EWG
Twitter
USDA’s climate webpage purge breaks laws and hurts farmers, lawsuit alleges
By Shannon Kelleher and Carey Gillam
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) broke the law when it purged government websites of climate-related information and disabled access to key datasets, making it hard for farmers to access information on climate adaptation strategies and financial assistance, according to a lawsuit filed Monday by a coalition of advocacy groups.
The “vital resources” were stripped from various USDA websites on Jan.30, shortly after President Donald Trump took office, erasing public access to information about climate-smart agriculture, forest conservation, climate change adaptation, investment in clean energy projects and other “essential information about USDA programs and policies,” the lawsuit alleges.
The case against the agency was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group.
The plaintiffs allege that the USDA broke the law by not providing legally required notice before removing the webpages, violating the Freedom of Information Act, and by not giving “reasoned decision-making” to the harm caused to farmers and others by the removal of the information.
The USDA did not respond to a request for comment, instead referring questions to the US Department of Justice, which declined to comment.
The lawsuit comes amid a flurry of actions taken by the Trump administration in the last few weeks to overhaul federal agencies and rollback or otherwise reverse many moves made by the Biden administration, including Biden-era policies aimed at mitigating harmful climate change.
States move to cement PFAS protections amid fears of federal rollbacks
By Shannon Kelleher
Concerns are growing about the fate of a Biden-era rule to limit toxic PFAS chemicals in drinking water, with some states moving to introduce laws that would lock in place PFAS protections that could survive any potential rollback by the Trump Administration.
California introduced legislation on Wednesday that would direct the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt regulations at least as protective as those in the federal rule. If California’s bill passes, it will require state regulators to set new regulations by January 1, 2026 that would mirror the Biden Administration rule that set a limit on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water.
The legislation specifically calls for adopting the requirements in place on a federal level as of the day prior to President Donald Trump’s January 20th inauguration.
“We think there’s a case here for folks to act with urgency given the developments in Washington, given the threat to public health and public safety that these chemicals pose,” Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-CA), who introduced the bill, said on a February 19 press call. “We are going to do this so we can protect our communities irrespective of what happens at the federal level.”
Lawmakers in multiple other states are making similar moves, including in Pennsylvania, Maine and Connecticut.
“It’s not unreasonable to be concerned that there would be a rollback of these policies here,” said Steve Hvozdovich, Pennsylvania Campaigns Director for the group Clean Water Action. “I think the quicker we can move the better.”
“Out of time” – Short film documents tragic saga of pesticide-poisoned Nebraska town
For decades, Mead, Nebraska, was a peaceful rural town—until toxins generated by the area ethanol plant poisoned Mead’s land, water, and air. Farm to Fuel, a short documentary, builds on investigative reporting by The New Lede, co-published with The Guardian, which exposed how the plant’s reckless disposal of pesticide-laced waste created an environmental disaster. At the heart of the crisis are neonicotinoid pesticides, still widely used across the US despite mounting evidence of their harm.
TNL’s Alex Hinton traveled to Mead, Nebraska, where he met with farmer Stan Kaiser and his family, who shared their story of environmental devastation, previously reported by The New Lede. Hinton spoke with Dr. Judy Wu-Smart of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, whose groundbreaking research has been crucial in exposing the dangers of neonicotinoid pesticides, and former State Sen. Carol Blood, who has been leading the fight for stronger regulations to prevent tragedies like this from happening again.
Mead’s fight for justice is far from over. Despite the plant’s shutdown, its toxic legacy lingers, raising urgent questions about corporate negligence, environmental responsibility, and the safety of rural communities across America.
It’s not just RFK Jr — Opposition to fluoride in drinking water grows
By Douglas Main
Opposition to the US practice of adding fluoride to drinking water supplies has been growing as more evidence accumulates linking fluoride exposure to potential harmful brain impacts in children. Now, the future of the practice could be in doubt, with Thursday’s confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Kennedy, an environmental health lawyer, has been calling for an end to fluoridation in public drinking water for years. And though it is the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that has regulatory oversight of fluoride levels in water supplies, the HHS plays a role in policy by publishing recommendations for fluoridation that many states follow.
An HHS task force currently recommends fluoridation based on “strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing tooth decay.”
But that could change. In his new role, Kennedy is widely expected to push for guidance against fluoridation.
Since Kennedy posted on X on November 2, 2024, that Donald Trump would end fluoridation if elected, it opened a floodgate of attention to the issue, said Chris Neurath, science research director with the anti-fluoridation group Fluoride Action Network.
That, combined with a high profile recent court case that ordered the EPA to re-evaluate the safety of fluoridation, and accumulating evidence of harm, have all caused a “snowball effect” of attention, according to Neurath.
“This elevation of the issue into the mainstream really is unique in the last 80 years,” Neurath said. Though evidence of harm keeps growing, he said, “the facts haven’t really changed — but the awareness of them has.”