. India can manage on its own… We want you to construct here.”
Trump also mentioned that Apple would “aid in enhancing production in the US,” but he did not elaborate further on this claim.
Currently, no iPhones are manufactured in the US, and experts have cautioned that relocating assembly of Apple’s best-selling products to the home country may be impractical and costly. US financial firm Wedbush Securities predicts that iPhone expenses would rise if production moves to the US.
Apple has been approached for comments.
Additionally, the US President noted on Thursday that India had extended a trade agreement offering “no tariffs” on American goods.
New Delhi aims to finalize its trade deal with the US amidst a 90-day suspension that Trump announced on April 9th concerning a tariff increase for its trading partners.
“Selling in India is quite challenging. They essentially offer a deal where they do not impose any customs duties on us,” Trump remarked.
Over the years, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been positioning his country as a hub for smartphone manufacturing.
In March, Apple’s primary Indian suppliers, Foxconn and Tata, exported a record high of nearly $20 billion worth of iPhones to the US to avoid Trump’s imminent tariffs.
On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its support for drinking water standards concerning two hazardous “forever chemicals” that impact tap water for millions of Americans. However, it indicated plans to extend the deadline for relaxing regulations on four additional related substances.
PFAS refers to a vast category of chemicals commonly found in daily products, including non-stick cookingware, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant carpets, and fire-fighting foams.
Research shows that exposure to PFAS, or Polyfluoroalkyl substances, may lead to metabolic disorders, lower birth rates in women, developmental delays in children, and a heightened risk of certain cancers such as prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers. As stated by the EPA.
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is asking water providers for the first time to reduce the levels of six PFAS chemicals as close to zero as possible. He has imposed particularly stringent limits of four parts per 2 trillion units for two chemicals, known as PFOA and PFOS, which are frequently detected in drinking water systems.
The Trump administration endorsed these two PFAS regulations but allowed water providers to push back the deadline for compliance to 2031 by two additional years.
The EPA also announced the revocation of restrictions on four other chemicals.
“We are working to uphold national standards to safeguard Americans from harmful PFOAs and PFOS,” said EPA administrator Lee Zeldin in a statement. “At the same time, we aim to provide common-sense flexibility by allowing more time for compliance,” he added. “The EPA will continue utilizing regulatory and enforcement mechanisms to hold polluters accountable.”
Some efforts to relax PFAS regulations followed legal challenges from trade organizations and water providers connected to the chemical industry against the Biden administration’s restrictions.
These chemicals are so widespread that they can be detected in the blood of nearly every individual in the United States. Government studies have shown that PFAS chemicals are present in almost half of the country’s tap water.
In 2022, the EPA reported that these chemicals can cause harm at exposure levels “much lower than previously understood,” indicating that current exposure levels are nearly unsafe.
Under Biden-era regulations, water operators were mandated to monitor PFAS levels in the water supply. They also needed to inform the public and take action to lower contamination levels if they exceeded the prescribed limits: four parts for PFOA and PFOS, with 10 trillion parts for the other four chemicals.
These four chemicals include GenX, once deemed a safer alternative to PFOA, but now associated with liver, kidney, and immune system damage, along with developmental issues and cancer in animal studies. The other chemicals—PFHX, PFNA, and PFBS—are also linked to various negative health outcomes.
The agency intends to initiate a new rule-making process for these four chemicals in the fall, with plans to finalize new regulations by next spring.
Health and environmental advocates criticized these actions.
“We are committed to collaborating closely with our customers,” stated Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, an environmental organization focused on GenX and PFAS pollution in the Cape Fear River of North Carolina.
“This administration has promised voters to ‘make America healthy again,’ yet it seems inconsistent to rescind some PFAS drinking water standards,” she said. “This is disrespectful to communities affected by PFAS contamination who are suffering from severe health issues and losses.”
Eric D. Olson, Senior Strategy Director for Health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, remarked that the EPA’s approach offers “reassuring but conservative comfort.”
However, he also pointed out that the agency’s attempts to roll back drinking water standards contravene the no-backsliding provisions stipulated in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
“The law clearly states that the EPA cannot eliminate or undermine drinking water standards,” he emphasized. “This behavior is not only damaging but is also against the law.”
Industry groups that have filed lawsuits against the Biden administration’s PFAS rules, including the American Water Association, the American Chemical Council, and the National Manufacturers Association, did not provide immediate comments.
In a statement accompanying the EPA’s announcement, Alan Roberson, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Managers, expressed his support for the Trump administration’s framework. This association represents drinking water program managers across all 50 states.
Roberson noted that states and water systems are “struggling with tight timelines” under Biden-era regulations to test for PFAS and to establish the infrastructure needed to filter these chemicals from the water supply.
This announcement follows Zeldin’s recent disclosure of a series of initiatives to combat PFAS contamination.
The agency mentioned plans to create guidelines on the permissible PFAS discharge volumes from plants and to collaborate with Congress on how to hold polluters accountable.
Documents from the Trump administration highlighted strategies to transition away from paper straws, while also stressing the health dangers posed by PFAS.
Maintaining stringent regulations for PFOA and PFOS is expected to impose a significant financial burden on water operators. The EPA estimates compliance costs could reach approximately $1.5 billion annually, while utilities believe this figure could double, ultimately impacting the public through increased water bills.
James L. Ferraro, an environmental attorney representing several water companies, stated that while the Trump administration’s stance represents a middle ground, “one utility didn’t necessarily agree with it.”
The chemicals PFOA and PFOS, which are under strict EPA oversight, remain “the most frequently detected due to their widespread use over many years,” and pose an ongoing challenge for numerous utilities, he explained.
Many environmental organizations argue that the costs associated with cleaning up PFAS should ultimately be borne by the chemical manufacturers. They note that evidence indicating the risks of PFAS has been hidden by chemical companies for decades, as revealed by lawsuits, industry documents, and litigation. According to peer-reviewed research.
hGreetings from Ello and TechScape! Radio stations and television presenters can enhance their writing by considering their delivery methods. I’m your host, Blake Montgomery. In today’s Tech News: Discussions arise regarding labor automation within the US healthcare sector, as conflicts escalate with the use of drones in India and Pakistan, both of which are armed with nuclear weapons. But first, let’s explore the evolving battle over AI and copyright in the UK and the US.
“Daring and Unprecedented Power Shift”
The UK is embroiled in intense discussions about compensating artists for using their copyrighted works in developing generative AI technologies. The Senate convened on Monday to determine whether tech companies are utilizing copyrighted materials without permission.
Insights from my colleagues Dan Millmo and Rafael Boyd:
The UK government faces challenges in the House of Representatives over its attempt to let AI firms use copyrighted works without consent.
Despite government objections, an amendment to the data bill urging AI companies to disclose which copyrighted content is being utilized received support from peers.
While this proposal is under consultation in the current year’s report, critics are leveraging the data bill to voice their disapproval.
The government’s primary proposal would permit AI companies to use copyrighted works without obtaining permissions, a stance critics denounce as impractical unless copyright holders explicitly indicate their non-usage.
Read the complete article on Monday’s vote here.
Conversely, in the US, discussions have taken a more chaotic turn. Over the weekend, Donald Trump dismissed the US Copyright Director. CBS News reported this incident. Shira Perlmutter was let go after publishing a report questioning the growing demands for AI firms to bypass existing copyright laws.
New York Democratic leader Joe Morell specifically pointed to Trump’s ally, Elon Musk, as a driving force behind this dismissal. She declined to rubber stamp Musk’s initiatives to exploit copyrighted works for training AI models.
The abrupt termination of Trump’s copyright chief brings to mind the tale of the Gordian knot. Legend has it that Alexander the Great encountered a complex knot tying a cart to a pole. Numerous attempts to untie it failed, but Alexander, with a simple sword stroke, solved the dilemma. The narrative illustrates how innovative thinking can lead to triumph. Alexander dismantled the dilemma, leaving the original problem unresolved. Perhaps the true lesson lies beyond just securing the cart, but that’s a topic for another time.
While Trump may have circumvented the challenging legal issues presented by the Copyright Office, the vacuum at the top means that influential players will likely exploit copyright regulations to their advantage. This may align with the president’s intentions. Well-capitalized AI firms appear poised to dominate copyright litigation, while they simultaneously advocate for fair compensation for artists’ creativity. Their alliance with Trump signals a shift towards a more favorable regulatory climate, as illustrated by the recent dismissal of the copyright chief. Numerous lawsuits bear witness to AI companies quietly leveraging copyrighted materials without proper permissions, prompting actions from both plaintiffs and defendants.
Trump Offers Blockchain Access
Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday. Photo: Nathan Howard/Reuters
My colleague, Nick Robbins, covers the contest where Trump promises to engage directly with his cryptocurrency investors.
On Monday, the top 220 investors in Donald Trump-backed cryptocurrency were granted exclusive dinner invitations with the president as a reward for their financial contributions. This culminated months of promotions, raising concerns that he is leveraging his political power to benefit his family’s business while exposing himself to foreign interests.
The cryptocurrency, dubbed $Trump, launched in mid-January and has garnered a market cap exceeding $2 billion following significant investor interest. Most of the tokens are held by companies associated with Trump’s family. As reported by Reuters.
“Congratulations! If you’re among the top 220, expect communication within the next 24 hours. Please check your inbox (including spam folders) for your invitation to dine with President Trump,” his website stated on Monday. “We look forward to seeing you at the gala dinner in Washington, DC on May 22nd.”
Democrats, ethics watchdogs, and the SEC have expressed concerns regarding Trump’s crypto ventures, highlighting corruption allegations. The dinner contest raises ethical issues, equating the opportunity for direct access to the president with a bidding war.
Drones Surge along the India-Pakistan Border
Residents inspect damaged homes in Pakistan-controlled Neelam valley in Kashmir on Monday. Photo: Muzammil Ahmed/AFP/Getty Images
Though India and Pakistan have achieved a fragile ceasefire, the recent four-day conflict between these rivals exemplifies an escalating trend.
New York Times reports that Pakistan has claimed India is deploying Turkish-made drones for assaults. India, on the other hand, alleged Pakistan mobilized 300-400 drones for attacks on 36 sites on the night of May 8th, stating they shot down approximately 70 drones launched from India.
The term “drone” encompasses two distinct concepts: small quadcopters operated remotely and larger semi-autonomous vehicles managed from military command centers. Unfortunately, this English vernacular misses the mark. For countries like India, Pakistan, and Ukraine, smaller unmanned aircraft have become significant weaponry.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict underscores the rapid expansion of drone usage. The explosive quadcopter, featuring first-person viewing, wreaked havoc during landmark assaults, including attacks on the Kremlin in May 2023.
Can Automation Solve the US Healthcare Worker Shortage?
Nurses operating a new automated dose assembly machine in Columbus, Ohio. Photo: Doral Chenoweth/The Columbus Dispatch by USA Today Network
One of the major concerns of our era is the potential for machines to largely replace human labor. Recently, the Guardian covered Zing, a robot designed to distribute methadone, a medication for opioid addiction that has surged in the US over the years. This story raises critical questions: Where should we draw the line between automation that genuinely assists workers and a profit-driven preference for robotic over human labor?
Click here for all stories on robotic medication delivery.
Walgreens has announced an expansion of its Microfilling Center services, incorporating robots for prescription dispensing and a hub dedicated to packaging chronic illness medications. As reported by CNBC, these automated centers process around 16 million prescriptions monthly, accounting for 40% of Walgreens’ prescriptions. The company aims to increase the number of locations utilizing these centers to 5,000 by year-end, up from 4,800 in February. Walgreens asserts that the shift to automation initiated in 2021 has already saved them $500 million over four years.
Pharmacy technicians are grappling with issues similar to those faced by nurses distributing methadone (including low wages, high pressure, and turnover), yet on a much larger scale. Walgreens operates approximately 12,500 stores across the US, Europe, and Latin America, with a valuation near $9.7 billion and a workforce of 312,000.
In 2023, Walgreens pharmacy staff staged strikes nationwide to protest working conditions. The central issues included chronic staffing shortages and burnout among those who remained. They branded the protest “Pharmaheadon.”
Although Walgreens may reduce pharmacy job openings due to automation and outsourcing functions to microfilling centers, it’s likely that many of these positions were not filled to begin with, creating hazardous working environments. Automation could help address the workforce shortages, mirroring potential developments in methadone clinics nationwide.
Walgreens Corporate claims that automation is easing worker challenges, allowing personnel more opportunities for personal interaction with patients. Reportedly, there’s been a 40% rise in vaccine distributions facilitated by automated prescription systems.
Learn more about labor automation in another sector here.
On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order urging drug manufacturers to voluntarily reduce prices for major medications in the United States.
Nonetheless, the order lacks explicit legal authority to enforce lower prices. It states that if drug companies do not comply, the administration may explore regulatory actions from foreign nations or consider importing drugs from abroad.
This seemed like a win for the pharmaceutical sector, backing policies that could severely impact their profits.
Last week, Trump emphasized the announcement, stating it was “significant enough to make an impact.” He also mentioned in a Sunday evening post on Truth Social that they would connect U.S. drug prices to those in comparable countries under the “most favored nation” pricing model.
His executive order won’t achieve that goal. Following the news, drug stocks surged on Monday.
This order by Trump came just hours after House Republicans slashed about $700 billion from the Medicaid and Obamacare markets, proposing extensive healthcare changes that could potentially leave 8.6 million Americans without insurance. Congress declined to include measures that would impose direct limits on drug prices in its packages.
The executive order also called for federal agencies to investigate the reasons behind lower prices in European nations and to pursue additional payments. The Trump administration has limited power to influence drug prices in Europe.
“I’m not criticizing pharmaceutical companies,” Trump remarked before signing the order. “I’m primarily critiquing the country rather than the pharmaceutical firm.”
Trump opted not to suggest measures that could be more effective, such as proposing that the administration collaborate with Congress to reform how government health programs compensate for certain drugs.
“The executive order seems more like an ambitious statement than a genuine effort to initiate policy shifts,” commented Amith Salpatwali, a medical policy student at Harvard Medical School.
While numerous Republican lawmakers have resisted attempts to control drug prices, Trump has consistently challenged the existing system, pointing out that U.S. drug companies charge significantly more than their counterparts globally.
“We plan to support pharmaceutical companies in other countries,” he said at an event on Monday.
Trump also threatened to leverage trade policies to pressure European nations into paying higher prices for prescription drugs. However, pharmaceutical companies are already tied to government contracts, and attempts to raise prices for new drugs could be met with resistance from European countries. Experts warned that an increase in prices in Europe does not automatically result in lower prices in the U.S.
During his first term, Trump aimed to implement a more comprehensive policy to reduce drug prices for Medicare, a health insurance program for those over 65 or with disabilities. This plan would have impacted only 50 drugs administered in clinics and hospitals, but a federal court blocked it, determining that the administration sidestepped due process in policymaking.
If pursued correctly, it’s uncertain whether the policy could have survived legal scrutiny. Some experts opined that Trump required congressional support to enact the law.
The White House heralded the announcement as groundbreaking. Trump’s Monday executive order calls for broader reforms than were proposed during his first term, potentially affecting more drugs and all Americans instead of just some Medicare patients. However, there is no clear pathway for implementing price reductions.
“It almost seems like: we want a lower price and will see what happens,” remarked Stacey Dusetzina, a health policy professor at Vanderbilt University, who studies drug pricing. She added that in the absence of more substantive actions, “I don’t foresee drug prices decreasing anytime soon.”
The order stated that if initial measures do not yield notable progress in lowering U.S. drug prices, the Trump administration may “consider a regulatory plan to impose pricing standards based on the most favored nations.”
Democrats have introduced numerous bills aimed at aligning American drug prices with those in other countries, and laws passed during the Biden administration now allow Medicare to directly negotiate prices for a limited selection of drugs used in the program. Overall, drug pricing policies enjoy broad public support across both Republican and Democratic voters.
The pharmaceutical industry has voiced its concerns over potential tariffs on imported drugs that Trump has promised to impose immediately. These tariffs are likely to reduce drug manufacturers’ profits, even as they might increase some drug prices in the U.S. and pass on additional costs.
Investors reacted positively, recognizing that Trump did not propose more substantial policies. After earlier declines, drug stocks rebounded when details of Trump’s announcement emerged, with Merck shares rising 6% and Pfizer’s shares nearly 4%. The small biotech stock index also rose by 4%.
“Better than expected,” a Wall Street Bank analyst mentioned in a note to investors. “More bark than bite,” commented analysts at TD Cowen.
In Monday’s statement, a drugmaker lobbying group asserted that the U.S. should not look to other countries to determine drug pricing.
However, significant industry organizations, including PhRMA, commended Trump for using trade negotiations to pressure foreign governments to “pay their fair share for medicines.”
“U.S. patients should not bear the financial burden of global innovation,” stated Stephen J. UBL, PhRMA’s CEO.
Currently, U.S. brand drug prices are three times higher on average compared to similar countries.
Drug manufacturers typically design their business strategies around U.S. profits. Essentially, U.S. profits drive their revenues.
Pharmaceutical companies assert that U.S. prices accompany additional advantages. Industry-funded analyses show that U.S. patients gain faster access to medications, and experience fewer insurance limitations compared to other regions.
In many affluent countries, governments generally cover prescription drug costs for the entire population, negotiating substantial discounts with drug manufacturers. Numerous other nations employ comparative pricing to establish what they are willing to pay.
