Climate movement strikes back with class action lawsuit against EPA
But when Lee Zeldin, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, began terminating environmental justice grants awarded by the Biden-era EPA in January and announced "the greatest day of deregulation" in mid-March to dismantle dozens of environmental policies, Hadaiya was gobsmacked: "We are in the very worst possible situation to couple regulatory rollbacks with funding decimation."
Hadayia isn't the only one in this position. Zeldin's immediate termination of some $3 billion from the Environmental and Climate Justice block program impacted 350 environmental organizations, cities and tribes that all saw their grants evaporate without warning.
Environmental justice grants are intended to help protect people from disproportionate exposure to industrial pollutants or environmental hazards and ensure everyone has access to a healthy living environment. For instance, lower-income communities that live near factories are often more exposed to pollutants that may damage their health.
Rather than sue the agency on its own, as many others are currently doing, Air Alliance Houston will be trying a new legal tactic: joining a first-of-its-kind proposed class action lawsuit against the EPA and Zeldin to restore funding.
"We're not in it just for us," Hadayia told CBS News, "Communities across the country that were selected for these funds all have needs. The class action benefits the greater good."
EPA cut funding to program that tracks permits for pollution
Air Alliance Houston was awarded a $3.1-million "community change grant" by the Biden EPA in 2024 to expand a program it created to bring more transparency to the Texas state environmental permitting process. The program, called Air Mail, tracks permits for pollution and alerts communities in Harris County, Texas, when a company requests a permit, so people know what may be emitted into the air and water near their home. Hadayia planned to expand the program to 10 other counties in Texas.
She was one of 2,700 applicants who applied for the award. In fact, it was the first time Hadayia had ever tried to win a federal grant for Air Alliance Houston, and she was thrilled to receive the government's support.
"We didn't want to have to rely on private philanthropy forever," she said.
She filled out 20 pages of forms detailing requirements, compliance certification, underwent rigorous vetting and completed numerous checklists and reviews. In February, she said she seemed to lose consistent access to the grant money without warning, although at times, it would appear again in the nonprofit's accounts.
"Randomly with no notice, I would get access to the money again," Hadayia said.
Between February and May, she checked her account twice a day, every day. On four occasions, she said she successfully accessed funds, withdrawing a total of $60,000 to reimburse eligible expenses before she finally received a termination letter on May 1.
The EPA did not respond to questions about why it terminated the grants.
"We believe that our contract was illegally terminated. There was nothing in our terms and conditions that allows an administration — Trump or otherwise — to cancel a federal contract because they don't like what the contract is about," Hadayia told CBS News. "There was no noncompliance. There was no fraud, waste and abuse. We were selected rigorously and appropriately. We met all of the requirements. We were doing everything right."
The new legal strategy for environmental groups
Air Alliance Houston is one of 23 plaintiffs in the suit, and together, they are hoping the court will grant their request to certify and move forward as a class action. The other plaintiffs include environmental organizations, as well as local city governments, like Kalamazoo County, Michigan, and federally recognized tribes such as the Native Village of Kipnuk in Alaska.
Like Air Alliance Houston, all of the plaintiffs were awarded grants of various amounts through the Environmental and Climate Justice Program, which was funded with $3 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act. The purpose of the grants is to address the climate crisis and various environmental harms at the local level.
The grants were awarded to groups in rural and urban communities throughout the United States for a variety of initiatives including air quality monitoring, tree planting in urban heat areas, lead pipes replacement to improve community drinking water systems and resilience projects to bolster communities against intensifying extreme weather.
CBS News contacted the EPA about the lawsuit, but the agency responded in an email saying it does not comment on current or pending litigation.
Suing the Trump administration has become a full-time job for many environmental organizations affected by its funding cuts. Major groups like the Environmental Defense Fund, or the Natural Resources Defense Council, which employs hundreds of people and generate roughly $200 million in annual revenue, can sustain prolonged legal challenges to the federal government. Since 2025, the NRDC has been involved in 11 cases against the Trump administration.
The nonprofits say that utilizing the court system is the only check on power they can lean on, and to date, the Trump administration has not prevailed in any of the environmental lawsuits filed. It is currently appealing the rulings, many of which would restore funding to environmental groups.
Some nonprofits have been successful in getting their funding restarted, even during the appeals process. But not all nongovernmental organizations have the resources for a sustained legal battle.
