As Miami-Dade's incinerator debate drags on, a new idea emerges: take on Donald Trump
Should fear of President Donald Trump prevent Miami-Dade County from building a garbage incinerator a few miles from his Doral resort? At least one county commissioner doesn't think so.
'I'm not afraid of the Big Bad Wolf,' Commissioner Keon Hardemon, a Democrat from Miami, said Wednesday at the latest commission meeting on whether to replace the Doral incinerator closed from a 2023 fire. 'Because a man was elected into office and he supposedly has some sort of magical power to keep us from making decisions that are in our own best interests — I don't understand that.'
Hardemon's comments were a rare example of a county official addressing perhaps the biggest challenge facing Miami-Dade's trash plans. That's the unspoken assumption that the president will oppose any plan to build a garbage-burning facility in Doral, which consultants say is the cheapest place to build a replacement for an incinerator that used to burn nearly half of the county's trash every day.
Trump himself has not weighed in publicly about Miami-Dade's incinerator debate, but his son has — and forcefully. Weeks after his father won the 2024 presidential election, Eric Trump, who runs the president's resort business, began urging county commissioners to reject Mayor Daniella Levine Cava's recommendation to rebuild the incinerator in Doral. Levine Cava soon backed off her plan, saying she wanted to rethink the environmental upside to burying in landfills the roughly 4 million tons of trash Miami-Dade manages each year.
The county didn't appear any closer to a final plan on Wednesday when commissioners voted to delay a decision again until Levine Cava's administration can analyze potential incinerator proposals from the private sector.
That report is expected by June, setting up another hypothetical showdown on the incinerator question in July, according to the schedule laid out by Chair Anthony Rodriguez, a Republican representing parts of western Miami-Dade.
While Trump's name is rarely mentioned during incinerator debates, on Wednesday the presidential factor started getting some official attention.
Commissioner Eileen Higgins, also a Democrat from Miami, said she was eager to see what private companies might propose for the six potential incinerator locations county consultants have already analyzed.
'There's enough information out there about these sites,' she said. 'Obviously, the president is involved in Doral, so — note to self — probably don't get involved with that. If you have any common sense, don't do that.'
The vote to focus on private-sector proposals tees up the public phase of what's so far been closed-door lobbying by companies eager to win a county contract to build and operate an incinerator expected to cost close to $2 billion. Multiple commissioners cited Florida Power & Light as interested in making a deal with Miami-Dade for an incinerator, which burns trash and produces electricity in the process.
'We all know who the players are,' Rodriguez said to a chambers peppered with lobbyists and executives from waste-management companies, including Reworld, which ran the old Doral incinerator under a county contract. 'I see some of them in the audience today.'
While companies may be eager for an incinerator deal, it's not clear the private route will make it easier for commissioners or Levine Cava to settle on a politically palatable site. Miramar, a Broward County city, led the opposition to the mayor's prior pick of an idle county airfield in northern Miami-Dade. Hialeah Gardens pushed back on the brief consideration of a private incinerator site near there.
Levine Cava, a Democrat reelected to a second term last August, left the Wednesday meeting just before the incinerator discussion began.
Last month, she released a memo recommending commissioners ditch the prior incinerator plans and instead continue using private landfills across Florida to take the trash that was previously burned in Doral. As Miami-Dade's two public landfills are expected to fill up in the coming years, the Levine Cava plan would have the county hauling almost all of its trash to other counties by truck or by train.
The Trump factor brings two main obstacles to the possibility of another Doral incinerator being approved by an officially nonpartisan commission where Democrats hold a one-seat margin. The first is Trump's political sway in a county he carried by 11 points in November — including wins in 10 of the 13 commission districts. The other is regulatory. Even if commissioners approved a Doral incinerator, insiders privately doubt the Trump administration would green-light the federal permits required to build it.
Hardemon tried to deflate that speculation with his comments, noting the approval process is likely to face enough delays that Trump's presidency may not even be a factor.
'I don't think that this county should engage in politics out of fear … and to have the approval of someone who is only going to be in office for four years,' he said. 'For us to not move forward because the fear of some boogeyman is imminent — I think is laughable.'
With commissioners declining to pick between Levine Cava's landfill route and the original incinerator option, some board members doubted that having another report completed by this summer would move them closer to resolving a debate where the complications stretch all the way to the White House.