In contrast, the U.S. government has minimal direct involvement in setting drug prices, aside from the Biden-era program affecting a limited number of Medicare drugs, which is currently under the Trump administration’s oversight.
Earlier this month, Republican Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri and Democrat Peter Welch from Vermont introduced a bill aimed at capping the average prices paid based on peer country comparisons.
In an interview, Welch expressed agreement with Trump’s assertion that Americans are overpaying for drugs and believes that international comparisons could help establish fairer pricing. However, he emphasized that congressional action is necessary to create enduring policies.
“It’s essential to tackle this legislatively,” he stated.
Trump’s executive order assigns his administration a month to communicate voluntary “price targets” for select drugs to pharmaceutical companies. White House officials indicated that it is likely that a weight-loss drug known as GLP-1 (which includes popular medications like Zepbound and Wegovy) might be among those discussed.
Trump noted at a press conference on Monday that the costs for “weight-loss drugs” are substantially lower in Europe than in the U.S.
In many scenarios, Americans face costs of around $500 a month for these medications without insurance, while European pharmacies often charge a few hundred dollars less. Most patients in Europe pay out-of-pocket for drugs, as the national health systems typically do not cover them.
The regulations aimed to ensure that the largest data centers in the world were constructed by the United States and its allies, rather than by nations in the Middle East or elsewhere. Officials in the Biden administration expressed concerns about the authoritarian inclinations of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, as well as their connections with China. They contended that these rules might restrict access to AI chips and data centers in other countries, subsequently bolstering Beijing’s strategic and military capabilities.
Set to take effect on May 15, the regulations permitted unlimited sales of AI chips to 18 allied nations, including the UK, Germany, and Japan, while prohibiting sales to China, Iran, and other adversaries. Nations such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, India, Israel, and Poland would face limitations on their chip purchases, leading to widespread dissatisfaction.
Jim Secre, the former vice-chief of staff at the Commerce Department, remarked that the regulations are designed to safeguard national security and influence the future of critical technologies. In the absence of these regulations, the combination of inexpensive energy and capital abroad could result in more data centers being established outside the US than within its borders.
“Controlling AI is the geopolitical challenge of our time,” he stated.
Companies like Nvidia and Oracle have raised objections to the regulations, arguing that they hinder the leadership of US technology. Officials from the Trump administration appeared to share this sentiment. On Wednesday, the current administration announced plans to introduce new regulations to replace the existing framework, though no timeline for these changes was specified.
“The Biden AI regulations are excessively complicated and bureaucratic, potentially stifling American innovation,” stated Ben Kass, a spokesperson for the Department of Commerce, which oversees technology policy. “We are focused on advancing US leadership and replacing it with a more straightforward and transparent framework that maximizes the potential of American AI innovation.”
The Trump administration has taken steps to revoke federal protections for the lesser prairie chicken, a vibrant grouse unfortunate enough to inhabit the southern and central grasslands, which have long been targeted for agricultural and energy development.
In a court filing on Wednesday, officials stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service mistakenly made a decision during the Biden era to classify these birds as endangered.
This move exemplifies the ongoing efforts of the White House to dilute or eliminate environmental regulations that hinder Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” agenda.
Furthermore, it marks yet another development in the ongoing struggle for the species, a battle that has persisted for 30 years.
Known for their unique courtship rituals of stomping, tail feather flicking, and “flapping,” the lesser prairie chicken’s population has plummeted from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to only about 30,000 due primarily to habitat loss.
“President Trump will always advocate for the elimination of burdensome regulations affecting the American agriculture sector, particularly as numerous ranchers voluntarily engage in protecting lesser prairie chicken habitats,” stated White House spokesperson Anna Kelly.
The filing, submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, aims to reevaluate the bird’s status by November 30, 2026.
While the species currently lacks protection under the Endangered Species Act, the filing asserted that “there are at least 16 different conservation initiatives and programs administered by state, federal, and private entities.”
Despite this, conservationists foresaw that the service would be under no obligation to reevaluate the species on its own timeline and would likely need to take legal action to prompt a review.
“The Trump administration is once again yielding to the fossil fuel industry, ignoring sound science and common sense while jeopardizing at-risk species,” stated Jason Rylander, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.
“A political decision to remove protections for endangered species is one that would not hold up in court,” he added, noting his group’s involvement in the issue.
Back in 1998, federal wildlife officials acknowledged that fewer grassland chickens warranted conservation efforts but initially prioritized other species. This led to the bird being tangled in a legal battle, fluctuating in and out of protected status.
In 2022, protections for the lesser prairie chicken were reinstated under President Biden, which split the species into two distinct populations: the southern population (encompassing eastern New Mexico and eastern Texas) and the northern population (covering central Kansas, western Oklahoma, central Texas, and the northeastern Panhandle).
The oil and ranch sectors faced lawsuits in 2023, similar to those filed in Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma.
Currently, the Trump administration contends that the Fish and Wildlife Service mischaracterized the species as a cohesive group and is “precisely contaminating” the validity of this assessment.
The major global authority on species, the United Nations List for Nature Conservation, classifies the lesser prairie chicken as vulnerable, similar to the U.S. endangered list.
Rylander from the Center for Biological Diversity stated his intention to challenge federal motions in the days ahead. The struggle over the lesser prairie chicken continues as scientists warn about unprecedented levels of biodiversity loss in human history.
Temperate grasslands are recognized as among the most endangered ecosystems globally.
The Trump administration discontinued its $18.1 billion grant to the National Institutes of Health within just 40 days.
This information comes from an analysis published in JAMA on Thursday, which utilizes data from the Department of Health and Human Services to monitor accountability within the government grant system.
The analysis offers the most extensive overview to date regarding the reduction of NIH funding following the Trump administration’s significant efforts to eliminate perceived waste and inefficiency in federal spending.
Michael Liu, a student at Harvard Medical School, noted that while some grants are still uncertain due to new terminations and temporary revivals due to court orders, the HHS grant tracker remains the most reliable and current dataset available.
From February 28th to April 8th, the administration processed close to 700 grants at 24 NIH labs and centers, concentrating on areas such as aging, cancer, child health, diabetes, mental disorders, and neuropathy.
“These cuts haven’t been evenly distributed,” Liu remarked. “The National Institute on Health and Health Disparities in Minority has faced the steepest reductions, with approximately 30% of its funding cut—ten times the average.”
President Trump’s upcoming budget proposal aims to eliminate all funding for the National Institute focused on health disparities among minorities, labeling the Institute as “full of DEI spending.” His January executive order called for the cessation of a program centered on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The proposal also suggests an overall reduction in NIH funding, slashing its budget for the next fiscal year to $27 billion, a decrease of around $18 billion, which would eliminate gender-focused research and studies on climate change. The administration plans to emphasize research on chronic diseases and other epidemics.
So far, most NIH grants that have been finalized have been directed toward research projects, with about 20% allocated to early career grants, training, or development. The analysis indicates that larger grants are more prone to termination, though it’s unclear if they were intentionally targeted based on the data.
“These sizable grants typically support large clinical trials and extensive research centers,” Liu explained. “Halting these initiatives is incredibly damaging, as it prevents patients from receiving necessary medications or interventions.”
Liu also pointed out that the analysis suggests that the rescinded grants are severely disrupted by both public and private institutions.
Among the grant recipients, Columbia University faced the highest number of terminations, totaling 157. The Trump administration targeted Columbia for funding cuts, citing “ongoing omissions at schools amid the persistent harassment of Jewish students” following significant Palestinian protests on campus. Columbia recently laid off 180 staff members associated with federal grants affected by these cuts.
“Columbia’s leadership continues to engage with the federal government to seek a resolution for resuming these research activities,” an official wrote in a letter to the Columbia community. “We are actively planning to address all potential contingencies, but tensions with federal authorities impact our financial situation and our research mission.
Every year, tens of thousands of young women opt to freeze their eggs. This procedure can be costly and at times painful, with numbers rising as more Americans delay childbirth.
However, many uncertainties surround the process: What is the optimal donor age for egg freezing? What are the success rates? And importantly, how long can frozen eggs remain viable?
Finding reliable answers to these questions is challenging. During the significant downsizing at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Trump administration disbanded a federal research team dedicated to collecting and analyzing data from fertility clinics aimed at enhancing outcomes.
According to Aaron Levine, a professor at Georgia Tech’s Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter School of Public Policy, who collaborated with the CDC team on research, the dismissal of the six team members was “a real, serious loss.”
“They held the most extensive data on fertility clinics, focused on ensuring truthfulness in patient advertising,” stated Barbara Collura, CEO of the National Infertility Association.
Collura emphasized that losing the CDC team is a significant blow to both couples facing infertility and women contemplating egg freezing.
These layoffs come amidst rising political interest in declining U.S. fertility rates. President Trump has dubbed himself the “infertile president” and signed an executive order aimed at expanding access to in vitro fertilization.
“The White House is committed to IVF and remains focused on it,” Collura noted.
With one in seven married or unmarried women experiencing infertility, she remarked, “Looking at these statistics, it’s disheartening—and not surprising—that our public health agencies have chosen to sidestep this issue.”
When asked about the team’s elimination, a health and welfare spokesperson commented that the administration is “in the planning stage” of transitioning maternal health programs to a new Healthy America initiative, offering no further details.
The scientists from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System were working to address numerous questions surrounding IVF research.
“We lack comprehensive data on the success rates of egg freezing for personal use because it’s relatively new and tricky to track,” Dr. Levine explained.
This uncertainty weighs heavily on women wishing to have children. Simeonne Bookal, who collaborates with Collura at Resolve, froze her eggs in 2018 while waiting to find the right partner.
She got engaged earlier this year, with her wedding scheduled for next spring. At 38, she expressed that having her eggs banked offers her a “security blanket.”
Though she still has reservations about her chances of conceiving, the frozen eggs provide her some assurance.
The precise success rate of the egg freezing procedure remains ambiguous, as many published studies are based on theoretical models that utilize data from infertile patients or egg donors, which differ significantly from women preserving their eggs for future use.
Some studies provide limited insights, often involving fewer than 1,000 women who thaw their eggs and undergo IVF, according to Dr. Sarah Druckenmiller Cascante, a Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Nyu Langone and author of a recent review paper on this topic.
“The available data is scant, and it’s crucial to be transparent with patients about this,” she said.
“I wouldn’t regard it as a guaranteed insurance policy. While it could lead to a baby, it’s more about improving the chances of having a biological child later in life, especially if done at a younger age.”
The CDC team maintained a database known as the National ART Surveillance System, established by Congress in 1992. This tracked success rates for various fertility clinics but now faces an uncertain future without continuous updates.
While the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology offers similar databases to researchers, they are not as comprehensive as the CDC’s since they contain data from approximately 85% of U.S. fertility clinics.
According to Sean Tipton, Chief Advocacy and Policy Officer for the American Association of Reproductive Medicine, no dedicated research team oversees the database.
The surge in women opting to bank their eggs for future use has intensified the scrutiny regarding the risks and benefits of freezing eggs.
This procedure was regarded as non-experimental as of 2012. In 2014, only 6,090 patients opted to bank their eggs for fertility preservation. Fast forward to 2022, and that number soared to 28,207, with 39,269 recorded in 2023, the latest year for which data is available.
A group of states spearheaded by Washington, Colorado, and California has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming it is unlawfully withholding billions of dollars designated by Congress for electric vehicle charging stations nationwide.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Act of 2021 allocated $5 billion to states for the construction of charging stations across the country. Research firm Atlas Public Policy reports that 71 stations have been established thus far, with more on the way.
Litigation filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle states that the federal agency has unlawfully frozen these funds, halted the approval of new stations, deprived states of critical resources, and harmed the developing electric vehicle industry.
The White House’s Budget Proposals announced last week indicated a cancellation of funds for the “Failed Electric Vehicles – Charger Grant Program.” President Trump had already targeted the program in January. Presidential Order from the Transportation Department echoed similar sentiments the following month. However, the lawsuit contends that a Congressional approval is necessary to entirely revoke funding.
“The president is making unconstitutional efforts to withhold funds allocated to programs that Congress supported,” stated California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “This time, he’s unlawfully diverting billions meant for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, lining the pockets of his oil industry allies.”
California has approximately 2 million “zero emission vehicles” available, accounting for one-third of the national total, as part of an ongoing initiative in the car-centric state to reduce air pollution. According to Bonta’s office, California relied on $384 million from the federal program for charging stations.
The state has heavily invested in its charging infrastructure from its own budget and revenue from carbon credits sold to polluters, leading to more public and shared private chargers than gas station pumps. However, challenges remain when crossing state lines for charging.
The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, or NEVI Program, initiated by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., aims to establish charging networks across urban and rural areas, including California, to combat climate change.
California officials remarked that one of the main beneficiaries of the national EV program is China, which currently leads in EV manufacturing and global sales. The most significant detriment would likely fall on Tesla, a Trump supporter, whose CEO Elon Musk expects the company to lead the EV market, despite a decline in sales during the first quarter of 2025.
“When America retreats, China prevails,” California Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the federal fund withholding as “another Trump gift to China.”
“Instead of promoting Teslas on the White House lawn, President Trump should prioritize aiding Elon and the nation by adhering to the law and unlocking this bipartisan funding,” Newsom stated.
The lawsuit includes attorneys general from Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.
Transportation Department Notes indicate that state officials reported in February that the administration had considered the NEVI program and suspended approval of state plans. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the memo is illegal and demands the administration release the funds.
An NEVI Funding Tracking Website operated by Atlas Public Policy shows that at least $521 million has been allocated, with approximately $44 million already spent. Data indicates that many operational stations are concentrated in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Loren McDonald, chief analyst at EV analytics firm Paren, commented that while the federal government plays a minor role in the EV charging sector, most stations are constructed by private companies. McDonald noted that the process of building the infrastructure and selecting contracting firms is lengthy and has led to delays. His experience with constructing charging stations reflects this trend.
That said, the plaintiffs asserted that the president’s orders have been detrimental.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser expressed that his state stands to lose tens of millions in funding after demonstrating significant advancements in establishing a robust foundation for electric vehicle adoption. He mentioned that federal support was crucial to bridging gaps in funding for rural Colorado and underserved communities.
“Congress showed foresight in approving funds for this essential infrastructure,” Weiser stated. “These funds need to be restored immediately.”
In Washington, the president’s directives halt 40 proposed projects and jeopardize $55 million in approved Congressional funding for electric vehicle charging infrastructures.
The White House and the Transportation Department have yet to respond to requests for comment.
On Wednesday, President Trump remarked that, similar to general surgeons, doctors educated at Stanford have increasingly vocalized concerns about the influence of corporations on medicine and health.
Dr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a supporter of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., expressed that founding medicine can lead to feelings of disillusionment. Last year, she and her sibling, Calley Means, gained attention after appearing on Tucker Carlson’s show, where Carlson serves as a White House health advisor and a former food industry lobbyist.
What is her field of medicine?
Dr. Means, trained as an ENT and head and neck surgeon, left her surgical training incomplete to pursue functional medicine, which focuses on identifying the underlying causes of disease. Last year, she released a diet and self-help book titled “Good Energy: Amazing Connections between Metabolism and Infinite Health.” Before that, she was primarily known for founding a company that offered wearable glucose monitors for health tracking.
Her work emphasizes the rising prevalence of chronic diseases in the United States, addressing issues related to obesity, diabetes, infertility, chemical and drug therapies, and sedentary lifestyles among the American population.
What did she say about the vaccine?
In line with some of Kennedy’s skepticism regarding vaccines, Dr. Means urged the new administration to reconsider the liability protections granted to vaccine manufacturers in order to promote research into “cumulative effects” and the development of new vaccines.
“Emerging evidence suggests that the heavy burden of the current extensive vaccine schedule is impacting the health of vulnerable children,” she stated. I discussed this in my October newsletter.
Experts in child health remain strongly opposed to reducing the list of recommended vaccinations, warning that such modifications could result in severe outbreaks of infectious diseases. They also emphasize that the government is responsible for both the safety data used in vaccine licensing and that gathered post-implementation.
What did she say about food supply?
Dr. Means is spearheading a collaborative initiative to modify corporate-friendly practices concerning food and medical production and sales. This includes promoting healthier diets in public schools, researching chemical usage in American food products, advocating for warning labels on ultra-processed foods, restricting drug company advertising to patients on television, and mitigating the industry’s influence over food and drug regulators.
“American health is being compromised,” she stated. During a Senate Roundtable Event addressing food and nutrition in September, she remarked, “If the current trends persist, we will face social instability at best, diminishing America’s competitiveness, or at worst, a level of health disruption akin to genocide.”
The Trump administration has dissolved a federal advisory committee responsible for guidance aimed at preventing the spread of infectious diseases in healthcare settings.
The Healthcare Infection Control Practice Advisory Committee (HICPAC) created national standards for U.S. hospitals concerning practices such as handwashing, mask-wearing, and patient isolation for those with chronic illnesses.
Four committee members reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the termination of HICPAC on Friday.
A letter obtained by NBC News — sent by the CDC following a virtual meeting — indicated that the committee ended over a month ago, on March 31. The letter referenced President Donald Trump’s Executive Order calling for significant cuts in the federal workforce.
Previously, four professional associations urged Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a letter dated March 26 to retain the committee amid extensive reductions to federal health agencies. Neither the CDC nor the Department of Health and Human Services responded immediately to a request for comment on Tuesday.