Air Alliance Houston is a small group that employs just 13 people, Hadaiya included, and it often spends more money than it makes. In 2023, according to available tax records, it generated $2.5 million in revenue, but had more than $2.7 million in expenses.
The class action lawsuit would make it possible for Air Alliance Houston and smaller nonprofits to win broad relief, rather than piecemeal outcomes, and to pool their resources for what may be a long legal fight against the Trump EPA.
Jillian Blanchard, a vice president at the Climate Change and Environmental Justice program at Lawyers for Good Government, called the termination of the EPA grants "unconstitutional" and said in a statement it was "not only destabilizing local projects addressing pollution, public health, and climate resilience," but also violates "core principles of administrative law and the separation of powers."
Her group joined EarthJustice, the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Public Rights Project to file the case on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Blanchard told CBS News she's never seen a class action lawsuit filed against the federal government over environmental funding issues. By bringing the class action case, the hope is to provide relief to the full class of eligible recipients, rather than forcing individual groups to seek pro bono legal assistance or spend their own limited budgets navigating their case through the court system.
Hadayia considers herself fortunate, since she hasn't needed to furlough staff after her funds were cut. But she hopes the lawsuit can reinstate the grant, so she can finish the work. She wants the same for the other 349 eligible class members of the suit, who also spent significant time applying for awards to support communities that are struggling to address environmental pollution and climate change impacts.
"It is the one-two punch of this administration to 'unleash American energy' by taking all of the roadblocks away," said Hadayia. "And at the same time, pulling out the resources from groups like mine whose mission is to advocate for the opposite, whose mission is to be the watchdog for those industries."
Hegseth slams Iran strikes initial assessment that contradicts Trump's take
Young Cuban girl asks Trump to lift travel ban stopping her from joining mom in U.S.
Full Interview: Abigail Spanberger on her run for Virginia governor
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
3 hours ago
- UPI
4 Costa Ricans sanctioned in U.S. drive targeting drug trafficking
Aug. 19 (UPI) -- The U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned four Costa Rican men and two entities for allegedly trafficking narcotics to the United States and money laundering as part of an effort to disrupt criminal cartels that have turned the Central American nation into a global cocaine hub. The sanctions, issued Monday against Celso Manuel Gamboa Sanchez, Edwin Danney Lopez Vega, Alejandro Antonio James Wilson and Alejandro Arias Monge under a Biden-era executive order, followed a joint investigation involving the Drug Enforcement Agency in the United States and Costa Rica and Costa Rican authorities. Gamboa and Lopez are in prison awaiting extradition to the United States after Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves Robles enacted a constitutional amendment in May permitting the extradition of Costa Rican nationals accused of drug trafficking and terrorism. Authorities allege former vice-minister for public security Gamboa was a major drug trafficker in Costa Rica, facilitating the shipment of cocaine worth tens of millions of dollars from Colombia through Costa Rica to the United States and Europe. Gamboa allegedly abused his position to gather intel about ongoing counternarcotics investigations and sold it to those being targeted. Lopez was allegedly an associate of Gamboa who helped him launder drug money and was the only known source of supply for Arias, Costa Rica's most wanted fugitive. Aria is accused of drug trafficking, robberies, and homicides throughout the country's eastern Limon province, with a $500,000 State Department bounty for information leading to his arrest or conviction. Gamboa and Lopez face 10 years to life imprisonment in a federal jail if convicted. The Treasury alleges James was engaged in drug trafficking and, working with Gamboa, paid off corrupt police and port officials in order to smuggle Colombian cocaine to the United States and Europe via Costa Rica's Moin container terminal. Also sanctioned were a front company owned by Gamboa and Limon Black Star Football Club, allegedly used by Gamboa to launder money. Treasury said that as a key cocaine transshipment hub, Costa Rica had become an "increasingly significant waypoint" for criminal groups trafficking cocaine into the United States, where cocaine was responsible for 22,000 overdose deaths in the 12 months to October. "Drug cartels are poisoning Americans and making our communities more dangerous by trafficking cocaine, often laced with fentanyl, into the United States," said Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence John K. Hurley. "The sanctions target key drug smugglers involved in transporting drugs into the United States. Treasury, in close coordination with U.S. law enforcement and our Costa Rican partners, will continue to use all available tools to disrupt narcotrafficking organizations that threaten the safety of Americans." Costa Rica was seeing rising rates of organized crime-fueled violence resulting from gangs vying for control of drug trafficking routes and turf, with 2024 was the second-most violent year on record, Treasury said, with 2025 on track for similarly grim statistics. Much of the violence is centered on the eastern Limon region, which recorded the highest homicide rate in the country in 2024, rising dramatically in the six years since the Moin port opened, as criminal groups battle for control of the terminal in order to smuggle cocaine out of the country aboard departing container ships. The sanctions freeze all wholly or majority-owned U.S. property and interests in property of individuals and businesses, or those held or controlled by Americans, which must be reported to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Financial institutions or any person are also banned from granting any financial assistance or providing or receiving funds, goods, or services from the four men or the two entities, while foreign financial institutions that process any significant transaction on their behalf run the risk of OFAC secondary sanctions.