'This sounds like deja vu again,' said Commissioner Marleine Bastien, a Democrat who represents parts of Miami and its northern suburbs. 'If we don't have the courage to act, we will come back to the same place.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
26 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
For these Trump voters, a rubber-stamp Congress is a key demand
Advertisement And they reserved their purest aversion for Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the solidly conservative former longtime party leader, whom they described alternately as an 'obstructionist' to Trump's agenda, a 'snake in the grass,' and a 'bowl of Jell-O' with no spine. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Their perspectives offered a striking contrast to the reception that many Republican lawmakers have confronted at raucous town halls throughout the country in recent months. The lawmakers have been grilled and booed by constituents at these events for supporting Trump's policies on tariffs, immigration and, most recently, the domestic policy bill that the GOP pushed through the House in May. And they help explain why most Republican lawmakers have put aside any reservations they may have on key issues and backed the president -- because a critical portion of their party's base is still demanding that they do so. Advertisement 'For loyal Trump voters, they're loving what they see as him 'doing something' and don't want congressional Republicans getting in the way of his agenda,' said Sarah Longwell, the anti-Trump Republican strategist who conducted the focus groups. 'And members of Congress have gotten that message loud and clear.' These voters represent only a piece of the electorate that Republicans must court in the run-up to midterm congressional elections in which their governing trifecta is on the line. Since Trump took office, GOP lawmakers have struggled to defend his executive actions and his efforts to dismantle the federal bureaucracy and unilaterally defund government programs, and to explain to their constituents why they are not doing more to challenge him. In Nebraska this past week, Representative Mike Flood faced an angry crowd grilling him on the Medicaid and food assistance cuts included in the domestic policy bill. And he admitted he had been unaware that the measure included a provision to limit the power of federal judges to hold people, including Trump administration officials, in contempt for disobeying court orders. But Longwell's sessions, videos of which were shared with The New York Times, were a reminder that there is still a powerful pull for Republicans to swallow whatever disagreements they may have with Trump and bow to what he wants. Since the beginning of this Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson, whose too-slim majority in the House leaves him little latitude to maneuver, has positioned himself less as the leader of the legislative branch and more as a junior partner to Trump. That stance is exactly what these voters, whom Longwell identified only by their first names and last initials to protect their privacy, said they liked about him. Advertisement Arthur M., a voter from Arizona, described Johnson as 'loyal,' adding, 'I'm not saying they should never have any other ideas of their own, but they certainly shouldn't have someone dissenting if you're trying to put an agenda through -- and that's what the Congress is.' Jeff B., a voter from Georgia, said Johnson always appeared to be 'in over his head.' But he did not see that as a negative. 'He's not the kind of guy like Mitch McConnell, who was pulling all the strings,' he said. 'He's struggling, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be. He looks like he's in over his head, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be.' The voters who participated in the focus groups, which were conducted May 16 and 19, had uniformly negative views of those House Republicans they viewed as 'rabble-rousers,' which they defined as anyone expressing an opinion that was not in sync with the White House. Jane H., a voter from Indiana, criticized her Congress member, Representative Victoria Spartz, an unpredictable lawmaker who often sides with the hard right, for being 'out of line' when she makes noises about opposing Trump's agenda. Gilbert W. from North Carolina held a similar view of Murkowski, who has routinely broken with her party to criticize Trump. 'Murkowski -- this woman's never found anything on the Republican side she really goes for,' he said, calling her a 'troublemaker.' In contrast, Allen K. from Arizona praised his Congress member, Representative Juan Ciscomani, for never making any waves. Advertisement 'Whatever Trump does, he'll say,' he said of Ciscomani, describing that as a positive. As for Senator John Thune, the new majority leader from South Dakota, he earned kudos mostly for not being McConnell. 'He's pressing Trump's agenda, it seems like,' Gilbert W. said. 'What else can you ask for?' Jane H., a three-time Trump voter, said, 'What I want to see is someone who will work hard and effectively to advance a conservative agenda, and to work closely with the White House to advance at this time Donald Trump's agenda. It's what the American people want, so that's what John Thune should be doing.' Many of the participants in the focus groups had only vague impressions of their own representatives, a reminder that to many voters, Congress remains a faceless institution of 535 mostly anonymous lawmakers about whom they don't have particularly strong feelings. That could help explain why most appeared to judge their elected officials almost exclusively according to how deferential they were to Trump, about whom they expressed potent -- and extremely positive -- sentiments. Asked for his opinions on Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Steve C., a voter from Michigan, said, 'I don't have an opinion on anyone specifically.' This article originally appeared in
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump to meet with Germany's Merz in Washington next week
President Trump is set to meet with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz next week in Washington, marking the first in-person meeting between the two leaders. Merz, the leader of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who was elected as Germany's leader in early March, is expected to visit Trump at the White House on Thursday, June 5, Germany government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius said Saturday in a press release. The discussions between the two countries' leaders will focus on bilateral relations between the two, along with discussions around the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, developments in the Middle East and trade policy, according to Kornelius. A White House official confirmed the meeting details to The Hill on Saturday. Merz, similar to Trump, has been pushing for a ceasefire deal in the more than three-year-long war between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had a meeting with Merz on Wednesday in Berlin. There, Merz said that Germany will bolster its backing of Ukraine as part of a more than $5.5 billion agreement, including sending over more military equipment and increasing weapons manufacturing in Kyiv. Germany's chancellor has clashed with members of Trump's administration over the country's government marking the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party as an 'extremist' political entity. 'Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition. That's not democracy—it's tyranny in disguise,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote earlier this month on social media platform X. 'What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD—which took second in the recent election — but rather the establishment's deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes.' Vice President Vance piled on, accusing the government of trying to 'destroy' AfD, which also considers tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk a strong supporter. Merz has pushed back on Trump administration's officials meddling in Germany's domestic politics. 'We have largely stayed out of the American election campaign in recent years, and that includes me personally,' Merz said in an interview with Axel Springer Global Reporters Network that was published on May 7. He added that he told U.S. officials that 'we have not taken sides with either candidate. And I ask you to accept that in return.'
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Tariffs Face Threat at Supreme Court — Over Rulings That Blocked Biden
(Bloomberg) -- A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Where the Wild Children's Museums Are During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. Presidential Exception The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. Ideological Split So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' --With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? AI Is Helping Executives Tackle the Dreaded Post-Vacation Inbox ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