Some of the committee’s web pages have been archived, meaning they are still accessible online but will no longer be updated.
Committee members are concerned that the guidelines could become outdated, failing to incorporate new scientific research or address the spread of drug-resistant organisms, as outlined in specific threats to hospitals.
“If things need to change, the guidelines may not adapt, leading to a precarious situation,” stated Connie Steed, a HICPAC member since 2023 and a former president of the Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology.
Dr. Anurag Malani, a fellow at the American Infectious Diseases Society who joined HICPAC in January, noted that the committee was nearing the completion of new guidelines for airborne pathogens before its termination. Previous guidelines had not been updated since 2007 and controversially recommended surgical masks over N95 respirators for preventing the spread of specific pathogens.
“There was much valuable information available. The lessons learned from Covid were shaping our guidelines to improve our previous protocols,” Malani reflected.
Jane Thomason, lead hygienist at National Nurses United, expressed regret over the committee’s dissolution, highlighting that it hampers the transparency of public health guidance. HICPAC had appointed Thomason to a workgroup last year.
“Concerns have been raised regarding HICPAC’s composition and proposed guidance, but its closure eliminates significant public transparency,” Thomason stated on Tuesday. “Without public HICPAC meetings, there is no access to the drafting process for CDC guidance on infection control in healthcare settings, ultimately compromising the safety of patients, nurses, and other healthcare personnel.”
According to a CDC letter from Friday, HICPAC had issued 540 recommendations since its formation over three decades ago, with 90% fully implemented.
Malani emphasized the need for consistent infection control practices nationwide, asserting that ongoing recommendations are essential.
“We should prevent state and local health departments from having to navigate this independently,” he concluded.
On Monday, the Trump administration requested a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit aimed at severely restricting access to the abortion pill Mifepristone. This aligns with the stance taken by the Biden administration in scrutinized cases that significantly affect abortion access.
Court filing This request by the Justice Department is unexpected, given President Trump’s and many officials’ strong opposition to abortion rights. Trump frequently claims that he appointed three Supreme Court justices in 2022 who voted to overturn national abortion rights, and his administration has actively sought to reduce programs supporting reproductive health.
This court filing marks the first instance where the Trump administration has engaged in litigation, significantly expanding access to Mifepristone as it aims to reverse various regulatory changes implemented by the Food and Drug Administration since 2016.
The request from the Trump administration does not delve into the substantial issues of the litigation that are yet to be adjudicated. Instead, it contends that the filings do not satisfy the legal criteria for consideration in the federal district court where the case was initiated, echoing the argument made by the Biden administration prior to Trump’s inauguration.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit include the Conservative Attorney Generals from Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas, with the suit filed in the U.S. District Court in Texas.
“The state has not objected to the lack of connection between their claims and the Northern District of Texas,” a Justice Department attorney stated in the filing.
“The state cannot pursue this case in this court, regardless of the merits of the claims,” they concluded, emphasizing that the complaint “should be dismissed or relocated due to a lack of proper venue.”
The lawsuit also seeks to impose new FDA restrictions on Mifepristone, including prohibiting its use by individuals under 18. The goal is to address the rapid increase in the prescription of abortion medications through telehealth and the distribution of pills via mail to patients.
Originally filed in 2022 by a coalition of anti-abortion physicians and organizations, the lawsuit advanced to the Supreme Court. However, in a unanimous ruling last June, the judge dismissed the case, stating the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate harm related to the FDA’s decision on Mifepristone.
Months later, three attorneys revived the case by submitting an amended complaint as plaintiffs in the same U.S. District Court in Texas. The presiding judge, U.S. District Court Judge J. Kakusmalik, a Trump appointee opposed to abortion access, harshly criticized the FDA and adopted terminology reminiscent of anti-abortion activists in his ruling during the initial phase of the case.
In the United States, abortion drugs are prescribed up to 12 weeks of pregnancy and currently account for nearly two-thirds of abortions. Women in states with abortion bans are increasingly seeking abortion medications from telehealth providers.
Currently, Roe v. Wade is in effect across 19 states, which have stricter regulations than the standard established by Wade. State support for abortion rights has expanded telehealth options for abortion, and many states have enacted Shield Acts to protect healthcare providers who prescribe and send abortion medications to patients in states with prohibitions or restrictions.
On Monday, 20 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration concerning mass shootings and the dismantling of agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The legal action, spearheaded by New York Attorney General Letitia James, asserts that the administration breached numerous laws and circumvented Congressional oversight by attempting to streamline HHS from 28 agencies to 15, while planning to lay off about 20,000 employees.
James stated, “This administration hasn’t streamlined the federal government. They’re blocking it. If you terminate scientists researching infectious diseases, silence medical professionals caring for pregnant individuals, shut down programs supporting firefighters and miners, or hinder children’s development, you’re not improving America’s health. You’re jeopardizing countless lives.”
The restructuring announcement by HHS came in late March as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s initiative to reduce the federal workforce. The cuts included layoffs of 3,500 employees from the Food and Drug Administration, 2,400 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 1,200 from the National Institutes of Health.
HHS indicated it will establish a new institution, referred to as the Healthy American regime, to take on some responsibilities formerly held by the agencies being dissolved, including programs focused on mental, environmental, or worker health.
Nonetheless, the lawsuit claims that the recent cuts have “severe, complicated, prolonged, and potentially irreversible” effects. The Attorney General emphasized in a press release that the restructuring impaired HHS’s ability to perform critical functions, disrupting mental health and substance abuse services, weakening responses to HIV/AIDS, and diminishing support for low-income families and individuals with disabilities.
Specifically, the Trump administration has let go of staff responsible for maintaining federal poverty guidelines, which are essential for determining food aid, housing assistance, and Medicaid eligibility, as well as reducing teams managing the low-income housing energy assistance program.
Half of the workforce from the Department of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services—one of the dissolved HHS agencies—has also been terminated. Consequently, the Attorney General reported that national investigations into drug use and health have come to a halt, and the federal team overseeing the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline has vanished.
The CDC has lost multiple labs that track infections, including those focusing on infectious diseases and tobacco control, as mentioned in the release. The team also monitored maternal mortality rates in the U.S. Additionally, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has been disbanded, which previously played a role in screening workers’ health issues related to toxic exposure.
The Trump administration asserts that certain programs, such as the World Trade Center Health Program—which provides screening and treatment for 9/11-related illnesses—and health surveillance initiatives for coal miners will persist under the Healthy American administration. However, many NIOSH employees associated with these programs are facing administrative leave and potential termination by June, as indicated in an internal government memo obtained by NBC News.
The lawsuit filed on Monday demands that HHS dismantle the agency and cease its efforts to restore the vital programs that have been lost.
This lawsuit is not the first to contest the federal government’s downsizing efforts. A coalition of 23 attorneys general previously sued HHS in April over the termination of approximately $11 billion in public health funding. A federal judge temporarily blocked these cuts but has yet to issue a final ruling.
On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to reassign scientists from independent labs to various departments.
Administrator Lee Zeldin disclosed these adjustments in a video statement, indicating that the agency is “reshaping scientific expertise” to concentrate on what are deemed “mission essentials.”
The most immediate impact will be on the Research and Development Bureau, the EPA’s primary research faction, which investigates aspects like the health and environmental repercussions of “eternal chemicals” in drinking water, as well as strategies to lessen airborne particulate pollution.
An internal document reviewed by the New York Times highlighted the Trump administration’s proposal to dissolve this office as part of a plan to eliminate 1,155 scientists, including chemists, biologists, and toxicologists engaged in health and environmental research.
While the changes weren’t enacted on Friday, the agency’s new focus areas were unveiled. According to Zeldin, 130 positions will transition to the office responsible for new chemical approvals, addressing the long-standing backlog cited by the Chemical Industry Group.
During the All Hands Staff Meeting later that day, Nancy Beck, a previous lobbyist for the American Council of Chemicals and now at the helm of the EPA’s chemicals office, reassured Scientists, remarking that it was a “very exciting time.”
She encouraged everyone in the agency to consider applying for these roles.
Officials from the Trump administration have indicated that further laboratory changes are on the horizon. A scientist on a call expressed concern that failing to transition to one of the new areas might result in job termination.
Additionally, on Friday, the EPA postponed the deadline for accepting withdrawal offers, which is now extended to May 9.
“This feels like a hunger game,” remarked a lab employee who opted for anonymity to avoid potential retaliation.
Other scientists will transition to managerial positions as part of the new office focused on applied scientific environmental solutions. Zeldin emphasized the need to “put science at the center of agency regulations.”
Democrats and environmental advocates have raised concerns that these changes could politicize scientific inquiry.
“This so-called ‘reorganization’ is merely a thinly veiled effort to diminish the agency’s globally respected scientific capacity by redistributing scientists and managing chemical assessments for the industry,” stated Deputy Director Cherry Pingley, a Democrat from Maine.
Chitra Kumar, managing director of the climate program at the federal advocacy group Concern Scientists Federal, warned that relocating scientists to policy offices “will expose these experts to political pressures, particularly in this administration.”
This shift occurs amidst the agency’s extensive deregulation initiative. Under Zeldin’s direction, the EPA has revised or rescinded over 30 regulations intended to safeguard air, water, and climate quality. Managers are also focused on dismantling the legal foundations of many climate regulations known as danger detection.
The Trump administration has terminated over $800 million in research related to the health of LGBTQ individuals, halting studies on cancers and viruses that predominantly impact sexual minority groups, and has intensified efforts to combat the resurgence of sexually transmitted infections, as highlighted by a New York Times analysis of federal data.
Reflecting its strong opposition to diversity initiatives and adolescent gender care, the administration has actively sought to eliminate standard measures and research affecting transgender health.
This crackdown reaches beyond specific issues, curtailing essential medical research on diseases disproportionately affecting LGBTQ populations, which constitute nearly 10% of American adults.
An examination of grant-related reviews revealed that out of 669 grants, 323—almost half—were fully or partially canceled in early May regarding LGBTQ health.
Federal authorities had earmarked $806 million for projects that were canceled, many of which were anticipated to generate additional funding in the coming years.
Numerous research institutions faced funding losses. This includes not just high-profile targets like Johns Hopkins and Columbia but also public universities in the South and Midwest like Ohio State University and the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Florida State University has canceled a research initiative worth $41 million, which included significant efforts to prevent HIV among adolescents and young adults, who account for the majority of new infections in the U.S. each year.
In a cancellation letter issued in recent months, the NIH justified the reductions by stating that LGBTQ projects “no longer align with agency priorities.” In some cases, the agency claimed that the canceled research was “based on gender identity,” resulting in “unscientific” outcomes that disregarded “biological reality.”
Other termination letters indicated that researchers erred by focusing on “artificial and unscientific categories” primarily driven by vague equity objectives.
These funding cuts come after a decade of increased federal support for LGBTQ research, encouraged by the NIH during the Obama administration, which welcomed grant proposals that focused on sexual and gender minorities.
Supporters of President Trump contend that much of this research is tainted by ideological bias.
“There was a trend of scientific malpractice to align conclusions with preconceived notions,” stated Roger Severino from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank influential in shaping Trump administration policies.
“It was founded on the erroneous belief that biology is almost irrelevant, alongside the political agenda that sought to normalize the idea of changing one’s sex.”
Researchers stated that canceling research on a broad range of diseases affecting sexual and gender minorities has effectively created a perception of a hierarchy among patients, deeming some as less valuable.
“Certain segments of the U.S. population should not be considered inferior as subjects of research,” remarked Simon Rosser, a professor at the University of Minnesota, whose lab focused on cancer in LGBTQ individuals before significant funding was withdrawn.
“This is a clear example of bias,” he emphasized. “It’s a form of prejudice in scientific research.”
The cancellation of these projects is a striking indication of the widespread dismantling of the research framework that has supported medical study in the United States for the past 80 years.
In addition to halting studies, federal officials have delayed grant payments, postponed review meetings, and expanded new grant awards.
Recently, Trump proposed slashing the NIH budget from approximately $48 billion to $27 billion, citing part of a broader agenda perceived as aimed at combating “radical gender ideology.”
The legality of these terminations remains uncertain. Two separate lawsuits challenge the broad cancellation of grants, with a group of researchers and others arguing that the Trump administration lacked a lawful basis for these cuts in 16 states.
The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services have not provided comments upon request.
Health department spokesperson Andrew Nixon stated to the Daily Signal, a conservative outlet, last month that the shifts which “alleviate politicized gender and identity studies” were “in line with the president’s executive order.”
In a statement, the NIH commented: “NIH is taking steps to terminate research funding that does not align with NIH and HHS priorities. We are committed to reinstating traditions that support evidence-based science.”
Lost funding has hindered critical studies on antibiotic resistance, undiagnosed autism among sexual minorities, and specific cancers that disproportionately affect these groups. The funding cuts have resulted in layoffs at several LGBTQ-focused laboratories that were poised for expansion.
Historically, the NIH has reserved grant cancellations for rare instances of research misconduct or potential participant harm. Scientists now argue that the recent cuts are doing more harm than protection for research participants.
They indicated the cessation of clinical trials where federal funding is short, affecting the care of volunteer participants.
“We are halting initiatives that prevent suicide and sexual violence,” remarked Katie Edwards, a professor at the University of Michigan, whose funding for various clinical trials involving LGBTQ individuals has been canceled.
The HIV studies have been particularly severely impacted.
The NIH has terminated major grants to the Adolescent Medical Exam Network for HIV/AIDS interventions, a program that established precursors for using medication therapy in adolescents to prevent infections.
The regimen known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, is recognized as a promising strategy to reduce HIV transmission in youth.
The funding reductions threaten to amplify HIV transmission among young sexual minority men using stimulants as they aim to monitor a continuous trial of products that prevent both HIV and unplanned pregnancies, alongside sexual health counseling and behavioral therapy.
With the termination of numerous other HIV studies, these cuts are undermining Trump’s aims established during his prior term to eradicate the national HIV epidemic within a decade, according to scientists.
The NIH has also halted efforts relating to other sexually transmitted infections.
Dr. Matthew Spinelli, an infectious disease researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, was in the midst of clinical trials on common antibiotics for post-exposure prophylaxis aimed at preventing syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia infections.
The trial involved a randomized study assigning participants to different antibiotic regimens to assess metabolism.
However, health officials ceased funding for the March study, objecting to research based on “gender identity.” Consequently, Dr. Spinelli could not apply federal funds to monitor participants already on antibiotics.
Moreover, he risked wasting thousands of doses of antibiotics acquired using taxpayer money. Dr. Spinelli warned that discontinuing efforts against infections like syphilis and HIV will allow new outbreaks to arise.
“The HIV epidemic is poised to surge again as a direct result of these actions,” Dr. Spinelli stated. “This is catastrophic for the communities affected.”
Despite a recent focus on the negative consequences of medical transition, federal officials have canceled several studies examining the potential risks of hormone therapies. These projects aimed to understand whether such treatments could elevate the chances of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, brain development issues, or HIV.
Other canceled grants sought to address mental health challenges in transgender individuals. Transgender youth, who currently represent around 3% of high school students, report significantly higher instances of persistent grief and suicide attempts.
For Dr. Edwards at the University of Michigan, funding has been halted for one of her six canceled studies examining how depression and self-harm among transgender teens can be mitigated.
Another study aimed at promoting supportive care for LGBTQ youth and reducing dating violence and alcohol consumption among these individuals.
The NIH categorizes studies strictly by specific illnesses, complicating efforts for agencies to estimate budgets for LGBTQ health research. Nonetheless, a report from March suggested that such studies accounted for less than 1% of the NIH’s portfolio over a decade.
The Times sought to quantify the scale of funding cuts in LGBTQ medical research by assessing grant titles. Research summaries were available for each of the 669 grants the Trump administration identified as fully or partially canceled in early May.
The review included studies designed to recruit participants from sexual and gender minorities, extending beyond grants strictly tied to LGBTQ issues and highlighting significant health disparities.
Grants related to diseases outside of the LGBTQ scope were excluded from this assessment.
The reduction in funding has hollowed out fields that not only flourished over the past decade but also encompassed a variety of health threats beyond HIV.
Researchers claim young academics have lost their positions in LGBTQ-related research and are erasing traces of their work from online profiles.
Brittany Charlton, a professor at Harvard School of Public Health, had five grants canceled, including one examining the notable uptick in stillbirth rates among LGBTQ women.
Discontinuing research into health threats impacting gender and sexual minorities ultimately affects the broader population, she stated. “When those around you become ill, it impacts you too, even if you believe it doesn’t,” she concluded.
National Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. emphasizes that addressing the “epidemic” of chronic diseases is fundamental to his health agenda, often citing unexpected statistics as a compelling reason for public health reform in the nation.
Recently, President Trump proposed a budget that includes a nearly 50% reduction in funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This plan includes the complete elimination of the Chronic Disease Center, leaving many state and city health officials stunned.
“A significant portion of Americans suffers from some form of chronic illness,” noted Dr. Matifha Frathschwei Davis, the health director for the city of St. Louis.
In discussing the proposed cuts, she questioned, “How can we justify this as a step toward making America healthy again?”
Last month, the Federal Health Administration eliminated 2,400 positions from the CDC. The National Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, which operates with the largest budget within the CDC, was affected greatly by these changes.
Several initiatives, including those addressing lead poisoning, smoking cessation, and reproductive health, were discontinued amid the reorganization.