Time Magazine
4 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Admin Expands ‘Good Moral Character' Test to Become U.S. Citizen
The Trump Administration is introducing more stringent criteria for assessing 'good moral character' in U.S. citizenship applications. The policy, issued in a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) memo on Friday, directs the agency to conduct a more comprehensive and 'holistic' assessment of applicants' 'good moral character,' including by accounting for applicants' 'positive attributes and not simply the absence of misconduct.' 'U.S. citizenship is the gold standard of citizenship—it should only be offered to the world's best of the best,' USCIS chief spokesperson Matthew Tragesser said in a statement to news outlets. 'USCIS is adding a new element to the naturalization process that ensures America's newest citizens not only embrace America's culture, history, and language but who also demonstrate Good Moral Character.' It's the latest move by the Trump Administration to restrict immigration to the U.S. by some, while expanding it to others. On his first day in office, President Donald Trump sought to effectively end birthright citizenship—which has resulted in ongoing litigation across the country. Trump has also attempted to bar international students from the nation's top university, restrict Chinese international students, and increase scrutiny of student visa applicants' social media accounts. The Administration has also deployed troops to help with immigration enforcement, detained and deported tens of thousands of people including some legally in the U.S., terminated Biden-era programs for asylum seekers, detained visitors to the U.S., revived a travel ban for dozens of nations, and raised visa fees for tourists and other travelers to the U.S.. At the same time, he's introduced a 'Trump Card' paid path to citizenship and accepted white South Africans as refugees while shutting out refugees more broadly. This latest change might ring alarm bells for critics who have raised concerns about the Trump Administration appearing to inject more subjectivity and political bias into U.S. immigration. Stanford University's student newspaper filed a lawsuit against the Administration last week alleging that the targeting for immigration action of non-citizens who have expressed pro-Palestinian views, including those lawfully in the U.S, is stifling free speech. The American Association of University Professors is also suing Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the Administration's alleged 'ideological deportation policy.' 'Anyone who has any position that is against what the American government says they should think, they're immediately [labeled] 'anti-American,'' David Rozas, an immigration attorney who represented Alireza Doroudi, an Iranian student who was detained for weeks and ultimately chose to self-deport, told TIME in May. 'They're trying to increase the grounds for denial of U.S. citizenship by kind of torturing the definition of good moral character to encompass extremely harmless behavior,' Doug Rand, a former senior USCIS official who worked under the Biden Administration, told CBS. Redefining 'good moral character' The 'good moral character' has long been satisfied by the absence of certain criminal offenses or disqualifying conduct. These include 'permanent bars' like murders, aggravated felonies, and genocide, as well as 'conditional bars' like having multiple convictions of driving under the influence, for which an applicant must show that they have rehabilitated themselves. Evaluating 'good moral character' will now involve 'more than a cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing,' according to the memo. Instead, an applicant must demonstrate that their character is 'commensurate with the standards of average citizens of the community in which the alien resides.' Officers are instructed to take a 'holistic approach' and consider positive attributes such as: sustained community involvement and contributions in the U.S.; family caregiving and ties in the U.S.; educational attainment; stable and legal employment history and achievements; length of lawful residence in the U.S.; and compliance with tax obligations in the U.S. USCIS officers are also instructed to consider disqualifying applicants on the basis of not just the permanent and conditional bars but also 'Any other acts that are contrary to the average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction where aliens reside,' even if those acts are 'technically lawful.' The memo also places more emphasis on applicants' demonstration of rehabilitation if they have 'engaged in wrongdoing,' such as by showing full payment of overdue taxes or compliance with court orders. 'In assessing conditional bars,' the memo reads, 'officers have authority—and now explicit directive—to weigh all relevant evidence, both adverse and favorable, before granting or denying naturalization.' Test impacts naturalization applicants The test is typically taken by green card holders who seek naturalized American citizenship after residing in the U.S. for at least 3 or 5 years. In addition to showing 'good moral character,' applicants must pass English and civics tests. Between 600,000 and 1 million immigrants have been naturalized as citizens every year since 2015, according to USCIS. Around 25 million people in the U.S. are naturalized citizens, accounting for more than half of all foreign-born people in the U.S. in 2023. Trump could also use the policy change to denaturalize U.S. citizens, which he has threatened to do to his former ally, tech billionaire Elon Musk, as well as New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. A Justice Department memo in June instructed the department's civil division to 'prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.' The law allows for naturalized citizens to be denaturalized if they are found to have violated their eligibility conditions, which include being of 'good moral character.'
