Podcasts about environmental protection agency epa

This week, I discuss with Patricia Underwood, Ph.D., DABT, MBA, Chief Toxicologist, Principal Director – Chemical and Material Risk Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, and my colleague, Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., Director of Chemistry for B&C and The Acta Group (Acta®), our consulting affiliate, the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) recent Request for Information (RFI) on chemicals undergoing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review as part of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6 risk evaluation process. DOD has a significant need for certain chemicals but admittedly has no tracking system for upstream applications of chemicals to understand the implications of EPA's identification of high priority substances and risk evaluation of them under TSCA Section 6. Dr. Underwood and Dr. Engler discuss the recent RFI issued by DOD to provide this line of sight and they reflect upon the growing importance of supply chain transparency in DOD applications and in the private sector as a whole. Chemical and Material Risk Management Program (CMRMP) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Market Analysis ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2025 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound change and potential upheaval in the American governance landscape becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with deep ties to the Trump administration, aims to reshape the federal government in ways that are both sweeping and contentious.At the heart of Project 2025 is a vision to consolidate executive power, a concept often referred to as the "unitary executive theory." This theory, championed by figures like Kevin Roberts, the president of The Heritage Foundation, seeks to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. Roberts has been unequivocal about this goal, stating that all federal employees should answer directly to the president, a stance that reflects a broader effort to centralize power in the White House[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle or significantly alter several key federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, would be eliminated, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move is particularly alarming given the critical roles these agencies play in national security and disaster prevention, roles that were established in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The idea of reverting to a pre-9/11 era in terms of national security is, as described by critics, "irresponsible" and poses significant risks to public safety[2].The Department of Education is another target, with plans to eliminate it and transfer oversight of education and federal funding to the states. This change would not only decentralize education policy but also gut regulations that prohibit sex-based discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in schools. The implications are far-reaching, potentially undermining hard-won protections for marginalized students[2].The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also in the crosshairs, with proposals to eliminate many of its regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, and scientific integrity and risk information divisions. This would essentially give corporations and big businesses a free hand to pollute, endangering public health by compromising the air, water, and food quality[2].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would face a similar fate, with its responsibilities potentially shifted to the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation. This move would burden states and local governments with the costs of disaster preparedness and response, a shift that could be catastrophic in the face of natural disasters[2].Beyond the dismantling of agencies, Project 2025 also seeks to undermine the independence of various regulatory bodies. Independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are designed to operate without political interference, ensuring they can make decisions based on law and evidence rather than partisan politics. However, Project 2025 dismisses these agencies as "so-called independent agencies," aiming to bring them under direct presidential control and strip them of their autonomy[5].The project's advocates argue that this centralization of power is necessary to streamline government and ensure that all branches are aligned with the president's vision. However, critics see this as a dangerous erosion of the system of checks and balances that has been a cornerstone of American democracy. As one analysis from the Center for American Progress notes, "Project 2025 would destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances and create an imperial presidency," giving the president almost unlimited power to implement policies without oversight[5].The personal and ideological motivations behind these proposals are also worth examining. Kiron Skinner, who wrote the State Department chapter of Project 2025, has expressed a deep distrust of current State Department employees, whom she views as too left-wing. She advocates for replacing these employees with ideologically vetted leaders who would be more loyal to a conservative president. This approach to personnel management is not just about policy; it's about creating a government that is ideologically aligned with the president's vision, regardless of the consequences for institutional integrity[4].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a set of policy proposals but a fundamental challenge to the way America governs itself. The ACLU, for example, has outlined a comprehensive strategy to combat the civil rights and civil liberties challenges that a second Trump presidency, aligned with Project 2025, would present. This includes going to court to protect rights, working with Congress to enact policy solutions, collaborating with state lawmakers, and organizing community efforts to educate the public about their rights and the potential harms of Project 2025[1].Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025 hinges on several key milestones and decision points. The 2024 election will be pivotal, as it will determine whether the political landscape will be conducive to these sweeping changes. If the proponents of Project 2025 succeed in their electoral ambitions, the following years will likely see intense legal battles, legislative showdowns, and public mobilization efforts.As we navigate this complex and contentious landscape, it is crucial to remain vigilant and informed. Project 2025 is not just a policy initiative; it is a vision for a fundamentally different America, one where executive power is centralized and the traditional checks and balances are significantly diminished. Whether this vision becomes reality will depend on the actions of policymakers, the judiciary, and the American public in the days and years to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and controversy envelops me. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is nothing short of a revolutionary blueprint aimed at reshaping the federal government of the United States.At its core, Project 2025 advocates for an expansive interpretation of presidential power, often referred to as the unitary executive theory. This concept centralizes greater control over the government in the White House, a vision that has been gaining traction since the Reagan administration. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this ideology: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[2]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to eliminate the independence of several critical federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for direct presidential control. This move is part of a broader strategy to consolidate executive power, a plan that has been bolstered by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society[2].The State Department is another focal point, with Project 2025 recommending the dismissal of all employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, believes that most current employees are too left-wing and should be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not provide any examples[2].The scope of Project 2025 extends far beyond these administrative changes, however. It proposes the elimination of entire agencies that have been cornerstone institutions in American governance. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, would be dismantled, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move is seen as a significant step backward in national security efforts, as DHS and TSA have played crucial roles in coordinating national security and preventing terrorist attacks[3].The Department of Education is another agency on the chopping block, with oversight of education and federal funding set to be handed over to the states. This shift not only undermines federal standards but also jeopardizes regulations against sex-based discrimination, gender identity discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination in schools[3].Environmental protection is also under threat. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would see the elimination of its regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, and scientific integrity and risk information divisions. This would essentially give corporations and big businesses a free rein to pollute, endangering public health and the environment[3].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is slated for elimination as well, with its responsibilities potentially being absorbed by the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation. This change would shift the costs of disaster preparedness and response to states and local governments, a move that could leave many communities vulnerable during crises[3].The Consumer Financial Protection Board, USAID, and other agencies have already been targeted by the Trump administration, which has been executing Project 2025's blueprint in a manner described as chaotic and legally questionable. Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been at the forefront of these changes, aiming to save $1 trillion through the elimination of agencies and the layoffs of tens of thousands of federal workers. To date, this has impacted 280,253 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies[5].As I reflect on the sheer ambition and scope of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a set of policy proposals but a fundamental redefinition of American governance. The stated goals of efficiency and centralized control are juxtaposed against concerns of accountability, public safety, and the erosion of civil service independence.In the words of critics, Project 2025 represents a "devastating" set of consequences for workers, public health, and national security. The AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees) warns that these changes are "not only irresponsible but also puts all of us at risk"[3].As we approach the milestones outlined in Project 2025, the nation stands at a critical juncture. The upcoming months will see continued implementation of these policies, with significant decision points looming. Will the consolidation of executive power enhance governance, or will it undermine the checks and balances that have long defined American democracy? The answers to these questions will shape the future of the federal government and the lives of millions of Americans.In this journey through the complexities of Project 2025, one thing is certain: the path ahead is fraught with both promise and peril, and the choices made now will have lasting impacts on the fabric of American society.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests trees and native species as a viable method to reduce flooding (while also removing harmful pollutants in water at the same time).  Julia Klee of Spoke Pockette Farm, built a pocket forest in her yard. A pocket forest is a densely planted collection of trees and shrubs; they have a host of benefits, including carbon sequestering and runoff reduction. Klee spoke with Illinois Latino News contributor, Britton Struthers.  

