logo
Trump delayed pollution limits on the nation's dirtiest coal plants. Is one near you?

Trump delayed pollution limits on the nation's dirtiest coal plants. Is one near you?

USA Today23-05-2025

Trump delayed pollution limits on the nation's dirtiest coal plants. Is one near you? The Trump administration says cheaper energy is the goal.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
What do Lee Zeldin's EPA rollbacks mean for Americans?
Lee Zeldin announced the Environmental Protection agency would roll back regulations aimed fighting climate change and pollution.
Before leaving her East Texas home, Paulette Goree checks her air monitor. If the hue is green on the connected phone app, she steps outside to tend to her backyard garden where she grows tomatoes, squash and peppers. If it is red, she stays inside.
Over the years, she has watched respiratory illnesses strike her family one by one. Her sister died from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Her father battled a lung disease. Her husband has it now. Goree has asthma herself.
Goree, 72, lives in Beckville, a town of fewer than 800 people, just miles from the Martin Lake coal plant, a 2.4-gigawatt facility that has loomed over the region since the late 1970s.
'We all know how harmful the Martin Lake pollution can be,' Goree told USA TODAY, sitting inside her mustard-colored house. 'The majority of the people in our little community suffer with some kind of respiratory ailment.'
Luminant Generation Company, which owns the facility, did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding Goree's account and steps taken by it to reduce emissions.
Last year, the EPA said the surrounding counties, Rusk and Panola, had failed to meet air quality standards, blaming Martin Lake as the major source. Luminant disagreed, calling the EPA's finding 'unsupported.' The agency stood by its analysis, reaffirming that not enough steps were taken to clean up the surrounding areas.
But new federal actions could stall or even erase efforts to reduce air pollution. In April, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation that delays a key pollution rule, related to mercury and fine particles, for 68 power plants by two years, pushing the deadline to 2029. The Environmental Protection Agency has also proposed repealing those updated standards entirely, meaning plants may never have to meet them at all.
The rules, updated by the Joe Biden administration last year, would have required continuous monitoring and tighter pollution limits, especially for plants that burn lignite coal, a particularly dirty form of fuel. Operators decried the rule as too costly. Governors from several states sued.
A USA TODAY review of federal data found that many of the 60-plus power plants benefiting from the exemption are among the nation's worst polluters, including six that rank within the nation's top 10 largest greenhouse gas emitters from 2023, the latest available year. Many of these companies have also paid hundreds of millions in environmental fines and settlements in recent decades.
Several pollutants from coal plants have dropped in the past decade, which experts attribute largely to the EPA's 2012 standards for these pollutants.
Even then, coal plants continue to emit large amounts of mercury, fine particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides – all of which can be harmful to public health.
According to a USA TODAY analysis, these 68 power plants emitted 8% of total mercury emissions, a disproportionate figure considering these plants only formed less than a percent of the 14,000 facilities that reported emissions in 2020, the latest available year on EPA's National Emissions Inventory.
Luminant Generation-owned Martin Lake in East Texas, where Goree lives, is one of the facilities on the exemption list.
The plant is among the nation's top sulfur dioxide emitters and the sixth largest for nitrogen oxides, according to 2024's EPA Clean Air Markets Program Data. It was also among the largest mercury emitters in 2020, according to the National Emissions Inventory data.
Each time she sees the plant's three smokestacks in the distance, she finds herself thinking about the air her community is breathing, Goree said.
Goree remembers her town through images of crickets singing and fireflies lighting up the night sky. She has always loved being outside, tending to her garden, or spending time near Martin Lake, a 5,000-acre body of water known for its bass and catfish. These days, though, fewer people fish there, she said. Fewer still picnic or hike in the nearby park, she added.
'I just want to live out my retirement years in peace and quiet with clean air to breathe and fresh water to enjoy the outdoor life,' she said, emphasizing that public health should be central to climate policy.
'That's my biggest concern. It's something they can do to help the community, and they're just not doing it,' Goree said.
Farther south in Fort Bend County, longtime resident Haley Schulz spent years working in the oil and gas industry until motherhood and a deep dive into environmental research transformed her into an environmental rights advocate. She discovered she lives just 15 miles from W.A. Parish, the largest coal plant in Texas. Then things from her past started to make sense: her classmates always carrying inhalers, her own relentless cough that once sent her to the emergency room.
'It felt like my chest was on fire,' Schulz recalled. 'It felt like I was having a heart attack every single time I had a tickle in my throat.'
Doctors diagnosed her with costochondritis from the nonstop cough, she said. While they could not say if pollution was to blame, Schulz said the irritation she feels after visiting parks near the plant speaks volumes.
'That's not nature,' she said after visiting parks near the plant. 'That's the soot.'
Search the coal plant closest to you below. Includes facilities beyond the ones exempted from the EPA rule.
USA TODAY reached out to NRG Energy, who operates the W.A. Parish plant and three others on the exemption list. The company spokesperson, Ann Duhon, didn't directly comment on Schulz's experience but said that the company does not see any short-term impacts due to the proclamation, which it said it is currently reviewing.