The proposed budget slashes CDC funding to around $4 billion, down from $9.2 billion allocated for 2024.
Notably, the budget plan does not account for the $1.2 billion set aside for the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which could mean even deeper cuts than Trump’s initial proposal indicates.
Additional programs aimed at preventing injuries, including those from firearms, HIV surveillance and prevention initiatives, and grants for state preparedness in public health emergencies, will also be eliminated.
The budget outlines that these reductions aim to eliminate “duplicate, DEI, or unnecessary programs.” While Congress will draft a federal budget, it’s uncertain how much influence Trump’s proposal will wield, given the current Republican majority and his allegiance to the former president.
CDC officials were informed that the Chronic Disease Center’s functions are to be absorbed by a new division under the Department of Health, called Management for a Healthy America.
Moreover, the newly released proposal seems to earmark $500 million for the Health Secretary to focus on “nutrition, physical activity, healthy lifestyle, medication, and treatment.”
However, the Chronic Disease Center’s budget at the CDC had nearly tripled previously. Plus, even if some chronic disease programs are revived under AHA, it’s doubtful that CDC scientists from Atlanta will be included.
“The true experts in managing these programs might no longer be with the CDC,” stated Dr. Scott Harris, state health officer with the Alabama Department of Public Health. “My state certainly lacks the same level of expertise.”
The Department of Health and Human Services has yet to respond to requests for comments.
The CDC’s Chronic Disease Center has spearheaded initiatives to prevent cancer, heart disease, diabetes, epilepsy, and Alzheimer’s disease. The center has also launched programs that range from developing hiking trails in rural areas to advocating for healthier food options in airports and promoting wellness in underserved communities.
Dr. Davis noted that her department is already feeling the impact of cuts aimed at reducing smoking and lead poisoning, as over $11 billion in funding previously provided by the CDC to the state’s health department has been withdrawn.
“I’m going to be back in the COVID-19 cycle with everything happening,” Dr. Davis remarked.
Under the proposed budget, the administration suggests that responsibilities of eliminated programs would be better handled at the state level. Yet, the state’s health department already administers the majority of chronic disease programs, with 75% of the funding from the CDC supporting these efforts.
Dr. Harris described the loss of funds as “devastating for us.”
Alabama ranks among the states with the highest rates of chronic disease, with about 84% of the Department of Public Health’s budget reliant on the CDC, according to Dr. Harris. Approximately $6 million is allocated for programs addressing chronic diseases, such as blood pressure screenings, diabetes nutrition education, and promoting physical activity.
He added, “I really don’t know where these funds would come from if these cuts happen.” “No one truly seems to know what to expect, and our input isn’t being sought.”
Minnesota’s health department has already reduced its workforce by 140 employees, with more potential layoffs looming if additional CDC funds are lost. Cutting chronic disease prevention resources jeopardizes nursing homes, vaccination clinics, and public health programs for Native Americans in the state.
“Federal actions have left us in precarious situations without support,” noted Dr. Brooke Cunningham, the state health commissioner.
Recently, Dr. Cunningham observed, “There was a shared understanding at the local, state, and federal levels that investing in health was crucial.”
The impact of the CDC’s Chronic Disease Center extends into many unexpected areas of American life.
In Prairie Village, Kansas, Stephanie Bar was made aware of the center’s resources while working as an uninsured waitress fifteen years ago when she discovered a lump in her breast.
Through the CDC’s National Early Breast and Cervical Cancer Detection Program, she received mammograms and ultrasounds, and staff assisted her in signing up for Medicaid after her biopsy revealed cancer. “It was caught just in time,” said Barr, now 45 and cancer-free.
Since its 1991 inception, the program has conducted over 16.3 million screenings for more than 6.3 million individuals, offering vital services to those without affordable access.
One such organization, 530 Health, has petitioned lawmakers to reject the proposed HHS budget, which would reduce discretionary spending by about one-third. The signers expressed that such cuts would “devastate” the nation’s research and public health systems.
The budget also suggests dismantling the disease registry and surveillance frameworks.
“Without gathering data and maintaining these surveillance systems, we lose sight of health trends,” explained Dr. Philip Fan, director of Dallas County Health and Human Services in Texas.
“You lose all historical context,” he added.
In his former role as the Director of Chronic Diseases in Texas, Dr. Huang collaborated closely with CDC experts who successfully curbed tobacco use among Americans. “Dismantling smoking and health initiatives is irrational if you aim to address chronic illnesses,” he stated.
Smoking continues to be a leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., claiming over 480,000 lives annually, as per CDC data.
Although more than 10% of Americans smoke regularly, usage rates differ significantly by region, and CDC monitoring helps identify areas that require intervention programs.
“While smoking rates have declined, tobacco companies are poised to exploit any federal laxity,” warned Erica Seward, vice president of advocacy for the American Lung Association.
She cautioned that tobacco companies are continuously developing new products, like nicotine pouches, adding, “Reining this back in will cost significantly more.”
The CDC Chronic Disease Center collaborates with community and academic institutions to promote effective health initiatives, leading nutrition classes and fitness programs to engage rural youths in Iowa as well as training members of Black churches in Columbia, South Carolina.
In rural Missouri, numerous walking trails have been developed in the “boot heels” region, an area marked by high obesity and diabetes rates, as noted by Dr. Ross Brownson, a public health researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, who is allied with the CDCC to steer the Center for Prevention Research.
“There’s robust evidence that enhancing community walkability can increase physical activity,” affirmed Dr. Brownson. “While there are no health clubs in the countryside, residents can appreciate nature and walk, and land is relatively affordable.”
In Rochester, New York, CDC funding supports training for deaf individuals to lead wellness programs tailored for other members of the deaf community who might struggle to engage in traditional gym classes.
In San Diego, researchers are exploring methods to shield farm workers from UV and heat-related ailments.
“When they mobilize and begin to take action, they become self-sufficient and are no longer reliant on government support,” commented Allison Bey, who recently lost her position overseeing such initiatives at the CDC.
The CDC reorganization has also resulted in the cancellation of the lead poisoning program, a significant concern as lead exposure represents “one of our major public health threats in Cleveland,” noted Dr. David Margolius, the city’s public health director.
Although the CDC does not directly fund the lead program in Cleveland, which relies on state funding, Dr. Margolius emphasized, “We depend on federal expertise to guide us toward a future free of lead exposure. This shift will have major repercussions for us.”
National Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. emphasizes that addressing the “epidemic” of chronic illness is fundamental to his vision for American health, frequently citing alarming statistics as a pressing need for reform in public health across the nation.
On Friday, President Trump proposed a budget that would nearly halve funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, completely eliminating the Chronic Disease Center, a move that left many state and city health officials in disbelief.
“Most Americans suffer from some form of chronic illness,” stated Dr. Matifha Frathschwei Davis, health director for the city of St. Louis.
Addressing the proposed cuts, she asked, “How do you reconcile this with an effort to make America healthy again?”
Last month, the Federal Health Administration eliminated 2,400 jobs at the CDC. The Chronic Disease Center, which handles the largest budget within the CDC, was particularly impacted.
In a reorganization last month, programs focused on lead poisoning, smoking cessation, and reproductive health were discontinued.
The proposed budget would slash CDC funding to around $4 billion, down from $9.2 billion in 2024.
Moreover, the budget plan does not account for the $1.2 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund, suggesting that the cuts could surpass what Trump has proposed.
Programs targeting injury prevention, including those related to firearms, along with HIV surveillance and public health emergency preparedness grants, would also be affected.
According to the budget proposal, reductions aim to eliminate “duplicate, DEI, or simply unnecessary programs.” While Congress will formulate a federal budget, it remains uncertain how Trump’s proposal will evolve given the Republican majority and his allegiance to Trump.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of the Department of Health and Human Services at the White House last month.credit…Eric Lee/The New York Times
CDC officials have been informed that the functions of the Chronic Disease Center will be relocated to a new entity within the health department called Management for a Healthy America.
Additionally, the proposal released on Friday seems to allocate $500 million to the Health Secretary for initiatives focusing on “nutrition, physical activity, healthy lifestyle choices, medications, and treatments.”
Yet, the Chronic Disease Center’s budget at the CDC was nearly tripled. Even if some chronic disease centers are revived under AHA, it’s unlikely that CDC scientists, who have relocated from Atlanta, will be involved.
“The actual subject matter experts managing the program may no longer be at the CDC,” remarked Dr. Scott Harris, Alabama’s state health officer. “We certainly don’t have the same level of expertise in my state.”
The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment.
The CDC’s Chronic Disease Center has launched programs aimed at the prevention of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, epilepsy, and Alzheimer’s disease. However, it also supports initiatives beyond traditional boundaries, like developing walking trails and ensuring healthy food options are available in airports.
Dr. Davis from St. Louis indicated that her department has already been impacted by cuts that affect smoking cessation programs, lead poisoning initiatives, and health equity efforts, with a loss of over $11 billion in funding that the CDC previously provided to the state’s health department.
Diabetes Prevention Program at the Bronx YMCAcredit…Benjamin Norman from New York Times
The center is involved in various initiatives, from developing walking paths to ensuring that healthy food options like salads are available at airports.credit…Tony Senicola/The New York Times
“I’m going to see the impacts of COVID-19 reflected in our current situation,” Dr. Davis emphasized.
In the proposed budget, the administration claims that discontinued programs could be more effectively managed at the state level. However, the state’s health department already oversees most chronic disease initiatives, with approximately three-quarters of the CDC Center’s funding dedicated to these programs.
Dr. Harris expressed that the funding loss is “devastating for us.”
Alabama has one of the highest chronic disease rates nationwide, with upwards of 84% of the Department of Public Health’s budget sourced from the CDC, Dr. Harris noted. Approximately $6 million is estimated to support chronic disease initiatives, including blood pressure screenings, diabetes education, and promoting physical activity.
If these funds are cut, he added, “I have no idea now where the funding will come from.” “No one truly seems to know what to expect, and we are not solicited for input on these matters.”
The Minnesota health department has already terminated 140 positions, with hundreds more potentially at risk if CDC funding reductions continue. Cuts to chronic disease prevention have direct repercussions on nursing homes, vaccination clinics, and public health efforts for Native Americans in the region.
“Federal decisions have left us unsupported in a fragile situation without a safety net,” stated Dr. Brooke Cunningham, the state health commissioner.
Dr. Cunningham noted that until recently, there seemed to be a shared understanding at all levels of government regarding the importance of investing in health.
In 2023, Dr. Brooke Cunningham, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health.credit…David Joles/Star Tribune via the Associated Press
The impact of the CDC Chronic Disease Center is felt in many surprising facets of American life.
In Prairie Village, Kansas, Stephanie Barr learned about the center when she worked as a waitress without health insurance and discovered a lump in her breast 15 years ago.
Thanks to the CDC’s National Early Breast and Cervical Cancer Detection Program, she received mammograms and ultrasounds, with staff assisting her in registering for Medicaid for treatment after a biopsy revealed the mass was cancerous, Barr recounted.
“It was caught just in time,” said Barr, now 45 and cancer-free.
Since its inception in 1991, the program has provided over 16.3 million screenings for more than 6.3 million individuals, with no other affordable options available.
The organization 530 Health has circulated a petition urging lawmakers to reject the proposed HHS budget, which could cut discretionary funding by approximately one-third. The signers contend that these cuts would “effectively devastate” the nation’s research and public health infrastructure.
The budget also suggests dismantling the disease registry and surveillance system.
“Without collecting data or maintaining these surveillance systems, we lose sight of trends,” mentioned Dr. Philip Fan, director of Dallas County Health and Human Services in Texas.
“You’re losing all historical context,” he explained.
In a previous role as Director of Chronic Diseases in Texas, Dr. Huang worked closely with CDC specialists who effectively decreased tobacco use among Americans.
“Abolishing smoking cessation efforts is utterly irrational if you aim to address chronic illnesses,” he stated.
The Chronic Disease Center’s programs target cancer, heart disease, diabetes, epilepsy, and Alzheimer’s disease.credit…Tony Leon of the New York Times
Smoking continues to be a leading cause of preventable deaths in the U.S., causing over 480,000 fatalities annually, according to the CDC.credit…Jenny Kane/Applications
Smoking remains a top contributor to preventable deaths in the United States, leading to over 480,000 deaths each year, per CDC data.
More than one in ten Americans smoke regularly; however, rates vary significantly by region, and CDC monitoring is crucial for targeting areas where cessation programs are most necessary.
“While smoking rates have declined, if the federal government eases regulations, tobacco companies are poised to regain ground,” cautioned Erica Seward, vice president of advocacy for the American Lung Association.
She highlighted that tobacco firms continually innovate new products, such as nicotine pouches. Usage among teenagers doubled last year. “It would be significantly more challenging to reverse this trend,” she added.
The CDC Chronic Disease Center collaborates with both community and academic organizations to promote effective programs, ranging from engaging youth in rural areas of Iowa to training members of Black churches in Columbia, South Carolina.
In rural Missouri, numerous walking trails have been established in the Bootheel region, an area with high obesity and diabetes rates, as noted by Ross Brownson, a public health researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, who is partnering with the CDCC to lead the Center for Prevention Research.
“Research indicates that enhancing walkability in a community can significantly increase physical activity levels,” Dr. Brownson commented. “Though there may be no fitness centers in rural areas, residents can enjoy nature and outdoor walking, and land is relatively affordable.”
In Rochester, New York, CDC support is training both deaf and hearing individuals to lead exercise and wellness programs targeted at others who are deaf and often excluded from mainstream fitness classes.
In San Diego, investigators are exploring strategies to shield farmworkers from ultraviolet and heat-related health issues.
“When they initiate these efforts from the ground up, they’re community-driven and not reliant on government support,” commented Allison Bey, who recently lost her position overseeing such initiatives at the CDC.
The CDC’s reorganization has also resulted in the termination of the lead poisoning program. Lead poisoning is “among our most significant public health challenges in Cleveland,” pointed out Dr. David Margolius, the city’s public health director.
While the CDC does not directly fund Cleveland’s lead program, the state provides the necessary resources. “We rely on federal expertise to guide us toward a lead-free future, so this will have a profound impact on us,” he stated.
Following the rejection of numerous authors by the Trump administration for the upcoming national climate assessment, two scientific organizations have embarked on initiatives to publish special collections of climate change research.
Earlier this week, researchers were informed that their contributions would no longer be needed for the national climate assessment.
The future of this assessment is uncertain, and some authors have voiced concerns that its integrity is compromised, lacking scientific rigor or the ability to adequately convey the risks associated with climate change.
Robert Kopp, a professor of Earth and Planetary Science at Rutgers University and one of the authors affected by the recent decisions regarding the National Climate Assessment, commented:
In response to the administration’s actions, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) announced on Friday their plans to curate a special collection focused on climate research, as stated in press releases from both organizations.
As per the news release, this collection will span over 20 peer-reviewed journals and aims to “sustain momentum” in the work relevant to the National Climate Assessment, in light of the author and staff rejections.
AGU President Brandon Jones noted in a statement that this special collection is not meant to serve as an “alternative” to the national climate assessment but represents “a unique opportunity to publish new research and reviews that could support climate assessments focused on the U.S.”
The White House has not commented on the rationale behind the rejection of National Climate Assessment authors or the administration’s plans moving forward.
The 1990 Global Change Research Act mandates the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to submit reports to the President and Congress every four years, with national climate assessments previously satisfying this obligation. These reports summarize the best available science on climate change physics, its effects on the U.S., and societal adaptations. They also include localized climate forecasts for various regions to inform the public about community risks.
The latest assessment, published in 2023, comprised around 2,200 pages across 37 chapters. It highlighted that the lower 48 states have experienced an average warming of 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1970, alongside increasingly severe weather events and costly disasters.
“If you’re a state official, business leader, or a member of the public looking to understand the impacts of climate change on the economy, coastal areas, or human health,” Kopp stated:
The National Climate Assessment is a culmination of the efforts of hundreds of researchers volunteering their time, although it is organized by USGCRP staff. In April, the White House ceased funding for this organization.
“I have no insight into the plan; I don’t think anyone does,” Kopp remarked. “They have let go of all the authors and staff of the Global Change Research Program, leaving some government positions currently unfilled.”
The USGCRP website currently states, “We are reviewing the operation and structure of USGCRP.”
Kopp mentioned that the authors of the National Climate Assessment had dedicated about a year to summarizing the chapters intended for their 2027 report and evaluating relevant themes. This summary has already been submitted for review to the federal agency, and the authors are now considering how best to proceed with it.
“We cannot replicate the NCA unless there is an organization prepared to take charge and staff up,” Kopp concluded.
Climate change contributes to events like the Marshall Fire in Colorado, which devastated 1,000 homes in December 2021
Jim West/Alamy
The Trump administration has dismissed nearly 400 researchers involved in the forthcoming US national climate assessment. This action may delay the completion of a critical report detailing the impacts of climate change on the nation.
“The Trump administration has carelessly undermined a vital US climate science report by prematurely discarding its authors without justification or a plan,” said Rachel Cleetus, representing the concerned coalition of scientists.
This move significantly hampers progress on the sixth National Climate Assessment, designed to inform federal and state governments about climate change risks and their implications. A law enacted by Congress in 1990 mandates that these assessments be produced every four years.
