Samuel L. Jackson touts wind farms after White House weighs move against them
'Motherf—ing wind farms: Loud, ugly, harmful to nature. Who says that?' Jackson said as he shook his head in a video released Wednesday by the European energy company Vattenfall.
'These giants are standing tall against fossil fuels, rising up out of the ocean like a middle finger to CO2,' the 'Pulp Fiction' star said of windmills.
'Deep beneath the waves they can become artificial reefs, creating habitats for sea life to grow,' the 76-year-old actor said.
A day earlier the Trump administration said it would undertake a review to consider 'whether to stop onshore wind development on some federal lands and halting future offshore wind lease sales.'
'These policy changes represent a commonsense approach to energy that puts Americans' interests first,' Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement.
President Trump has repeatedly denounced wind energy over the years.
'We're not going to let windmills get built because we're not going to destroy our country any further than it's already been destroyed,' Trump said last month.
'You go and look at these beautiful plains and valleys, and they're loaded up with this garbage that gets worse and worse looking with time,' the president said.
Jackson has spoken out against Trump before, saying in a 2019 interview that the commander in chief was 'ruining the planet.'
'If you're not saying anything, then you're complicit,' the performer said at the time.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
28 minutes ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'
an hour ago
Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
NEW YORK -- The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut. In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF's actions were counter to the agency's mandate. The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses 'violate the law and jeopardize America's longstanding global leadership in STEM.' Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut. In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more. Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science. A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to 'create opportunities for all Americans everywhere' and 'not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.' The plaintiff states are trying to 'substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing. The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
an hour ago
Trump administration freezes $339M in UCLA grants and accuses the school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor Julio Frenk called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty and staff," he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter the federal government "claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps.