'In recent years, NRG has invested millions of dollars installing environmental technologies at our facilities, which will remain in place regardless of any EPA rollbacks,' the email statement said.
About half of the companies or parent companies that operate the exempted power plants have a history of environmental violations, according to a review of data compiled by the nonprofit Good Jobs First.
In 2006, the Alabama Power Company, a subsidiary of the Southern Company, agreed to settle for $200 million with the federal government over alleged violations of the Clean Air Act from its James H. Miller Jr. plant. The same year, East Kentucky Power Cooperative agreed to pay over $600 million for similar violations.
Virginia Electric Power Co., a subsidiary of Dominion Energy which has a power plant on the exemption list, has a Clean Air Act settlement totaling $1.2 billion in 2003. More recently, in 2023, Dynegy Midwest Generation reached a settlement for 'disposal of coal ash that allegedly led to groundwater pollution.'
After all it could be inevitable
Coal operators spread across two dozen states, mostly in Republican-leaning counties, welcomed the move.
Scott Brooks, spokesman for Tennessee Valley Authority, which has four of the exempted power plants, told USA TODAY, in an email: 'This exemption will allow TVA to keep running these assets in a cost-effective way and help ensure reliability for our 10 million customers,' adding that their facilities follow the previous and current standards.
East Kentucky Power Cooperative Spokesperson Nick Comer said that the updated rules targeting mercury and air toxins would have forced it to turn off a coal-fired unit if just one of the 8000-plus fabric bags get a dime-sized hole.
When resources are limited and market power is expensive, Comer said, 'this could lead to tens of millions of dollars in costs for replacement power and market performance penalties.'
The Southern Company said in a statement to USA TODAY, 'extending the current deadline will provide additional time needed both to address potential rule changes and further demonstrate compliance to the current requirements.'
Coal powered America's industrial revolution, but its role in the country's energy grid has declined significantly over the recent decades, down to just over 15% of electricity in 2024, from about half at the beginning of this century. The shift has been driven not only by policy, but also by economics as cheaper and easier-to-maintain energy sources have emerged. Notably among them is natural gas, while wind and solar have been gradually increasing their contributions.
The transition to renewable energy is 'inevitable over the long term', said Julie McNamara, an associate policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
'The Trump administration is attempting to take every measure it can to prop up coal plants, against economics, against public health, against climate,' McNamara said.
'This will provide potentially a little more money in the pockets of the coal plant owners, but it will not provide for the communities that house these coal plants,' she said.
According to the latest Energy Information Administration data, hundreds of coal-fired plants have closed over the past decades, leaving only a couple hundred operational, many of which are scheduled for retirement within the next decade.
Deregulation: The bigger picture
The EPA is proposing broader changes to pollution control standards, including revisiting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter. This is how the agency defines what levels are considered unhealthy.
The agency also wants to reconsider the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program which requires the nation's largest facilities to tally up those emissions every year.
Whether or not people breathe clean air isn't entirely up to the EPA. States and local governments play a key role, as they are responsible for writing and enforcing permits. But, experts say, the signals from the top might impact decision-making downstream.
'If the message they're getting from the EPA is all this deregulation or these rollbacks still meet the definition of Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, then what you're telling that audience is, don't do anything,' said Joseph Goffman, a former assistant administrator at the EPA office overseeing air pollution rules.
The Trump administration also recently proposed a 55% cut to the Environmental Protection Agency's budget that would bring the staffing back to 1980s levels.
'Even if there were no budget cuts, and the rules remained in place, the administration seems committed to maintain a deregulatory environment, including by not doing enforcement,' Goffman said.
When USA TODAY reached out to the EPA for a response, the agency's press office shared an unsigned emailed statement saying that the president may exempt any stationary source on grounds of national security interests or based on the determination that the technology is not available.
'This is an authority that solely rests with the President, not EPA,' the statement said.
However, the regulatory agency did not respond directly to the questions sent by USA TODAY and referred to the White House.
In an emailed statement, White House Assistant Press Secretary Taylor Rogers said: 'President Trump's commonsense agenda unleashes American energy to protect our national security, lower the cost of living, and provide necessary electrical demands for emerging technologies such as AI. While the media refuses to acknowledge that American energy is much cleaner than foreign energy, hardworking Americans voted for President Trump to roll back harmful and radical regulations.'
In total, the EPA has announced at least half a dozen plans to scrap or scale down rules and programs that have contributed to the progress of cleaning up the air and curbing the impacts of climate change.
Ananya Roy, an epidemiologist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the arguments for deregulation are to reduce costs and regulatory burden.
'EPA's mission is supposed to be to protect public health, and in this instance, they won't be,' Roy said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers

Los Angeles Times

time16 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers

President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

‘A Total Sham': Michelle Obama's Nutrition Adviser Lets Loose on MAHA
‘A Total Sham': Michelle Obama's Nutrition Adviser Lets Loose on MAHA

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘A Total Sham': Michelle Obama's Nutrition Adviser Lets Loose on MAHA

Before there was MAHA, there was Michelle. Anyone following the rise of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again movement can't help but recall former First Lady Michelle Obama's efforts to improve Americans' diets — and the vitriol she faced in response. Now, many of the same Republicans who skewered Michelle Obama as a 'nanny state' warrior have embraced the MAHA movement. To explore this head-spinning turn, I called up Sam Kass, the former White House chef under President Barack Obama and a food policy adviser wholed the first lady's 'Let's Move' initiative. Kass said he was happy to find common ground with Kennedy and his MAHA brigade where possible. But he argued Kennedy's HHS has done little to actually improve the health of the public so far, and was instead mostly taking steps that would do real damage, including by undermining the use of vaccines. Kass also warned potentially MAHA-curious food advocates against legitimizing the Trump administration by offering support for Kennedy. 'Those who are lending their voice for the things that they support are going to ultimately help enable outcomes that are going to be quite devastating for this country and for our kids,' he said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. At the same time, Kass is not surprised with MAHA's growing popularity. In the 10-plus years since Kass left the White House, the issues of diet-related chronic disease haven't abated and Americans are more anxious about their health than ever. Wellness is a trillion-dollar industry, and MAHA influencers have filled the gap left by Democrats. 'The Democratic Party has absolutely blundered this issue,' he said. 'We're getting what we deserve here in some ways.' This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. How do you square the earlier conservative criticism of the 'Let's Move' initiative with the rise of MAHA? Are you surprised by the seeming contradiction? I think most of that is because Republicans are fearful of President Trump. And therefore, if he is putting somebody in a position of great power and backing him, there's a huge part of the party that's going to go along with whatever that may be. I don't think this is actually about the Republican Party taking this up. This is actually about a Democrat, traditionally, who had built up a pretty strong following on these issues, and decided to join forces with President Trump. It's not like any of these ideas are coming from the GOP platform. This is an RFK-led effort that they're now supporting. So are they hypocrites for that? Certainly. But I welcome Republican support on trying to genuinely improve the health of the nation. Frankly, if we had had that for the last 20 years, I think that cultural retention would be far better. The reality, though, is what they're actually doing I don't think is going to have any positive impact, or very little. Even what they're saying is problematic on some levels, but what they're doing is a far cry from anything that's going to create the health outcomes this country needs. When you say that, do you mean banning soda from SNAP or the food dyes issue? Are there specific things that come to mind? It's a long list. There's the critique that MAHA brings at the highest level, that chronic disease has exploded in our country. Nobody can refute that, and what we're eating is a big driver of poor health outcomes on many different levels. That is absolutely true. What we grow, how we're growing it, and what's being made out of it is quite literally killing people. That is something that First Lady Michelle Obama said way back when. I've been saying it for a couple of decades. After that, everything falls apart in my mind. We can start with food dyes as the biggest announcement they made thus far. I'm all for getting food dyes out of food. There's just not a basis of evidence that most of the ones that are being used are actually the drivers of many of these health conditions. It was reported that they were banning food dyes. Sadly, what they did was a total sham. It was a farce of an event. There was no policy at all that was announced. There was no guidance, there was no regulatory proposal, there wasn't even a request for information. There was absolutely nothing put forward to revoke the approvals of these dyes. And the reason I believe is that to revoke an approval, you have to show that it's harming the public health. That's what we did for trans fats. Trans fats had been approved for consumption. There was plenty of evidence to show that that food was really driving death and disease in the country, and we banned it through a regulatory mechanism. I could not fathom making an announcement like that without actually having a real policy to put in place. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry about what they did. Also, you see a bunch of the influencers holding up bags of Fruit Loops and saying, 'In Europe or Canada, these have no [synthetic] food dyes and ours do.' But the fact of the matter is Fruit Loops aren't good for you either way. Part of the danger of RFK is he keeps talking about gold standard science and rebooting our public policy and science. The reality is he's doing the exact opposite. He's going to fast food restaurants, touting them on national television as the head of Health and Human Services, [saying that] a cheeseburger and french fries is good for you now because it's cooked in beef fat which is just the most insane thing on literally every single level. It has absolutely no basis in science. We're focusing on issues that are absolutely not going to make an iota of difference in public health. It's absolutely shocking. They have a platform that is fear-based on certain issues, like these food dyes or seed oils, which are absolutely not addressing the core of what we're eating and the core of what's really harming our health. The problem is the fries and the cheeseburger. It's not the oil that it's fried in. It's actually quite scary to me to see what's playing out. Why do you think the politics of food have changed in the years since you were in the White House, and why do you think MAHA ideas have such appeal? I don't exactly know for sure. In the age of social media, the thing that gets the algorithms the most activity is more extreme views. I think people are very vulnerable to very compelling, very scientifically sounding narratives that [MAHA influencers] all have, based on one study here or another study there, that can weave a narrative of fear. It's not like food dyes are good, I'm happy to see them go. But you get people scared of what they're eating to the point where people stop eating vegetables because they're worried about the pesticides, which is just not good for their health. This fear is definitely taking hold. I think it's because the mediums on which this information travels are exacerbating that fear. You already mentioned the food dye announcement and why that was concerning to you. What are some of the other actions that you think aren't necessarily achieving the stated goals? If you step back and start to look at what actions have actually been taken, what you're actually seeing is a full-on assault on science throughout HHS. You're seeing a complete gutting of NIH, which funds much of the research needed to understand what in hyper-processed foods is undermining people's health and how to actually identify those correlations so you can regulate it very aggressively. You're seeing the complete gutting or elimination of departments within CDC and FDA that oversee the safety of our food. Food toxicologists have been fired. There's a department in CDC that's in charge of assessing chronic health and environmental exposures to toxins. Those offices have been eliminated. The idea that somehow you're going to be more aggressively regulating based on the best science, while you're absolutely wholesale cutting scientific research and gutting the people who are in charge of overseeing the very industry that you're trying to clamp down on is a joke. Then look at the 'big, beautiful bill' that is being supported by this administration, and it's catastrophic to the public health of the United States of America. Eight million people are going to lose access to health care. Three million plus are going to lose SNAP assistance. Then we can get into USDA and EPA. Everybody's got to remember that the number one threat to the public health of the United States of America is climate change. If we continue on this path of pulling back every regulatory effort that's been made to try to transition our society to a much more sustainable, lower-carbon world, that's also preparing itself to deal with the volatility that's coming from the climate, we're not going to have food to eat. This idea that you're going to have big announcements about food dyes and Fruit Loops, while you completely roll back every effort to prepare our agricultural system and our food system to deal with climate change, you're gaslighting the American public. Have you spoken to the former first lady about MAHA at all? Not in any kind of depth. Have you ever been in touch with Kennedy? Have you ever talked to him about these issues? He's very close to a number of people I'm good friends with, but no, I have not. You noted Kennedy used to be a Democrat. His issues — his opposition to pesticides, his support for healthy nutrition, with all the caveats that we just discussed — these were Democratic issues. Now, this MAHA coalition helped Trump win the White House. Why do you think Democrats have ceded this terrain? The Democratic Party has absolutely blundered this issue. These are kitchen table issues. Our very well-being, our ability to eat food that's not harming ourselves and our kids, is fundamental to life on planet Earth and what it means to have a vibrant society. The fact that Democrats, much to my chagrin, definitely not because of lack of trying, have not taken this issue up with great effort over the last 15 years is shameful. We're getting what we deserve here in some ways. I'm deeply critical of Democrats, with some exceptions. Sen. Cory Booker has been amazing on these issues. [Former Sen.] Jon Tester is also great. But it was never part of the platform, and it absolutely always should have been. If there's some common ground to be found with Republicans, then great. We could get a lot done. But we can't just turn over the keys to this issue to people who are not serious. When you worked in the Obama White House, you pushed better nutrition labeling, active living, bans on unhealthy foods in school meals and trans fat. The recent MAHA report pointed the finger at similar programs for chronic illness. Is that a place where you and MAHA advocates are on the same page, and how do you balance that with the concerns you've raised? There's no clean answer to that. We largely, not entirely, share the same critique when it comes to food. Vaccines are another thing which are important to also talk about. People are trying to pick the issue that they like and can get around and pretend like the rest isn't happening. It would be great if we got food dyes out, but