Although the next report isn’t due until 2027, extensive work has already begun, and the document may exceed 1,000 pages. The latest review, published in 2023, discussed the increasing difficulty of ensuring safe homes, healthy families, dependable public services, sustainable economies, and thriving ecosystems amidst climate challenges.
In early April, the Trump administration terminated a contract with a consulting firm responsible for coordinating research for upcoming assessments under the US Global Change Research Program. This follows numerous cuts at scientific institutions contributing to these efforts, as well as other actions restricting climate and weather research.
Despite the challenges, the report’s authors (mostly volunteers) were eager to collaborate, according to Dustin Mulvaney, who was focused on the Southwest section of the report at San Jose State University. “Many of us thought, ‘We can still do this!'”
However, with all the authors now released, completing the report appears unlikely.
A NASA spokesman, responsible for the global change research program, chose not to comment. Yet, some report authors stated to New Scientist that they received a brief notification indicating that all authors had been dismissed as agents assessed the “scope” of the evaluations.
The notification mentioned “future opportunities” for contributions. Ultimately, Congress legally requires these assessments, and the administration can still appoint new authors. Earlier reports emphasized climate risks, while new analyses will likely focus more on how the US is responding to climate change through reduced emissions and infrastructure adaptation.
Even if the report is eventually published, it may lack the rigor and reliability found in previous assessments, according to Mijin Cha, who was working on emission reductions at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “Now they’ve completely compromised it.”
“I think everyone is really disheartened by this situation,” she expressed.
President Trump’s 100th day in office commenced with what seems to be a rapidly developing dispute between the White House and Amazon.
During a press conference on Tuesday morning, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt took a strong stance. Amazon had accused the administration of being “hostile and political” following a report from Punchbowl News claiming that the online retail giant’s products reflected an increase in tariff-related prices.
Displaying import fees would have clarified to American consumers that they bear the costs of Trump’s tariff policy, rather than China.
Following the report, Trump reportedly spoke with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos over the phone, as confirmed by three sources familiar with the conversation. An Amazon spokesperson quickly denied that any such policy was active, and by Tuesday afternoon, Trump was back to complimenting Bezos.
“Jeff Bezos is really good,” Trump told reporters during a trip to Michigan for a rally celebrating the first 100 days of his second term. “He solved the problem very quickly. He did the right thing. He’s a good guy.”
The relationship between Trump and Bezos seemed to shift dramatically in just a few hours. Bezos, one of the billionaires aligning with the White House, was courted by Trump due to his business acumen. Yet the administration was quick to publicly challenge Bezos when it appeared his business interests could potentially undermine Trump’s political position.
This strategy appeared effective.
Leavitt criticized Amazon on Tuesday morning while standing beside Treasury Secretary Scott Bescent. She mentioned her recent phone conversation with the president regarding the Punchbowl report and questioned why Amazon didn’t react similarly to price increases during the Biden administration amid inflation.
Leavitt referred to a 2021 Reuters article declaring, “Amazon is affiliated with Chinese propaganda arms,” stating it was “not a surprise.”
An Amazon spokesperson later indicated that while they acknowledged some points from the Punchbowl report, the new feature Amazon Haul—aimed at competing with Chinese retailer Temu—would display “import fees” to eliminate customs loopholes.
“The team is always discussing ideas,” said spokesperson Ty Rogers in a statement. He clarified that this concept has not been contemplated for the main Amazon site, adding, “This will never be approved and will not happen.”
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick shared on social media that this development was “good news.”
Trump’s assertive tariffs on Chinese goods initiated an escalating trade war, despite his administration withdrawing from wider global negotiations, citing talks with numerous countries regarding new trade agreements.
Leavitt’s criticisms of Amazon were particularly significant given Bezos’ long-standing efforts to curry favor with the White House. Amazon contributed $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund and reserved prime seating for Bezos and his wife.
Before the election, Bezos canceled editor support for Kamala Harris at the Washington Post. Recently, Amazon Prime has added multiple seasons of “Apprentice” to its lineup and struck deals with the Trump family for a documentary about Melania Trump.
In December, Bezos discussed the move to Trump at the New York Times Dealbook Summit, commenting, “What I’ve seen so far is that he’s calmer compared to his first term.”
He remarked, “I’m very hopeful. He seems to have a lot of energy in reducing regulations.”
When asked about his relationship with Bezos in a recent Cover Story in Atlantic Magazine, released Monday, Trump stated, “He’s 100%. He was amazing.”
However, when Levitt was posed a question on Tuesday morning about whether Bezos would still be seen as a Trump supporter, she deflected.
“Look, I’m not going to discuss the president’s relationship with Jeff Bezos,” Levitt replied.
On April 1, the Trump administration initiated its budget cuts, impacting Morgantown, W.Va. Federal scientists were focusing on health and safety concerns for American workers. That morning, hundreds of staff members at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health learned they had been laid off and would lose building access.
More than 900 lab animals remained on site. The institute managed to transfer approximately two-thirds (mainly mice) to a university lab, as reported by two recently terminated employees. Unfortunately, the remaining 300 animals were euthanized last week.
In recent months, the Trump administration aimed to reformat American research, resulting in mass firings of federal scientists, withdrawal of active research grants, and proposals to fund essential laboratory operations.
These actions have disbanded various research initiatives and significantly affected lab animals, crucial for much of the nation’s biomedical research.
“Many animals will face sacrifice—they will be terminated,” remarked a researcher on the potential use of non-animal alternatives at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Experts indicate that predicting the total impact is challenging, as much of the administration’s actions are embroiled in legal disputes. Furthermore, animal research is often discreet, leaving no clear count of animals in U.S. laboratories.
Numerous scientists are hesitant to discuss the fate of lab animals due to fears of backlash from animal rights activists or retaliation from employers or the administration. Many requests for interviews with research facilities remain unanswered.
“It’s a terrible situation for them,” Dr. Rock stated. “Retaining animals can incur high costs, while sacrificing them can provoke public outrage.”
Some animal rights advocates welcome the uncertainty, even if it leads to euthanasia. However, many researchers feel devastated by the dual loss—many animals could perish without contributing to scientific knowledge.
“We don’t engage with animals lightly,” said pulmonary toxicologist Kyle Mandler, recently laid off from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, part of the CDC. He was in the midst of research on harmful dust generated in certain construction materials. About 20 of his mice were euthanized last week, leaving his study incomplete and without data.
“Knowing that their lives and sacrifices were completely wasted is both depressing and infuriating,” he expressed.
The Department of Health and Human Services did not directly respond to inquiries regarding the seized Morgantown animals. However, an unnamed HHS official stated via email that changes at NIOSH are part of a “broader reorganization,” integrating multiple programs for a healthier U.S.
“Staffing and operational adjustments occur in phases,” the statement noted. “Animal care operations are ongoing, and HHS is committed to upholding all federal animal welfare standards throughout this transition.”
Sudden halt
In recent years, many countries, including the U.S., have shifted away from animal research due to its costs and ethical concerns, often poor relevance to human outcomes. This month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revealed plans to phase out animal testing requirements for certain drugs, favoring three-dimensional human organ models made from lab-grown cells, like organoids and “organs on a chip.”
Experts agree these emerging technologies show great promise. However, for the time being, lab animals remain vital to biomedical research, with some arguing that certain data can only be gathered through animal studies.
“We aim to exit this realm,” stated Naomi Charalanbakis, director of science policy at a nonprofit advocating for the continuation of animal use in biomedical research. “But we’re not there yet.”
Research involving lab animals requires careful planning over years, stable funding, and skilled veterinarians and technicians for daily care. The Trump administration’s actions jeopardize all of this.
At the NIOSH facility in Morgantown, initial budget cuts encompassed animal care staff. “But they resisted, insisting they couldn’t leave while animals remained on site,” said a former lab technician.
After the Trump administration froze funding at Harvard this month, researchers developing a new tuberculosis vaccine faced the grim prospect of euthanizing rhesus macaques. This study and the monkeys were saved only after private donors stepped in to provide funding.
Animals involved in halted projects might be relocated to different labs, but others may be undergoing experimental treatments or exposure to pathogens or toxins. Many are retained to illustrate specific behavioral or health vulnerabilities, and lab animals, not being wild, cannot simply be released. Experts noted that the sudden influx of surplus lab animals may overwhelm the nation’s animal sanctuaries.
Anne Linder, associate director of the Animal Law and Policy Program at Harvard Law School, expressed concern that the fate of many lab animals would hinge on the “whims and temperament” of individual researchers and lab staff.
“In the absence of oversight, some decisions may be misguided, driven by harsh needs rather than the welfare of the animals involved,” she said in an email.
Cost reduction
Many researchers have expressed concerns regarding the National Institutes of Health’s attempts to impose severe caps on “indirect costs” related to scientific research, including those tied to maintaining animal care facilities.
A federal judge halted the NIH from implementing these funding caps, but the agency has appealed. Should these policies pass, the repercussions could be disastrous for institutions utilizing non-human primates in their research.
The Washington National Center for Research on Primates, located at the University of Washington, houses over 800 non-human primates. The indirect funding cap represents a loss of around $5 million annually, forcing the colony’s size to shrink, according to director Deborah Fuller.
“This could shatter the entire infrastructure we’ve established,” she cautioned.
If that occurs, the center will strive to find new homes for the animals, yet other research facilities share similar issues, and primate sanctuaries may struggle to accommodate the influx.
As a last resort, primates may have to be euthanized. “This is the worst-case scenario,” warned Sally Thompson Iritani, assistant deputy director of the university’s research department. “Even if it’s uncomfortable to consider, it’s a possibility.”
For some animal rights advocates, the reduction of federal animal research facilities is a cause for celebration. “For many of these animals, euthanasia before experimentation may be the best scenario,” noted Justin Goodman, senior vice president of the White Coat Waste Project, a nonprofit advocating for the cessation of federally funded animal research. (He did stress that finding new homes for lab animals would be preferable.)
Deluciana Winder, director of the Institute for Animal Law and Policy at Vermont Law School, hopes that these cuts could lead to the closure of the National Primate Center. Nevertheless, she expressed concern that reductions at the USDA could weaken already lax oversight of lab animal welfare.
Dr. Locke believes the crisis could serve as a “wake-up call” for the nation to pursue alternatives to animal research, albeit in a thoughtful manner.
“I don’t find it acceptable to cull millions of animals from research,” Dr. Locke stated. “It’s not socially or scientifically acceptable. We need to acknowledge that it’s a likely outcome.”
Last month, Tether’s CEO Paolo Ardoino attended a private lunch with business leaders and lawmakers at the Willard, a luxury hotel situated near the White House.
Tether has long been accused of financial misrepresentation and enabling illegal activities on its platform. However, at the Willard, Ardoino and other leaders from the crypto sector received a warm reception from Sen. Bill Hagerty, a Republican from Tennessee who serves on the Senate Banking Committee. He participated in the lunch, and discussions on digital currency regulations and national security were led by four knowledgeable attendees.
This gathering signifies a transforming landscape for crypto firms, especially with President Trump expressing support for the industry. Once operating with minimal visibility in the U.S., Tether is now seizing this shift to expand its influence in Washington.
Since President Trump took office, Tether has been advocating for regulatory changes in response to its U.S. operations. The company’s primary product, a cryptocurrency known as Stablecoin, aims to maintain a consistent price of $1. Tether aligns with a push in Congress surrounding Senate bills; legislation was introduced this year by Hagerty to define rules for Stablecoins. The firm also initiated a public relations campaign, featuring advertisements in influential Washington publications and highlighting cooperation with U.S. law enforcement agencies.
For years, Tether was viewed with suspicion. Its stability has been a favored method for criminals. In 2021, the company paid $18.5 million to settle a fraud investigation by the New York Attorney General’s office.
However, within mere days of taking office, Trump, who had begun exploring crypto alongside his sons the previous year, reversed the Biden administration’s stringent stance on digital assets. Crypto firms that once avoided the U.S. for fear of regulatory actions now enjoy significant access to Congress and the White House.
No one has undergone a transformation as pronounced as Ardoino, an Italian who had not set foot in the U.S. until this year. During a trip to Washington in March, he met with lawmakers and attended forums hosted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, mingling with industry peers at a gathering sponsored by Coinbase, a major crypto exchange.
In a recent interview and social media update, Ardoino described himself as an average foreigner on a delightful journey across America, sharing photos of his visit to the U.S. Capitol and the White House, as well as his experiences at the Central Park Zoo and the Museum of Natural History.
“I’m very naive,” he remarked in an interview with the New York Times. “I’m sure I’ll finally have my first Italian meal in New York at the age of 40.”
Ardoino takes pride in Tether’s robust partnerships. The company’s most prominent ally is investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald, which until recently was led by Howard Lutnick, Trump’s former Secretary of Commerce. One of Tether’s principal lobbyists is Jeff Miller, a significant Republican political player. Cantor Fitzgerald is also involved in discussions surrounding the Stablecoin Bill.
During his recent visit, Ardoino also met Zach Witkoff, the head of Trump’s crypto initiative, World Liberty Financial, and the son of the White House envoy to the Middle East. Tether sought guidance on media strategies from Washitz, the corporate public relations firm founded by former Republican leaders Miller and Kevin McCarthy.
“I’ve met Kevin several times,” Ardoino shared. “We maintain a solid relationship,” he noted, “because we respect the boundary that he hasn’t been involved with Howard during his term.”
Lutnick’s representative did not respond to inquiries for comments.
In a statement, Miller referred to Tether as “the ultimate ally for America,” expressing pride in representing them. A spokesperson for Hagerty mentioned that the senator participated in the March lunch to discuss the relationship between digital assets and national security.
Even within the chaotic world of crypto, Tether’s origin story is particularly intriguing, featuring a diverse array of characters. The company was founded 11 years ago by ex-child actor Brock Pierce, who, alongside his associates, eventually transferred control to Italian Giancarlo Devasini, a former plastic surgeon.
Devasini, now a crypto millionaire, lives in Switzerland and is seldom in the limelight. Ardoino, a former software developer who has been connected with Tether for much of the past decade, stated that since 2014, he has served as the public face of the company.
Tether’s offerings aim to mitigate the significant drawbacks of traditional cryptocurrencies, which are often volatile and less practical for everyday transactions. Stablecoins retain a $1 valuation, making them a preferred choice for many crypto traders.
In essence, Tether and similar issuers function akin to banks. For instance, if a trader deposits $500, they receive 500 Tether coins. The issuer earns income by investing some of these deposits while maintaining their own returns. The model relies on the issuer having sufficient reserves for each coin in circulation and the ability for customers to redeem holdings at any time.
Critics of Tether have long argued that their reserves are inadequate to cover redemption requests. When the New York State Attorney General’s Office announced its 2021 settlement, it was stated that Tether had misrepresented the nature of its reserves, dubbing its cryptocurrency both “unstable” and “stable.”
“Tether’s reputation should matter to everyone,” emphasized California Representative Maxine Waters, a leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee in an interview.
Yet, Tether has continually managed to navigate challenges. Currently, the company has made its public audit accessible, revealing that approximately two-thirds of its reserves, equating to about $94 billion, are invested in U.S. Treasury bills.
Last year, Tether recorded profits exceeding $13 billion, establishing itself as one of the wealthiest cryptocurrency operations globally. In December, Tether made an investment of $775 million in Rumble, a right-leaning streaming platform closely associated with Trump Media & Technology Group. Additionally, it has unveiled plans for Tether Tower, a headquarters in El Salvador.
One of Tether’s most influential allies in the U.S. is Lutnick, whose company, Cantor Fitzgerald, manages billions in U.S. Treasury investments for Tether, lending the firm an air of institutional credibility. At last summer’s Bitcoin Conference, Lutnick confirmed that he could verify full backing for Tether coins.
“We accounted for every penny,” he stated at the event. He exclaimed.
After Lutnick was appointed as Secretary of Commerce, he delegated control of Cantor Fitzgerald to his sons. Currently, Cantor Fitzgerald and Tether, in collaboration with lobbyist Miller, are working on shaping Stablecoin regulations in Washington. Lobbying disclosures indicate that both are active in discussions on the Senate’s Stablecoin Act, which sets guidelines to ensure that U.S. issuers maintain adequate reserves.
However, the official guidelines introduced for national innovation under the U.S. Stablecoins Act include provisions allowing foreign issuers to sell coins without adhering to the new regulations, subject to certain law enforcement agency requirements. This clause has drawn criticism from Democratic senators during recent Banking Committee hearings, who denounced it as a “significant loophole” benefiting Tether.
“My Republican colleagues appear concerned about backlash from one of Donald Trump’s close associates,” remarked Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts.She stated at the hearing.
Ultimately, the Banking Committee approved advancing the bill to the full Senate.
In an interview, Ardoino expressed that he is “very excited” about the Genius Law’s language requiring cooperation with law enforcement, as Tether is already closely collaborating with U.S. authorities. He revealed that Tether is considering launching a U.S. branch and offering “domestic stubcoins” tailored for financial institutions.
Ardoino plans to return frequently to the U.S. He described Washington as “very clean,” although he had some reservations about the food. He is enthusiastic about the potential to challenge American crypto firms on their home turf.
The Trump administration has dismissed numerous scientists and experts who were working on the federal government’s key report regarding the impacts of global warming on the nation.
This decision, which is obligatory in Congress, poses significant risks to the future of the National Climate Assessment, according to experts.
