Trump offers regulatory relief for coal, iron ore and chemical industries
The proclamations allow the facilities to comply with Environmental Protection Agency standards that were in place before rules imposed in recent years by President Joe Biden's administration, the White House said. Trump called the Biden-era rules expensive and, in some cases, unattainable. His actions will ensure that critical industries can continue to operate uninterrupted to support national security without incurring substantial costs, the White House said in a fact sheet. Trump's EPA had earlier exempted dozens of coal-fired plants from air-pollution rules for the same reasons. The EPA also offered other industrial polluters a chance for exemptions from requirements to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic, and benzene.
An electronic mailbox set up by the EPA allowed regulated companies to request a presidential exemption under the Clean Air Act to a host of Biden-era rules. Environmental groups denounced the offer to grant exemptions, calling the new email address a 'polluters portal' that could allow hundreds of companies to evade laws meant to protect the environment and public health. Mercury exposure can cause brain damage, especially in children. Fetuses are vulnerable to birth defects via exposure in a mother's womb. Within weeks of the EPA's offer, industry groups representing hundreds of chemical and petrochemical manufacturers began seeking the blanket exemptions from federal pollution requirements.
The Clean Air Act enables the president to temporarily exempt industrial sites from new rules if the technology required to meet them is not widely available and if the continued activity is in the interest of national security. In April, the EPA granted nearly 70 coal-fired power plants a two-year exemption from federal requirements to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals. A list posted on the agency's website lists 47 power providers–which operate at least 66 coal-fired plants–that are receiving exemptions from the Biden-era rules. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans in March to roll back dozens of key environmental rules on everything from clean air to clean water and climate change. Zeldin called the planned rollbacks the most consequential day of deregulation in American history. An Associated Press examination of the proposed rollbacks concluded that rules targeted by the EPA could prevent an estimated 30000 deaths and save 275 billion each year they are in effect. The AP review included the agency's own prior assessments as well as a wide range of other research.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
11 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Ex-NYPD commissioner accuses NYC mayor of 'character assassination' in $10 million defamation claim
New York City's former interim police commissioner has filed a $10 million defamation claim against Mayor Eric Adams for reportedly suggesting he was mentally unfit for the job of top cop. The filing comes less than a week after the ex-commissioner, Thomas Donlon, sued Adams and his top deputies, accusing them of operating the department as a criminal racket that rewarded unqualified loyalists and punished whistleblowers. Donlon said he was sidelined for trying to clean up the corruption. After that lawsuit was filed, Adams privately told members of a nonprofit business advocacy group at a meeting that he'd fired Donlon, 71, from his brief stint as commissioner last fall because he was rapidly deteriorating mentally, according to attendees. Donlon cited news reports about those comments in his legal claim. The department's former top spokesperson, Tarik Sheppard, who was also named in Donlon's lawsuit, told reporters that his former boss was 'going through some cognitive issues and believed there was this conspiracy against him.' 'Their comments amounted to a defamatory public character assassination intended to weaponize mental health to silence a whistleblower,' Donlon's attorney, John Scola, said Monday. Donlon, a former FBI official, was appointed by Adams in September to lead a department reeling from overlapping federal investigations and high-level resignations. He was replaced by the current commissioner, Jessica Tisch, in November. During his short tenure, federal authorities searched Donlon's home for decades-old documents that he said were unrelated to his work at the department. He has not been publicly accused of wrongdoing in connection with that search. In his short time as commissioner, Donlon said he uncovered systemic corruption by members of the mayor's inner circle, including a scheme to reward unqualified loyalists with lucrative promotions in exchange for political favors. In his lawsuit, Donlon accused Sheppard of misappropriating the commissioner's rubber stamp signature to give himself a raise, then threatening to kill Donlon when confronted about it. Sheppard, who left the department in May, has denied that allegation. Inquiries to City Hall about the defamation claim were not immediately returned. In a statement last week, a spokesperson for Adams, Kayla Mamelak Altus, described Donlon's claims as 'absurd.' 'These are baseless accusations from a disgruntled former employee who – when given the opportunity to lead the greatest police department in the world – proved himself to be ineffective,' she said. The defamation claim adds to a recent spate of litigation brought by police officials against Adams, focusing scrutiny on his leadership as he seeks re-election on a platform emphasizing managerial competence and public safety. Earlier this month, four high-ranking former NYPD officials brought separate lawsuits accusing Adams and his deputies of allowing rampant corruption and cronyism within the police department. In response to those suits, a spokesperson for Adams said the administration holds all city employees – including leadership at the NYPD – to the highest standards.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Over 5.2 million pools sold across the U.S. and Canada are under recall after reports of nine deaths
More than 5.2 million aboveground swimming pools sold across the US and Canada over the last two decades are being recalled after nine drowning deaths were reported. The recall covers a range of Bestway, Intex Recreation, and Polygroup pools that were sold by major retailers as far back as 2002. According to Monday notices published by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, these pools have compression straps running along the outside of the product – which may create a foothold for small children and allow them to access the water unattended. That can pose a serious drowning risk, the safety regulators warn. To date, the CPSC believes nine children across the US have drowned after gaining access to these now-recalled pools in this way. Those deaths occurred between 2007 and 2022, involving children between the ages of 22 months and 3 years old. No additional fatalities have been reported in Canada. Consumers in possession of these pools are urged to immediately contact Bestway, Intex, and/or Polygroup to receive a free repair kit – which will consist of a rope to replace the compression strap. Owners of these pools should otherwise ensure that small children cannot access the pool without supervision, regulators note – and could alternatively drain the pool until the repair is made. All of the pools being recalled are 48 inches or taller – and can be identified by brand and model names listed on both the CPSC and Health Canada's recall notices. Sales of the pools ranged by model and location but date as far back as 2002 and as recently as 2025. About 5 million of these now-recalled pools were sold across the US – including both online and in-stores at major retailers like Walmart, Target, Lowes, Costco, and Amazon. Another 266,000 were sold in Canada.
Al Arabiya
7 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Harvard Is Hoping Court Rules Trump Administration's $2.6b Research Cuts Were Illegal
Harvard University will appear in federal court Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6 billion from the storied college – a pivotal moment in its battle against the federal government. If US District Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. 'This case involves the Government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard,' the university said in its complaint. 'All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.' A second lawsuit over the cuts, filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter, has been consolidated with the university's. Harvard's lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics, and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Harvard President Alan Garber pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue. The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later, the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism. The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism – a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.'