it would pale in comparison to if he continues down the path to undermine vaccines as the foundation of public health and people start dying, like they are, with measles. That is not even close to a trade. For all of my food friends who read this, or everybody in policy who are like, 'Oh yeah, I can work with him on this issue, but I'm going to turn a blind eye to that,' that doesn't work. That's going to lead to devastating outcomes. On the report, I share the general critique of the problem. I spent my life saying those things and working on these issues. That's the easy part. What matters is what you do about it. How do you actually change what people are eating, and what is it going to take to really put the country on a different trajectory when it comes to health? So far, I've seen absolutely no indication that the issues that they're focused on are going to have any meaningful or measurable impact on public health. Frankly, there's many other things that I think are going to be extremely detrimental. We will see. We're only a few months in. I could, depending on what happens, have a different perspective in six months or 12 months. RFK has blamed the food industry for Americans' poor health. He's argued that government institutions are overwrought with corporate influence. Do you think he's right? And what do you think about RFK's approach to trying to curb corporate influence? I'm all for curbing corporate influence. I had some big fights with industry. I won some of them, and sometimes I got my ass kicked. It's the nature of Washington when you're threatening the basic interests of an industry. What's stunning to me is that the food industry so far has been silent. They haven't done anything to fight back, which says to me that they're not feeling threatened yet. I think they're waiting to see what's going to happen. I'm sure they're doing some stuff in the background, but this is nothing like what we were dealing with. I agree that we should put the public's best interest first, not succumb to industry influence. I think the way that RFK talks about it is a real overstatement down a very dark conspiracy theory. The idea that JAMA and the American Medical Association and the New England Journal are just like corporate journals that just put corporate, completely distorted research out for the sake of making profits, it's just not serious. He starts to discredit the very institutions, like HHS, that you actually need to do the work to rein in industry. The way that industry does make inroads is that they fund a lot of research. If you want to reduce industry influence, you should dramatically increase [government] investment in funding of scientific research on agriculture and climate change, on food and nutrition. One of the biggest fights in the Obama era was over stricter nutrition standards for school lunches. The administration won some of those battles, but quite a few children still have obesity, according to the latest data. Is there anything you wish the Obama administration had done differently? Are there things policymakers should be doing differently? School nutrition is just one part of a young person's diet. You're not going to solve kids' health issues just through school nutrition, but obviously it's a huge lever to pull. If we really want to make progress, you have to look much more holistically at the food environment that people are living in. This is generational work. It's going to take literally decades of work to shift, not just the policies, but our culture, our businesses, to change how people are eating. I think the one thing we missed would have been a much stricter restriction on sugar across the board. We had it for drinks,, but we didn't [apply it across the board], and that was a miss. We should have pushed harder on sugar. I think the policy was a really important start. It can always be improved and strengthened. Both the first Trump administration and this one are looking to roll back some of that. The thing that we have to not forget — and this is true for schools, and certainly true for SNAP and WIC — is the biggest problem is not enough money for these programs. I started doing a lot of work on finding ways to restrict sugary drinks as an example from the SNAP program. But if you want to do that and actually get the health outcomes you need, you need to also increase the total dollar amount that people have so they can purchase healthier food. Part of the reason why people are drinking these things is they're the cheapest available drink. Coke is cheaper than water sometimes. RFK recently called sugar 'poison.' Do you agree with that? One of their tactics to obfuscate truth in science is dosage, right? The amount that we're consuming matters. If you had a birthday cake on your birthday and you have a cookie — my kids eat a cookie, they're not dying, they're not being poisoned to death. They're fine. I think the problem is the amount of sugar we're consuming and the sizes of the portions we have. It's the cumulative amount of sugar. It's probably technically not exactly the right word, poison. But I don't take issue with that. I think the levels of sugar consumption for young people are deeply alarming and are absolutely going to drive preventable death and disease for millions and millions of people. It already is and will continue to do so. It is a very serious problem. But what do you do? I can't wait to see the policy proposals here. It's a tough problem to solve. It is not a problem that can be solved overnight, and it's going to take a very comprehensive effort to really shift the amount of sugar we're consuming, but it should be the goal of this administration. They should work very hard at it in a very serious and science-based way. Thus far, I have not seen that.