Since 2000, the federal government has released an in-depth report every few years detailing how rising temperatures influence human health, agriculture, fisheries, water resources, transportation, energy generation, and various aspects of the U.S. economy. The latest climate assessment was published in 2023. This report is utilized not only by state and local authorities but also by private enterprises, assisting in preparations for extreme weather events, floods, droughts, and other climate-related challenges.
On Monday, researchers nationwide began the preparation for the sixth National Climate Assessment, scheduled for early 2028, only to receive an email indicating that the report’s scope is “currently under review” and all contributors have been dismissed.
“We are now liberating all existing assessment contributors from their roles,” the email stated. “As the evaluation plan progresses, there may be future chances for contribution or involvement. Thank you for your service.”
For some authors, this felt like a devastating setback for the next report.
“This could signal the end of the assessment,” remarked Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University specializing in climate adaptation and a co-author of the previous climate assessment. “If we eliminate all involved, there will be no advancement.”
The White House has not yet responded to requests for comments.
Climate assessments are generally compiled by volunteer scientists and expert contributors from across the nation. The process involves multiple reviews by 14 federal agencies and a public comment period. Oversight is provided by the Global Change Research Program, a federal entity established by Congress in 1990, with support from NASA.
During the Trump administration, this process faced significant upheaval. Recently, NASA terminated its major partnership with ICF International, a consulting firm that supplied much of the technical support and staffing for the Global Change Research Program, which coordinates the contributions from numerous sources.
President Trump has consistently downplayed the risks associated with global warming. Russell Vert, the current head of the Office of Management and Budget, noted in a pre-election document that the next president should “reorganize” the global change research program, as scientific reports on climate change were often utilized in environmental litigation that restricted federal actions.
Vought advocated for the separation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the agency responsible for the government’s largest climate research unit, termed the “climate warning.”
During Trump’s first term, the administration made efforts to undermine the national climate assessment. When the 2018 report was released, which found that global warming posed an imminent and catastrophic threat, the administration published it the day after Thanksgiving to lessen its impact.
In February, scientists submitted a comprehensive summary of the upcoming assessment to the White House for initial review; however, that review has been halted, and the agency’s comment period has been delayed.
It remains uncertain what will happen next with the assessment, which is still mandated by Congress. Some scientists worry that the administration may attempt to draft an entirely new report from scratch, potentially downplaying the dangers of rising temperatures and contradicting established climate science.
“These are the most effective strategies to assist us,” said Mead Crosby, a senior scientist in the Climate Impact Group at the University of Washington, who has contributed to the assessment. “The real question is whether it accurately reflects reliable science and has a tangible impact on our community in preparing for climate change.”
Scientists previously involved in climate assessments assert that the report is crucial for understanding the effects of climate change on daily life in the United States.
Catherine Hayho, a climate scientist at Texas Tech, stated this month, “we are considering that global issue and making it more relevant to us.” “If you care about food, water, transportation, insurance, or health, this is what climate change signifies for residents in the Southwest or the Great Plains. That’s the importance.”
Numerous state and local policymakers, along with private companies, depend on these assessments to comprehend how climate change impacts various regions of the United States and how they can adapt accordingly.
While the scientific understanding of climate change and its repercussions has not dramatically shifted since the last assessment in 2023, Dr. Keenan from Tulane noted that research is continuously advancing regarding what communities can do to mitigate rising sea levels and other issues exacerbated by increasing temperatures.
Scientists indicated that decision-makers responsible for the final assessment would likely rely on outdated information regarding effective adaptations and mitigation measures.
“We risk losing our fundamental report, which is intended to communicate the dangers of climate change and propose advancements,” stated Dustin Mulbany, an environmental studies professor and author at San Jose State University. “That would be quite devastating.”
On Monday, the House passed a strongly bipartisan law aimed at criminalizing the non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit photos and videos that include AI-generated imagery, commonly referred to as “deepfakes.”
The legislation, which cleared with a vote of 409 to 2, is expected to be signed by President Trump soon.
Known as the Take It Down Act, this law is designed to combat what is termed “Revenge Porn.” Under its provisions, social media companies and online platforms must remove such images within two days of receiving notification.
The bill saw bipartisan support, uniting conservatives and other parties alike, and it passed the Senate unanimously in February. Trump’s endorsement, highlighted in his joint address to Congress last month, appears to have facilitated its passage.
co-sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, and Democrat Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota, it marks the first significant Internet Content Act to pass Congress since 2018, following prior legislation aimed at combating online sex trafficking. While concentrating on revenge porn and deepfakes, this bill indicates a crucial step towards holding internet companies accountable, which have largely evaded governmental oversight for years.
The strong backing for the Take It Down Act underscores the growing frustration among legislators regarding social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and X.
Revenge porn and deepfakes affect individuals of all ages, particularly impacting teenage girls, as the proliferation of “nudification” apps allows boys to secretly create and distribute sexually explicit images of female classmates.
Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, a Republican from Florida, introduced a parallel bill in the House and stated on Monday that this legislation aims to prevent the rampant abuse and harassment faced by young girls online.
“Using the likenesses, voices, and images of young, susceptible women to manipulate, coerce, and publicly humiliate them for amusement or revenge is utterly reprehensible,” said Salazar.
Such legislation has been frequently attempted in various states across the nation, and although South Carolina lacks specific laws against revenge porn, at least 20 other states have enacted measures addressing sexually explicit deepfakes.
The measures passed on Monday are part of ongoing bipartisan efforts by lawmakers to tackle deepfake pornography. Cruz and Klobuchar first introduced the bill last year, but it did not advance in a Republican-led House. Reintroduced this year, it gained traction after receiving endorsement from first lady Melania Trump.
Last year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a younger Democratic congresswoman from New York, proposed legislation enabling individuals depicted in sexually explicit deepfakes to sue creators and distributors of such content. This bill has not been reintroduced this year.
Legislators have recently focused on several bills aimed at safeguarding children from online sexual exploitation, bullying, and harmful algorithms. In January 2024, executives from Meta, TikTok, and other tech firms faced tough questions from lawmakers as they defended their platforms.
During these hearings, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was compelled to apologize to parents who had lost children to online dangers.
However, some advocates for free speech caution that such measures could stifle legitimate expression, arguing that similar laws might inadvertently lead to the removal of both lawful and unlawful content.
“Despite the good intentions, the potentially harmful effects of the bill on constitutional rights to free speech and privacy online cannot be overlooked,” stated Becca Branham, assistant director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy Technology, a research organization.
Branham also remarked that the Take It Down Act serves as “a potentially weaponized enforcement tool that endangers meaningful progress in the battle against image-based sexual abuse.”
On page 36 of the official national strategy document, signed by the president, 10 federal agencies are involved.
This is not a governmental policy related to tariffs or border control. It is part of President Trump’s Master Plan to Eradicate Paper Straws, leading us back to plastic.
The document states, “My administration is dedicated to clarifying the confusion that many citizens face when using paper straws.”
Critics argue this is a culture war shot, whether targeting paper straws, wind turbines, or low-flow showerheads, reflecting Trump’s erratic administration policies.
However, there’s an unexpected twist. This document complicates a larger public health issue with its intent to deregulate.
Focusing on paper straws, it dedicates eight pages to discussing health and environmental risks, particularly highlighting PFA—a group of synthetic chemicals linked to severe health problems—found in tap water nationwide.
Last year, the Biden administration implemented strict federal PFA standards, known as “forever chemicals,” which resist environmental breakdown. Yet, the industry and utility sectors challenged this, calling it “impossible” and “absurd”; they urged Trump to reverse these regulations.
It remains unclear if EPA leader Lee Zeldin will enforce these measures. A court decision is pending about whether to continue adhering to regulations ahead of a May 12 deadline.
“Will Zeldin reverse the PFAS drinking water standards given this anti-PFA rhetoric from the White House?” asked Matthew Tehada, head of environmental health policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “If there’s concern about straw-related PFA, can Zeldin ignore drinking water issues?”
Under Zeldin’s leadership, the agency pushes for deregulation, aiming to eliminate numerous environmental rules limiting toxic pollution. He also has strong ties as a lobbyist and lawyer against environmental laws.
During a news briefing, Zeldin commented that the science surrounding PFA “is still under debate.”
“We have more questions regarding PFA, and it’s crucial to continue research,” he stated, claiming regulations should rely more on “factual evidence rather than assumptions.”
Yet, Trump’s strategy document directly addresses chemical concerns.
“For decades, scientists and regulators have expressed concern over PFAS chemicals,” the White House document notes. “PFA poses risks to human health and is associated with reproductive harm, developmental delays in children, cancer, hormonal disturbances, obesity, and other serious health issues.”
This week, the White House reiterated these warnings. “Paper straws contain harmful PFAS chemicals that infiltrate our water supply,” as stated by the administration in an Earth Day announcement on Monday.
Another variable is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, who participated in a forum on Wednesday discussing the health and environmental impacts of plastics, including PFA, which he advocates removing from the food system. “We have substantial justification for eliminating this entire chemical category from our food due to its health risks,” he stated.
Both the White House and the EPA affirmed their unified approach to PFA.
“President Trump and Zeldin are collaboratively working to eliminate harmful toxins from our environment,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers declared. “The Trump administration, including Zeldin, acknowledges that PFA is detrimental to human health. More research on PFA’s risks is essential for improving the health of Americans.”
EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou refrained from commenting on the potential rollback of PFAS drinking water standards but highlighted Zeldin’s significant experience with PFA issues.
Before joining the Trump administration, Zeldin served four terms as a lawmaker in Long Island and was among 23 House Republicans who supported the PFAS Act in 2020—a comprehensive bill to regulate chemicals in drinking water and hold polluters accountable.
“He stands as a strong advocate for protecting the drinking water of Long Islanders and all Americans,” Vaselio remarked.
Zeldin is correct that further investigation is crucial to understand the health effects of PFA exposure. However, evidence increasingly indicates harm from these chemicals, particularly the most studied types. Trump’s White House strategy includes references supporting this evidence.
“The EPA examined current peer-reviewed scientific studies and concluded that PFA exposure is linked to various health risks,” the document states.
This comprises lower birth rates, hypertension in pregnant women, low birth weight, early onset of puberty, behavioral changes in children, weakened immune response, and heightened cholesterol levels, according to the White House.
Plastic also contains harmful chemicals. Microplastics pervade our ecosystems and pose health risks. Critics emphasize the fossil fuel industry’s role in promoting plastics through production.
Nonetheless, Linda Billumbaum, a toxicologist and former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who has long warned about PFAs, acknowledged some points from the White House document. “Their claims regarding these adverse effects are well-founded,” she expressed.
However, if the Trump administration is genuinely concerned about PFA’s health impacts, they should also address the presence of these chemicals in our surroundings, including food packaging and drinking water. “Instead, they focus efforts on rallying support around straws,” she remarked.
The controversy over plastic straws began around the mid-2010s, as they became scapegoated for the plastic waste crisis. Numerous cities and retailers have instituted bans on plastic straws, while some states enacted restrictions. (Disability rights organizations have raised concerns about these bans, citing the need for straws for safe drinking.)
Alternatives to plastic include stainless steel or glass straws and lids with spouts. However, paper straws quickly gained traction as replacements, only to be criticized for collapsing when used.
During this period, scientists also began finding PFA on various paper and plant-based straws, raising alarms about exposure to harmful chemicals and their potential to contaminate water supplies.
The president has labeled Biden-era measures a “paper straw mandate,” although these initiatives did not specifically enforce a shift to paper straws.
His animosity toward paper straws dates back years, notably during the 2020 campaign, where he offered packs of 10 branded plastic straws for $15.
In his comprehensive strategy, Trump instructs federal agencies to “be innovative and utilize all available policy tools to eliminate the use of paper straws nationwide.” Moreover, “taxpayer dollars should never be squandered, so federal contracts and grants should not support paper straws or entities that prohibit plastic straws.”
Christine Figgener, a Marine Conservation Biologist (known for a viral video showing a plastic straw being removed from a turtle’s nostril), counters the argument that switching to paper is a solution, suggesting a less complex answer: avoid using straws altogether.
She criticizes straws as “a symbol of unnecessary convenience in society.” “Why is America so fixated on straws? Most people do not require them.”
Life beneath the Pacific Ocean is characterized by slowness, darkness, and tranquility. Unusual creatures shine and glimmer, while oxygen seeps mysteriously through rugged mineral rocks. The residents of these deep waters seldom interfere with one another.
“This area hosts an extraordinary form of life,” noted Bethany Orcutt, a geobiologist at the Bigelow Institute for Marine Science.
Given the harsh conditions, conducting deep-sea research is both challenging and infrequent due to its high costs.
On Thursday, President Trump endorsed a Presidential Order aimed at permitting industrial mining in underwater areas for the first time. Scientists have voiced strong concerns that such mining could irreversibly damage deep-sea ecosystems before their value and functions are fully understood.
What’s down there?
Undersea mining can target three types of metal-rich sediments: nodules, crusts, and mounds, with current focus on nodules. Nodules are particularly valuable as they contain metals essential for the production of electronic devices, advanced weaponry, electric vehicle batteries, and other technologies crucial for human advancement. Nodules are also the simplest type of underwater mineral deposits to extract.
Economically viable nodules have been forming over millions of years, resting on the seabed indefinitely. They develop when small pieces of material, such as shark teeth, become embedded in the seabed. Minerals containing iron, manganese, and other metals gradually accumulate, resembling snowmen. Some can grow as large as grapefruit.
Life also thrives among these nodules. Microbial organisms, invertebrates, corals, and sponges inhabit them.
Lisa Levin, an oceanographer at the Institute of Oceanography, states that approximately half of the known marine life inhabiting the vast Abyssal Plains exists in these nodules. However, she explained, “I am unsure about the distribution of these species and whether individuals from mined sites can recolonize other areas.” “That’s a significant unknown.”
How is ocean mining conducted?
Two primary methods have been developed for harvesting nodules. One resembles a claw that drags along the seabed collecting nodules, while the other acts as a vacuum used in underwater operations.
In both methods, nodules are lifted to surface ships several miles above the seabed, with any remaining water, rocks, and debris released back into the sea.
Both approaches are invasive and can harm the underwater habitat itself. The extraction of nodules equates to the removal of essential ecosystem components, according to scientific consensus.
Mining operations introduce light and sound pollution, affecting not only the seabed but also the sea surface around the extraction vessels.
A major concern is the sediment plume generated by mining activities, described by Jeffrey Drazen, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, as “the clearest seawater” at about 1,000 meters, which contributes to obscured environments. Sediment plumes can travel significant distances and harm marine life unpredictably.
The sediment can suffocate shrimp and sponge-like fish, obstructing filter feeders. It can also block essential light, impacting lantern fishes and making it difficult for them to find mates or prey. Furthermore, it may lead to contamination of seafood for human consumption.
“What are the chances of contaminating food supplies?” Dr. Drazen questioned. He expressed a desire for answers regarding this issue before mining commences, as the information is currently lacking.
What do mining companies assert?
The mining industry claims to be adopting a sustainable and environmentally responsible approach to deep-sea mining through research and collaboration with the scientific community.
Their research includes fundamental studies in seabed geology, biology, and chemistry, documenting thousands of species and providing valuable imagery and footage from the deep sea. Dr. Drazen noted that interest in undersea mining could promote research efforts that might otherwise be hard to fund.
Initial tests of recovery equipment have revealed some insights into the anticipated effects related to sediment plumes, yet modeling is limited in forecasting outcomes at a commercial scale.
Impossible Metals, a California-based underwater mining firm, utilizes artificial intelligence to create a transport container-sized underwater robot designed to harvest large, free-living nodules. In 2022, the Metals Company, a Canadian deep-sea mining entity, extracted approximately 3,000 tons of nodules from the ocean floor and gathered data regarding the sediment plume generated during the process.
In March, the Metals Company indicated plans to bypass international regulatory bodies associated with the United Nations overseeing submarine mining, instead seeking authorization through NOAA.
During an interview on Thursday, CEO Gerald Baron stated that the executive order “does not serve as a shortcut” for previous environmental assessments, emphasizing that the company has “conducted over a decade of environmental research.”
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly affirmed that the United States would adhere to two domestic laws governing deep-sea exploration and commercial endeavors within U.S. waters. “Both laws mandate extensive environmental impact assessments and compliance with stringent environmental standards,” she noted.
What are the long-term risks?
Many scientists harbor skepticism regarding the well-understood environmental consequences of underwater mining, as viable predictions about long-term results remain elusive.
Disturbing the base of the food chain can have cascading effects on the entire marine ecosystem. For instance, if sediments dilute the food supply for plankton, they could face starvation due to an inability to extract sufficient organic matter from the clouds of sea dust.
Small plankton serve as a fundamental food source, whether directly or indirectly, for nearly every marine organism, including whales.
Understanding potential impacts poses challenges due to the slow life processes at the seabed. Deep-sea fish can live for hundreds of years, while corals can endure for millennia.
“The timeline of life here is significantly different,” Dr. Levin explained. “It raises numerous uncertainties regarding responses to environmental disturbances.” Conducting 500-year experiments to ascertain whether these ecosystems can recover or adapt is a daunting task for humans.
Additionally, there’s no assurance that damaged habitats will be restored or that harm to the seabed will be mitigated. Unlike terrestrial mining, “a strategy for deep-sea mining is absent,” Dr. Oucht remarked. “There is currently no scientific evidence supporting the restoration of ecosystems post-damage.”