CNBC
8 hours ago
- CNBC
Trump administration weighs 10% stake in Intel via Chip Act grants, making government top shareholder
The Trump administration is discussing taking a 10% stake in Intel, according to a Bloomberg report on Tuesday, in a deal that could see the U.S. government become the chipmaker's largest stakeholder. As part of a potential deal, the government is also considering converting some or all of Intel's grants from the 2022 U.S. CHIPS and Science Act into equity in the company, the report said, citing a White House official and other people familiar with the matter. At the embattled chipmaker's current market value, a 10% stake would be worth roughly $10.4 billion. Meanwhile, Intel has been awarded about $10.9 billion in Chips Act grants, including $7.9 billion for commercial manufacturing and $3 billion for national security projects. The report noted, however, that it remains unclear if the idea has gained traction broadly within the administration or whether officials have broached the possibility with affected companies. It added that the exact size of the stake remains in flux, and it remains unclear whether the White House will actually proceed with the plan. Intel and the White House did not immediately respond to CNBC's queries regarding the report. Intel, once a dominant force in the U.S. chip industry, has fallen behind global competitors in advanced chip manufacturing. Reviving the former U.S. chip champion has become a national priority in Washington, with reports about a potential government stake in the company first circulating last week. The company has been the largest recipient of the 2022 Chips Act, passed with bipartisan support under the Biden administration, as part of efforts by Washington to revitalize U.S. leadership in semiconductor manufacturing. The bill allocated $39 billion in grants for American semiconductor manufacturing projects, with funding committed to many of the world's chipmakers such as TSMC and Samsung, as well as American chip companies such as Nvidia, Micron and GlobalFoundries. U.S. President Donald Trump, though supporting the general goals of the Chips Act, has been a vocal critic of the bill and even called for its repeal earlier this year. While republican lawmakers in Washington have been reluctant to act on that call, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in June that the administration was renegotiating some of the bill's grants. If Intel's Chip Act funds were to be converted into a potential government stake in the company, it could decrease the total amount of capital infused into the company as part of any deal by Washington. However, it would serve as the latest example of the Trump administration's interest in building government-backed national champions in strategic industries. Intel has struggled to gain an advantage in the artificial intelligence boom and has yet to capture a significant customer for its manufacturing business despite spending heavily on it. Some analysts have argued that government intervention is essential for the struggling chipmaker and for the sake of U.S. national security. Others contend that Intel's problems are deeper than funding, and it is not clear how the government can help with that. Analysts have also noted that Trump may be able to sway companies to buy Intel chips or assist indirectly, through tariffs and regulation. On Tuesday, it was announced that SoftBank was investing $2 billion in Intel. According to LSEG, the investment is worth about 2% of Intel, making SoftBank the fifth-biggest shareholder. Masayoshi Son, Chairman & CEO of SoftBank Group, said: "This strategic investment reflects our belief that advanced semiconductor manufacturing and supply will further expand in the United States, with Intel playing a critical role." Intel investors had initially welcomed news of the government investment, which resulted in a share rally of nearly 9% on Aug. 14. Shares of Intel fell over 3% on Monday on the Bloomberg report, but rebounded by more than 5% in overnight trading on the trading platform Robinhood following news of a Softbank investment. Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, who was appointed in March 2025, met with Trump at the White House last week, after the U.S. president had called for his ousting due to his past ties to China. After the meeting, Trump had changed his tune on the Intel chief, saying he had "an amazing story." It's unclear if a potential government stake in the company had been discussed at the time. Read the full Bloomberg story here.