More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll
More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll

As President Donald Trump hosts events on Saturday to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, a new national poll indicates more Americans are likely to approve than disapprove of the president's decision to hold a military parade. But six in 10 Americans are concerned about the cost of the parade, saying it's "not a good use" of government money, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey. Trump, who is marking his 79th birthday on Saturday, is scheduled to give a speech during the parade, which will take place Saturday evening along the National Mall in Washington D.C. Defense officials say roughly 6,600 soldiers will march in the parade, with some 50 military aircraft and 150 vehicles, including tanks, rocket launchers, and missiles. The Army says it's spending $25-$45 million to pay for the parade, which includes fixing D.C. streets damaged by the tanks. Trump Warns Any Protesters At His Military Parade Will Be 'Met With Very Big Force' Trump has defended the cost of the parade, saying last month in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" that it would be "peanuts compared to the value of doing it." Read On The Fox News App "We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it," the president said. Trump To Host Military Parade To Celebrate Army's 250Th Birthday But some in Congress are criticizing the parade, saying the money could be better spent. "If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a military veteran who lost both of her legs in combat while piloting an Army Black Hawk helicopter during the Iraq War, said in a social media post. "But it isn't. Trump is throwing himself a $30 million birthday parade just to stroke his own ego," Duckworth argued. According to the poll, 40% of adults nationwide approved of the military parade, with 29% disapproving, and three in 10 neither approving nor disapproving. There was an expected partisan divide, with two-thirds of Republicans approving of the president's move to hold the parade, and half of Democrats disapproving. But in a separate question, 60% of those surveyed said holding the parade was not a good use of government funds, with 38% disagreeing. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans said holding the parade was a good use of government funds, while eight in 10 Democrats disagreed. The White House, in a statement, said that the parade "will be a unifying celebration for not only the thousands in attendance, but Americans across the country who can participate in honoring our active-duty servicemembers, Veterans, and fallen heroes." Pro-democracy, progressive, and labor activists are planning protests in all 50 states on Saturday that will coincide with Trump's military parade. Many are part of a series of "No Kings" protests across the country, with more than 1,500 rallies scheduled for this weekend. But organizers decided against holding a major protest in the nation's capital and instead will hold their main event in Philadelphia. The poll, which was conducted June 5-9, also indicates that 39% of those questioned approve of the job Trump's doing in the White House, with six in ten giving the president a thumbs down. The survey had an overall margin of error of plus or minus four percentage article source: More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store