Some experts have raised concerns about the necessity of undersea mining, arguing that land-based mining could meet the growing metal demands.
Proponents of deep-sea mining assert that the environmental or carbon footprint is less significant compared to traditional mining practices for those same minerals.
“To date, there has been no actual recovery of minerals,” stated Amy Gartman, a marine researcher leading the U.S. Geological Survey’s Undersea Minerals Team, referring to commercial-scale mining. “We are comparing theoretical scenarios with actual land mining methods. Once someone initiates extraction in any of these ventures, we will gain a clearer understanding.”
On March 11, approximately 50 judges gathered in Washington for a six-month meeting of the Judicial Council, which oversees the administration of federal courts. This meeting marked the first gathering since President Trump assumed office.
Discussions during the meeting focused on staffing levels, long-term planning, and the increasing threats to judges and their safety, according to attendees.
At one session, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, chairman of the conference’s Judicial Security Committee, raised concerns about potential threats to the safety of judges. He highlighted the authority that the US Marshals Service, overseen by the Justice Department, has in judicial security matters. Given the history of former officials like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton having their security stripped by Trump, Judge Sullivan wondered if federal judges could be the next target.
Judge Sullivan, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and later elevated to appeals judge by Trump, emphasized the importance of trusting the head of judicial security amidst uncertainties about potential threats to the federal bench.
While there is no evidence that Trump is considering revoking judges’ security, Judge Sullivan’s remarks highlighted the unease among judges about the agency responsible for their safety ultimately answering to the President through the Attorney General, without sufficient funding to address rising threats.
In a statement, the Marshall Services affirmed their commitment to following all legal orders from federal courts to ensure the protection of judges, jurors, and witnesses. However, concerns have been raised about the frozen court security funds at a time when threats to federal judges are on the rise.
Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., in a letter to Congress, expressed disappointment that court security funds remain stagnant despite the escalating threats. The total amount spent has seen minimal increase, despite inflation and higher staff salaries.
The former US S’s responsibilities have expanded to include protecting the Supreme Court’s residence in response to growing threats. Concerns about the oversight of Marshall Services have led some to propose transferring control of the agency to the judiciary for better protection of judges.
As the threats to judges continue to increase, some members of Congress are considering legislation to make judicial security more independent. The former US S’s response to court orders and the potential interference from political branches remain critical issues to address for the safety of judges.
Despite the challenges, efforts to reduce Marshall Services to increase efficiency may impact the agency’s ability to fulfill its crucial mission of protecting judges and upholding court orders.
Late yesterday, Seturaman Panchanathan, whom President Trump hired to run the National Science Foundation five years ago, left. He didn’t say why, but it was clear enough. Last weekend, Trump cut more than 400 active research awards from the NSF, and he is pressing Congress to halve Congress’ $9 billion budget.
The Trump administration has targeted American scientific companies, an engine of research and innovation that has been inducted for decades. The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA are cutting or frozen budgets. Thousands of researchers have been fired or paid back.
The confusion is confusing. Isn’t science an eternal power? Does it contain disease? Would it help you compete with China? Why not attract the kind of immigrants the president says he wants? In this edition of the newsletter, you will break the huge thing to understand the fuss.
investment
American research thrives under a sponsorship system that highlights dollars that Congress has approved to universities, national labs and labs. The Knowledge Factory employs tens of thousands of researchers, bringing talent from around the world, creating scientific breakthroughs and Nobel Prizes.
Science moves slowly, so it’s a slow moving system. Discoveries are often indirect and repetitive, and include collaboration between researchers who require years of granted education to become experts. Startups and businesses that need quick returns on investments are usually unable to wait long for long money or risk.
Science is capital. With some measures, all dollars spent on research will return at least $5 to the economy.
President Trump is not patient. He reimbursed university research into AIDS, pediatric cancer and solar physics. (Two well-known researchers compiled the list Lost NIH grants and NSF Awards. ) The administration has also fired thousands of federal scientists, including meteorologists from the National Weather Service. CDC’s pandemic preparation expert. A black researcher at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Already built for $3.5 billion over a decade, the next generation space observatory is waiting for a launch that could never happen now.
Alienate scientists
Administrative authorities provide various reasons for the crackdown: cost reduction, government efficiency, and “protecting women from gender ideological extremism.” Many grants have been eliminated because they include terms such as climate, diversity, disability, trans, or women. Some portrayed the administration’s rage, as the application included a DEI statement requested by the previous administration.
You don’t need a telescope to see where this leads. American leaders have historically seen science as an investment in the future. Will this administration seize it? One third of American Nobel Prize winners were foreign-born, but immigration crackdowns wiped out scientists like Xenia Petrova, a Russian who ages at Harvard University and is now sitting in a detention center in Louisiana. Australian scholars have stopped attending conferences in the US for fear of being detained, The Guardian reported.
Now, some American scientists are looking for an exit. France, Canada and other countries are courting our researchers. A recent poll by Nature magazine found that more than 1,200 American scientists were considering working abroad. Journal recruitment platforms were seen 32% of overseas positions more applications Between January and March 2025, this was higher than the same period last year.
President Trump has ordered the US government to take a major step towards mining vast areas below the sea. This is a move opposed by almost every other country, taking into account international waters from international waters for this type of industrial activity.
The executive order, signed Thursday, will circumvent a decades-old treaty ratified by all major coastal states except the United States. This is the latest example of the Trump administration’s willingness to ignore international institutions, and is likely to spark protests from American rivals and allies.
The order “establishes the United States as a global leader in submarine mineral exploration and development within and outside the national jurisdiction.” Text released by the White House.
Trump’s order directs the promotion of mining permits in both the National Maritime and Atmospheric Administration’s international waters and US territory.
Part of the seabed is covered with potato-sized nodules containing valuable minerals such as nickel, cobalt and manganese. These are essential to advanced technologies that the United States considers to be important to economic and military security, but its supply chain is increasingly controlled by China.
No commercial scale submarine mining has been carried out to date. The technical hurdles were high and there were serious concerns about the environmental impact.
As a result, in the 1990s, most countries agreed to join independent international submarine authorities that dominate the seabed mining of international waters. The Trump administration is relying on the US as it is not a signator The vague 1980 law This allows the federal government to issue submarine mining permits in international waters.
Many countries want to see undersea mining become a reality. But so far, it has been that economic orders should not take priority over the risk that mining could damage fisheries and marine food chains, or that it could affect the essential role of the ocean in absorbing carbon dioxide that warms the planet from the atmosphere.
Trump’s order comes after years of delays at the ISA in setting up a regulatory framework for undersea mining. Authorities have not yet agreed to the set of rules.
The executive order paves the way for metal companies, a well-known undersea mining company, to receive the first permission from NOAA to actively mine. A public company based in Vancouver, British Columbia It was disclosed in March It would ask the Trump administration to approve it through a US subsidiary to mine in international waters. The company has already spent more than $500 million on exploratory work.
“We have production-ready boats,” Gerald Baron, the company’s chief executive, said in an interview Thursday. “We have the means to process materials in friendly partner nations of the Alliance. We are missing out on permission to allow us to start.”
In anticipation of mining as a final allowance, companies like him have invested heavily in developing technologies to mine the seabed. They include a ship with huge claws that stretch to the seabed, and a self-driving vehicle mounted on a giant vacuum cleaner that scrutinizes the bottom of the ocean.
Some analysts have questioned the need to rush towards submarine mining, given the current excess of nickel and cobalt from traditional mining. Furthermore, manufacturers of electric vehicle batteries, one of the main markets in metals, are heading towards battery designs that rely on other factors.
Nevertheless, the projection of future demand for metals generally remains high. And Trump’s escalating trade war with China threatens to limit America’s access to some of these important minerals. These include rare earth elements that can also be found in trace amounts of submarine nodules.
US Geological Survey It is estimated Nodules in a single belt of the Eastern Pacific, known as the Clarion Kriparton Zone, contain more nickel, cobalt and manganese than all ground reserves combined. The area in the open ocean between Mexico and Hawaii is about half the size of the continent of the United States.
The Metals Company’s contract site is located in the Clarion-Clipperton zone, with the oceans averaged around 2.5 miles deep. The company will first apply for exploitation permission under the 1980 law.
Amazing online announcement Called “the most exclusive invitation in the world,” he followed a tour of the White House with President Trump, a “intimate private dinner” at a Virginia member-only golf club.
Seats will be reserved for each of the top 220 investors in Trump, the cryptocurrency he launched the eve of his inauguration.
On Wednesday, the coin’s biggest buyers announced that they will be invited to meet him, in an astonishing escalation of the Trump family’s efforts to profit from Crypto, a website promoting Trump, the president’s so-called memo coin. The effort was effectively an offer of access to the White House in exchange for an investment in one of Trump’s crypto ventures.
“Get dinner with President Trump and the $Trump community!” the invitation said. “Please let the President know how many card coins you own!”
For months, Trump’s foray into the code has created ethical conflicts with almost precedent in presidential history. When he sold digital currency to the public, Trump also appointed regulators that were cutting crypto enforcement, calling for legislation to boost the outlook for the US industry.
As news of dinner invitations spread across social media, Memecoin’s prices have skyrocketed by over 60%, suggesting investors are in a hurry to accumulate enough coins to compete in the dinner table.
“This is really incredible,” said Corey Frayer, who oversaw the Securities and Exchange Commission’s crypto policy during the Biden administration. “They are making their payment agreements explicit.”
Business entities associated with Trump mean that at least on paper earn a personal profit whenever prices rise. Trump and his business partners also collect fees when the coins are traded. This is a windfall that reached around $100 million in the weeks since the coin debuted in January.
Victoria Haenman, a law professor at Clayton University, said the offer raised concerns about the ways Trump and his business could “manipulate to benefit from the presidency.”
Earlier this year, the SEC issued official guidance that MemeCoins, a kind of cryptocurrency based on online jokes and celebrity mascots, is not subject to agency surveillance. Crypto skeptics criticized the policy as a dangerous move that could open the door to ramp-stretched scams by the Memecoin promoter.
As president, Trump has broad immunity from laws governing conflicts of interest. It was pointed out In the past. White House representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump’s son Eric declined to comment, helping to run the Trump organization, sponsoring $Trump’s coin.
Once a cryptocurrency skeptical, Trump embraced digital currency on last year’s campaign trail.
In the fall, Trump and his sons, Donald Jr., Eric and Baron, said they were starting World Liberty Financial, a company that offers digital currency called WLFI. So far, $550 million of these coins have been sold. According to the company.
Shortly afterwards, Trump’s social media company Trump Media and Technology Group was to provide crypto-related financial products to amateur investors and announced a partnership with digital trading platform crypto.com.
However, Trump’s Memecoin venture is gaining the most attention.
Just three days before taking office, Trump posted about his social media site Truth Social that he was selling coins. $Trump’s sales quickly surged, and the presidential election became a crypto billionaire on paper.
Memecoin tended to rise and fall quickly, and $Trump’s price quickly became a crater. Traders who accumulated coins suffered cumulative losses of over $2 billion.
The dinner announcement seemed calculated to ignite more interest in the coin.
When $Trump was sold in January, a large stash of coins was assigned to supporters of the project. However, rules built into the offering prevented insiders from selling coins Until last weekincreasing the fear that they’ll try to offload their holdings and lower the price of $Trump even further.
Instead, prices gradually rose a few days before the invitation was announced, and spiked when the announcement was published.
On the Memecoin website, the $Trump promoter set up the leaderboard of Coin’s biggest investors. This essentially allows buyers to track their locations in rankings. Dinner invitations will be sent to “the top 220 Trump owners with an average of $220” between April 23rd and May 12th, the website said. The top 25 buyers will get access to a reception with Trump and a White House VIP tour before dinner. (At this point, the 25th investor on the chart owns around 4,000 coins, worth around $54,000.
“The more you hold a card and the longer you hold it, the higher your rankings.” The website said.
Dinner with Trump is scheduled to take place at Trump National Golf Club on May 22, the website calls it “the most exclusive life invitation.”
Last week, President Trump issued an executive order designed to revive the use of coal at power plants. This is a practice that has been steadily decreasing over more than a decade.
But as fossil fuels face several important hurdles, energy experts said. The power produced by coal plants cannot usually compete with cheaper and cleaner alternatives. And many coal-burning plants are simply too old and require extensive and expensive upgrades to continue running.
“It’s extremely difficult to reverse this trend,” said Dan Reicher, deputy energy secretary for the Clinton administration and Google’s Ease of Life and Energy Director. “There are a variety of forces at work that don’t portray a very bright future for coal.”
Why has coal used decreased?
Coal plants, the US’s leading source of electricity, currently produce just 17% of the country’s electricity. The main reason is that another fossil fuel, natural gas, has become abundant and inexpensive due to the shale fracking boom that began in the early 2000s. The use of renewable energy sources like the wind and the sun is also growing significantly.
Natural gas currently provides around 38% of the US electricity, according to the Energy Information Agency. Renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power generation produce about 25%, while nuclear energy produces about 20%.
Some areas, like New England, will soon close their last coal power plants. California, the country’s most populous state, effectively uses no coal to generate electricity.
Coal is also under pressure because burning it will release greenhouse gases that can cause climate change and pollutants that harm people and nature. To avoid those concerns, Trump said, He waives certain air pollution restrictions For many coal plants.
Where is coal still used?
In the Southeast and Midwest, many utilities continue to generate electricity from coal plants. Companies such as Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Duke Energy and the Tennessee Valley Department (the country’s largest government-run power provider) are one of the largest users of coal.
The state, which has a long history of coal mines, is still highly dependent on fuel. It includes West Virginia and Kentucky, which earned 85% of electricity from coal last year, according to the Energy Information Agency.
Trump oversaw the energy division Use emergency situations To operate unprofitable coal plants. The president said this is necessary to prevent blackouts. He tried a similar strategy in his first semester.
He also issued an order that eliminates regulations that “discriminate” coal production, opens new federal land for coal mining, and investigates whether coal combustion power plants can provide services to data centers used for artificial intelligence services such as chatbots.
Peabody, the largest coal producer in the United States, said in 2024 that the world used more coal than any other year in history.
“We believe that in order to support our country’s growing need for affordable and reliable energy, the US should stop resigning coal plants, use existing plants with higher utilization and reopen shuttered coal plants.”
Can the Trump administration revive coal?
Federal policies can play a role, but utilities, state legislators and regulators ultimately determine how much coal will burn at the power plant.
The Utility Trade Association’s Edison Electrical Institute, or EEI, said in a statement that the US needs more power sources but refused to support or oppose the use of coal.
“Electric demand is growing at the fastest pace in decades, and EEI member electric companies are using a diverse, domestic and balanced energy mix to meet this demand while keeping customer invoices as low as possible,” the Institute said.
Several large utilities, like Xcel Energy, are converting coal plants into solar farms to take advantage of the federal incentives created during the Biden administration. In Becker, Minnesota, for example, Xcel is building a large solar and battery installation to replace the Shelco coal power plant. The company is converting something else Coal plants in Colorado For natural gas.
Xcel spokesman Theo Keith said the utility is considering “understanding whether Trump’s orders could affect our business,” but in the meantime it will work to provide consumers with clean energy at a low cost.
Conservative lawmakers in some states, like Texas, have proposed legislation that requires more use of fossil fuels to ensure adequate power and meet the increased demand from data centers, electric vehicles and heat pumps. However, energy analysts expect that such measures will benefit natural gas, not coal, if they pass.
Environmental activists said efforts to revive coal were misguided. They point out that using more coal means that the use of more coal will result in higher electricity bills due to aging devices, increasing health problems and higher risk of power plant breakdowns.
“We’re turning decades of work here,” says Holly Bender, the Sierra Club’s Chief Program Officer, running a campaign called beyond coal to end its use of its fuel. “It’s clear that Trump is trying to put his fingers on the scale to keep coal open, but these are fragments of the infrastructure that are at the end of its useful life.”
Following more than a week of tariffs on imports from China, the Trump administration released regulations late Friday that spared smartphones, computers, semiconductors, and other electronic devices from various fees. This move significantly reduced prices for high-tech companies like Apple and Dell, as well as for consumers purchasing iPhones and other electronic products.
A message issued by US Customs and Border Protection on Friday included a lengthy list of products that faced tariffs on Chinese goods. Notably, exclusions were granted to smartphones, computers, semiconductors, and other technology products. However, additional duties will still apply to electronic devices and smartphones, as well as an increase in tariffs on semiconductors.
This exemption is a significant relief for tech giants like Apple and Nvidia, who would have faced substantial losses from punitive taxes. Many consumers rushed to purchase iPhones to avoid potential price hikes on electronic devices. These exemptions may help mitigate inflation and uncertainty in the economy.
The tariff relief marks a change in Trump’s trade policies aimed at promoting US manufacturing. Factories producing electronic devices like iPhones and laptops are primarily located in Asia, particularly China. The exemptions apply not only to China but also to other countries.
However, this relief may be short-lived as the Trump administration plans another trade investigation related to semiconductors. This could impact other technology products and result in additional tariffs. The administration aims to protect American semiconductor production, which is essential for various consumer products.
Despite the exemptions, Trump remains committed to domestic manufacturing of these products, signaling a shift towards US production. The policy change aims to secure the supply of American semiconductors, crucial for smartphones, cars, and various other goods.
The recent tariff exemptions signify a partial retreat from Trump’s trade war with China, covering a significant portion of US imports from the country. Other Asian countries stand to benefit as well, with the exemptions reducing tariffs on imports from Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand.
Trump’s decision to exempt certain product types followed a volatile week where he reversed course on several tariffs imposed earlier. The exemption excludes China, which retaliated with its own tariffs. This led to a steep decline in the stock values of tech companies, notably impacting Apple’s market capitalization.
The tech industry views Trump’s moderation as a positive development, as it eases tensions and supports continued investment in the US. Notably, Apple CEO Tim Cook has been actively engaging with the administration to secure exemptions for Apple products and promote US manufacturing.
However, the threat of further tariffs on semiconductors and other electronics looms, with potential implications for the industry. The Trump administration is considering additional duties under legal provisions, which could impact various sectors and imports.
Apple responds to the recent tariff exemptions, remains committed to China’s manufacturing facilities, citing challenges in skilled labor availability in the US compared to China. The company has faced pressure over the years to shift some iPhone manufacturing to the US, but logistical and workforce constraints pose significant hurdles.
The potential implications of Trump’s tariff policies on Apple products raise concerns about price increases and supply chain disruptions. Apple’s strategic decisions regarding manufacturing and pricing will have a significant impact on its operations and market positioning, considering ongoing trade tensions and regulatory changes.
The looming threat of additional tariffs on electronics underscores the uncertainty and volatility in the tech industry. As the US and China navigate trade negotiations and policy shifts, tech companies like Apple face challenging decisions to maintain competitiveness and comply with evolving regulations.
Apple’s stance on tariff exemptions and manufacturing challenges reflects the complex interplay between global trade dynamics and corporate strategies. The company’s extensive supply chain and reliance on Asian manufacturing facilities underscore the broader implications of trade policies on multinational corporations.
As trade tensions continue to escalate, tech companies like Apple must navigate regulatory uncertainties and market pressures. The potential impact of tariffs on product pricing, supply chains, and global competitiveness looms large as companies seek to balance operational efficiency and regulatory compliance.
The ongoing trade negotiations between the US and China, particularly regarding technology products, highlight the delicate balance between economic interests and national security concerns. The implications of tariff policies on semiconductors and electronics underscore the broader geopolitical challenges facing the tech industry.
As companies like Apple navigate shifting trade dynamics, regulatory changes, and market uncertainties, strategic decision-making becomes increasingly complex. The need to adapt to evolving trade policies while maintaining global competitiveness requires innovative solutions and proactive engagement with policymakers.
Following more than a week of tariffs on Chinese imports, the Trump administration released new rules on Friday that exempted smartphones, computers, semiconductors, and other electronic devices from certain fees. This move significantly lowered prices for high-tech companies like Apple and Dell, as well as benefiting consumers who purchase products like iPhones.
A message was issued by US Customs and Border Protection on Friday, listing the products that had previously been subjected to tariffs on Chinese goods. Certain exclusions were granted for modems, routers, flash drives, and other tech products not commonly manufactured in the US.
The exemption does not completely eliminate tariffs on electronic devices and smartphones. The administration previously imposed a 20% tariff on Chinese goods due to concerns about the country’s involvement in fentanyl trade. Additionally, tariffs on semiconductors, crucial components in electronic devices, are expected to increase.
This exemption marks a significant development in the ongoing trade war with China and is expected to have far-reaching effects on the US economy. Tech giants like Apple and Nvidia will benefit from avoiding heavy taxes that could have impacted their profits. Consumers rushed to purchase iPhones to avoid potential price hikes, relieving concerns about inflation and economic instability.
While the tariff relief provides temporary respite for the tech industry, the Trump administration has indicated plans for further trade investigations, particularly targeting semiconductors. The aim is to secure the US supply chain for vital technologies used in various products, including smartphones and automobiles.
President Trump’s shift in trade policy has implications for various industries, especially as it relates to China. The tech sector, in particular, has closely engaged with the administration to navigate the changing landscape of tariffs and taxes on imports. Apple CEO Tim Cook has been instrumental in lobbying for exemptions and advocating for US manufacturing of tech products.
As the trade tensions continue to evolve, the tech industry remains a focal point in the US-China trade relationship. Consumers may see fluctuations in prices for electronic devices as the two countries negotiate their trade terms.
The Trump administration announced Friday that it would delay the implementation of Biden-era rules intended to limit coverage of unproven, costly bandages known as skin substitutes.
The policy will be It’s late until 2026 allowing businesses to take advantage of the loopholes in Medicare rules to continue to set higher prices for new products. The New York Times reported Thursday that businesses are selling these bandages to doctors at discounted prices, while doctors are charging Medicare for the price of full stickers and pocketing the differences.
According to an analysis conducted by Earty Read, an actuarial company that assesses the costs of large healthcare companies, Medicare spending has skyrocketed above $10 billion from $1.6 billion in 2024. Some experts said bandage spending is one of the biggest examples of waste in the history of Medicare, an insurance program for the elderly.
The Super PAC for President Trump’s election campaign received a $2 million donation from Extreme Care, a leading seller of skin alternatives. Trump has criticised his social media policy twice, saying it hurts patients who use the product with diabetic pain.
“‘Crooked Joe’ has broken through policies that will lead to more suffering and death for Medicare diabetics,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in March.
Extremity care also criticized the plan, claiming it would disrupt the supply chain, eliminate innovation and increase costs for both doctors and patients. The company says it complies with high ethical standards, but did not respond immediately to requests for comment regarding the new delay in the policy.
Over 120 skin alternatives are on the market. They average an average of $5,089 per square inch, with the most expensive time exceeding $23,000.
Biden-era rules would have limited Medicare coverage for a small subset of products that have been shown to be effective in randomized clinical trials. The new policy will be applied to patients using ulcer and leg pain bandages known as ulcers. This can be caused by diabetes or poor circulation.
Medicare said in a Friday’s Statement It will consider policies as part of the transition to a new administration. During that time, he said, “We believe it is important to maintain patient access to skin replacement products with quality evidence of effectiveness.”
Mass Coalition, a group supporting the skin substitute industry, said it was “satisfied” with the delay. Public relations officer Preya Nonona Pinto said the group is looking forward to working with Medicare on “coverage policies and payment reforms that guarantee access to skin replacements.”
NASA prioritizes sending American astronauts to Mars, a goal supported by President Trump’s candidate to lead the space agency.
The candidate, Jared Isaacman, CEO of Payment Processing Company Shift4 Payments and a close associate of Elon Musk, brings a unique perspective from leading private astronaut flights into orbit. He is expected to bring new ideas to NASA and its $25 billion budget, aligning with entrepreneurial aerospace companies like SpaceX.
Isaacman aims to revitalize a mission-first culture at NASA, as stated in his opening statement before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology.
While Mars remains a long-term goal for human spaceflight, NASA’s current focus has been on the International Space Station and sending astronauts back to the moon during Trump’s presidency.
Isaacman affirms that NASA will view the moon as a stepping stone to Mars, not abandoning it but utilizing it for scientific, economic, and national security interests.
He believes that fostering an economy in orbit will accelerate NASA’s scientific advancements and discoveries.
Isaacman’s confirmation hearing sheds light on NASA’s future direction amidst uncertainties surrounding federal agencies. With Musk’s influence and contrasting views, the path forward for NASA remains uncertain.
Isaacman is expected to address questions regarding NASA’s space launch system and the future of lunar missions during his confirmation hearing.
Isaacman’s appointment signals a departure from traditional NASA leadership, bringing a fresh perspective from his background in private space missions.
Despite criticisms of NASA’s costly programs like the SLS rocket, Isaacman emphasizes the importance of efficient and cost-effective missions to advance space exploration.
His vision includes prioritizing American astronauts’ return to the moon as a crucial step towards eventual Mars exploration.
Isaacman’s unique approach to space exploration has already been demonstrated through private missions like Inspiration 4 and Polaris Dawn, showcasing innovative technologies and partnerships with SpaceX.
In a shift from traditional aerospace leadership, Isaacman’s nomination for NASA administrator represents a new era of space exploration.
His experiences with private space missions demonstrate a commitment to innovation and collaboration in advancing human space travel.
Isaacman’s appointment heralds a new chapter for NASA as it navigates evolving priorities and challenges in space exploration.
As NASA looks to the future under Isaacman’s leadership, the agency is poised to embrace innovative solutions and partnerships to propel human space endeavors forward.
President Trump signed a surge in executive orders on Tuesday aimed at expanding coal mining and burning in the United States to revive the struggling industry.
1 order Commanding federal agencies To abolish regulations that “discriminate” coal production, open new federal land for coal mining, and investigate whether coal combustion power plants can serve new AI data centers. Trump also said He will abandon certain air force pollution restrictions It was adopted by the Biden administration for dozens of coal plants at risk of closures.
In a move that could face legal challenges, Trump led the energy sector Develop the process To prevent unprofitable coal plants from shutting down to avoid power outages using electricity in emergencies. Trump proposed similar actions during his first term, but ultimately abandoned the idea after widespread opposition.
Dozens of miners are stuck in hard white White House hats, Trump said. He was also teaching The Department of Justice will identify and fight state and local climate policies that “let coal miners go out of business.” He added that future administrations will “assure” that they will not be able to adopt policies that are harmful to coal, but did not provide details.
“This is a very important day for me, because we are reclaiming an abandoned industry despite the fact that it is the best and certainly the best in terms of power, true power,” Trump said.
Over the past few weeks, Trump, energy secretary Chris Wright and interior secretary Doug Burgham have all been talking about the importance of coal. The two cabinet members sat in the front row at the White House ceremony. Members of Congress from Wyoming, Kentucky, West Virginia and other coal-producing states attended the White House ceremony.
“Beautiful and beautiful coal,” Trump told the gathering. “Never use the word “coal” unless you place “clean, clean” before that. ”
Coal is the most polluted of all fossil fuels when burned; Approximately 40% of the world’s industrial carbon dioxide emissions a major factor in global warming. It releases other contaminants, including mercury and sulfur dioxide, associated with heart disease, respiratory problems, and early death. Coal ash from coal mining and generated power plants can also cause environmental issues.
Over the past 20 years, coal use has declined sharply in the US, with utilities switching to cheaper, cleaner power sources, such as natural gas, wind and solar. That transition has been the biggest reason for US emissions decline since 2005.
It is unclear how much Trump will reverse that decline. In 2011, the country generated almost half of its electricity from coal. Last year, it fell to just 15%. The utility has already closed hundreds of aged coal burning units, and has announced the retirement dates for about half of the remaining plants.
In recent years, growing interest in artificial intelligence and data centers has driven a surge in electricity demand, with the utility having decided that more than 50 coal combustion units will be open past the scheduled closing date, according to Electric Power from America, the industry’s trade group. And as the Trump administration moves, more plants could remain open longer or run more frequently as they loosen coal pollution restrictions, including regulations that apply to carbon and mercury.
“You know, we need to do AI. All this new technology is online,” Trump said Tuesday. “We need more than twice the energy and electricity we currently have.”
However, some analysts said there is unlikely a major coal revival.
“The main problem is that most of our coal plants are older, more expensive to operate, and no one is thinking about building new plants,” said Seth Feaster, a data analyst focusing on coal at the research firm, Energy Economics Analysis Institute. “It’s very difficult to change that trajectory.”
During his first term, Trump tried to prevent the closure of unprofitable coal plants using emergency powers normally reserved for fleeting crises such as natural disasters. But the idea has hit hard by oil and gas companies, grid operators and consumer groups. He said it would increase electricity bills and eventually retreated from the idea.
Ali Pescoe, director of the Harvard Law School’s Electricity Law Initiative, said the idea would likely lead to lawsuits if it was tested again today. “But there’s not much history of litigation here,” he said. “Usually these emergency orders last within 90 days.”
Ultimately, Trump struggled to fulfill his first term pledge to save the coal industry. His administration abolished numerous climate regulations, appointed coal lobbyists to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, 75 coal-fired power plants were closed, and the industry lost around 13,000 jobs during its presidency.
The decline of coal continued under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who tried to completely move the country away from fossil fuels to combat climate change. Last year, his administration issued swept EPA rules that force all coal plants across the country to install expensive equipment to capture and fill carbon footprints or close by by 2039.
When he returned to the office this year, Trump ordered the EPA to repeal the rules. And Trump administration officials have repeatedly warned that closing coal plants will damage power sources. Unlike wind and solar energy, coal plants can run at any time of the day and are useful when electricity rises rapidly.
Some industry executives who run the country’s electric grid include some industry executives. I warned again The country could face the risk of power losses, especially when power companies are late in bringing new gas, wind and solar power plants online and adding battery storage and transmission lines.
“For decades, most people took electricity and coal for granted,” said Michelle Bradworth, chief executive of American power. “This complacency has led to early retirements in coal plants, weakening the electrical network and damaging federal and state policies that threaten national security.”
But coal opponents say maintaining aged plants online can exacerbate fatal air pollution and increase energy costs. Earlier this year, the PJM Interconnect, which oversees a large grid in the Mid-Atlantic, burned coal-burning power plants and the opening until 2029, leaving them open until 2029 to reduce the risk of retirement benefits. This move could ultimately cost the customers of the utility in the area Over $720 million.
“Coal plants are old, dirty, uncompetitive and unreliable,” said Kit Kennedy, power managing director for the Environmental Group’s Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Trump administration has been stuck in the past and is trying to make utility customers pay more for yesterday’s energy. Instead, they should do everything they can to build the power grid of the future.”
President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at bolstering the declining coal industry in the country and imposing stricter regulations on coal mining, leasing, and export. The White House stated that this move is intended to address the energy demands of artificial intelligence data centers.
This action by the Trump administration is at odds with global efforts to reduce coal-fired electricity generation and curb harmful greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change.
During the signing of the order, Trump emphasized the importance of coal, referring to it as “beautiful, clean coal.”
Coal is widely regarded as one of the dirtiest fossil fuels and a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The burning of fossil fuels like coal releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming.
In addition to reopening certain coal plants and allowing coal leases on public land, the executive order instructs federal agencies to explore how coal-fired power plants can meet the increasing energy needs of artificial intelligence.
Workers at the John E. Amos power plant, which is a coal burning of American power fuel, in Winfield, W.Va., stand in the coal mine in 2018.Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images file
Recent government actions have rolled back environmental regulations, targeting pollution and emissions from power plants operated by oil and gas companies.
Over the past decade, the coal industry in the US has seen a decline, with coal contributing only about 16% of domestic electricity in 2023, down from 45% in 2010. The growing use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind has also played a role in reducing the country’s reliance on coal.
Efforts to revive the coal industry run counter to the preferences of most Americans, with two-thirds supporting a transition away from fossil fuels like coal by 2050, according to a recent poll by Yale University.
Burning coal for electricity generation is not only environmentally harmful but also costlier than cleaner energy sources. According to estimates, coal-generated electricity can cost Americans three to four times more than wind or solar power.
Critics of Trump’s executive order, including former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, argue that it will worsen climate change and harm public health. They advocate for a shift towards cleaner and safer energy alternatives.
As the demand for energy from artificial intelligence increases, there is a growing need for new energy resources. However, meeting this demand is expected to strain existing energy systems, prompting calls for increased investments to stay competitive internationally.
Goldman Sachs projects a 165% rise in global electricity demand over the next five years due to the expansion of AI data centers.
President Trump is being asked by two chemical industry groups to grant a complete exemption to free factories from new restrictions on dangerous air pollution.
The Biden administration’s new rules will require chemical plastics to monitor and reduce the emission of toxic pollutants like ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing ingredient used in antifreezes and plastics.
The American Chemical Council and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Makers are seeking a temporary presidential exemption for all polluters in response to these rules.
The Environmental Defense Fund obtained a letter dated March 31, which stated that the new requirement imposed a significantly more expensive burden on member companies with an infeasible timeline.
The groups have written to the Environmental Protection Agency administrator expressing concerns that some of the new rules could cost businesses over $50 billion.
The EPA recently allowed businesses to apply for exemptions from clean air rules by sending emails to agents, citing the Clean Air Act’s provision for temporary exemptions in cases where necessary technology is unavailable or for national security reasons.
During Trump’s administration, the EPA rolled back many of the same rules, allowing businesses to be temporarily exempt from compliance.
A White House spokeswoman stated that Trump’s commitment was to unleash America’s energy, protect national security, and ensure environmental control.
The Biden-era regulations aimed to address the disproportionate environmental hazards faced by communities near chemical plants, particularly low-income, black, or Latino areas experiencing rising rates of asthma, cancer, and other health issues.
Updated regulations governing emissions from chemical plants considered cumulative effects on communities near major chemical hubs, requiring companies to strengthen controls and processes to limit chemical emissions.
Fence line monitoring and other measures are needed to ensure compliance, especially concerning ethylene oxide, which is used in various products such as batteries for electric vehicles and medical device sterilization.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers CEO criticized Biden-era rules as illegal and technically unachievable, posing risks to US manufacturing operations.
Environmental advocates expressed concerns that the Trump administration’s actions were allowing businesses to avoid complying with reasonable restrictions on toxic air pollution.
The move aligns with the administration’s efforts to prioritize cost reduction for businesses and promote energy control rather than environmental protection.
Last month, the administration halted a federal lawsuit against a chemical manufacturer accused of releasing carcinogenic substances from plants in Louisiana.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