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published its latest projections for the 2030 climate targets and it's bad news for Ireland.The Irish State has the worst emissions per capita in Europe – projections show our greenhouse gas emissions will fall by just 23 per cent by 2030, compared to our original national target of 51 per cent, according to EPA data published on Wednesday.The latest figures indicate none of the State's biggest emitting sectors – transport, agriculture and electricity – will meet their climate commitments. In most sectors, emissions continue to rise or are going down only marginally.The cost of missing these targets is obvious – extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and disruptive. And countries who fail to meet these commitments must pay huge fines.What can Ireland do between now and 2030 to reduce emissions? And how much will Ireland pay if it fails to meet these legally-binding targets?Irish Times environment and science correspondent Kevin O'Sullivan discusses the implications of Ireland's failure to meet climate targets. Presented by Sorcha Pollak. Produced by John Casey. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

374 Water CEO Chris Gannon joined Steve Darling from Proactive to discuss the company's latest business milestones and the growing market impact of its groundbreaking AirSCWO™ (Air-Supercritical Water Oxidation) technology. As environmental regulations tighten and the urgency to address toxic “forever chemicals” like PFAS intensifies, 374Water is emerging as a leader in advanced waste destruction solutions that eliminate hazardous organic contaminants completely. “Our technology eradicates it completely, so it doesn't exist anymore,” Gannon told Proactive, referring to AirSCWO's unmatched ability to destroy complex contaminants such as long-chain PFAS compounds, which have proven resistant to conventional treatment methods. These persistent chemicals, commonly found in industrial waste and firefighting foams, are linked to serious health and environmental issues, making effective disposal solutions a global priority. Gannon announced that 374Water has secured a contract with the State of North Carolina to process Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) — a PFAS-laden firefighting material that is being phased out nationwide. This agreement marks a significant validation of the company's proprietary technology and highlights the increasing demand for scalable, reliable destruction methods as regulators crack down on hazardous waste. In addition to the North Carolina contract, Gannon revealed a strategic partnership with a RCRA-permitted TSDF (Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility) operator to establish the company's first dedicated waste destruction site. This facility will serve as a critical hub for demonstrating AirSCWO's industrial-scale capabilities and will help accelerate adoption across broader markets. Gannon emphasized that AirSCWO technology is technology-agnostic and modular, making it highly adaptable across a wide range of waste streams — from sludge and biosolids to concentrated industrial liquids. Current deployments are already underway in states like Florida and California, where 374Water is working with local governments and utilities to address critical wastewater treatment challenges. The company's momentum comes at a pivotal time, as governments around the world impose stricter limits on PFAS and other emerging contaminants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, has recently introduced enforceable drinking water standards for several PFAS compounds, creating a surge in demand for reliable treatment solutions. #proactiveinvestors #374waterinc #nasdaq #scwo #wastewater #PFASDestruction #AirSCWO #WasteManagement #EnvironmentalTech #ForeverChemicals #CleanTech #WaterTreatment #EPARegulations #ToxicWasteSolutions

In today's episode continuing our eight-part series, we examine how nonprofits are effectively advocating for environmental justice. We'll analyze practical strategies for building awareness and securing advocacy funding while navigating the regulatory frameworks that govern nonprofit activism. Join us for a clear-eyed look at how organizations are making meaningful progress in environmental protection and climate action.    Attorneys for this episode   Tim Mooney  Quyen Tu  Susan Finkle Sourlis    Shownotes   Current Events / Executive Orders:  • Trump Administration Environmental Rollbacks  • Rescinded EPA's Environmental Justice Screening Tool (EJSCREEN)  • Repealed Biden-era executive orders on Justice40, climate equity, and cumulative impacts assessments  • Reinstated NEPA rules from 2019, reducing environmental review for pipelines, highways, and factories  • Revoked protections for sacred Indigenous lands (e.g., Bears Ears downsizing, drilling leases on Chaco Canyon perimeter)  • Impacts on Vulnerable Communities:  • Halted all EPA funding for community air monitoring programs in EJ-designated census tracts  • Suspended grants to community-based climate resilience projects  • Cut FEMA's BRIC (Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities) equity prioritization language  • Reopened refineries and power plants previously closed for Clean Air Act violations, especially in Black and Latino neighborhoods  • EPA DEI cuts:  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to cancel nearly 800 environmental justice grants, totaling over $1.5 billion, which were intended to support projects mitigating climate change impacts in vulnerable communities .  •  Additionally, the EPA is undergoing a reduction in force, affecting employees in its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, as part of a broader effort to realign the agency's mission    ·      Non-Lobbying Advocacy o   Nonpartisan Advocacy 101: 501(c)(3)s cannot support or oppose candidates for public office, but they can… o   Educate the public about issues of importance to your organization. §  Waterkeeper Alliance is holding EPA Admin Lee Zeldin accountable for cuts to PFAS research. o   Hold a rally §  Memphis Community Against Pollution rallied to celebrate a victory for clean water, while turning its attention to a clean air fight against an Elon Musk-owned company's proposed data center. o   Initiate or participate in litigation §  AFJ member Earthjustice has sued the Trump administration's improper withholding of IRA grant funds for projects that included Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grants to install solar panels on small farms. o   Fund Advocacy §  Meyer Memorial Trust funded  41 organizations with EJ awards totaling $6.9 million in 2024 with a focus on frontline and indigenous communities   ·      Lobbying o   501(c)(3) public charities are also allowed to use unrestricted funds to engage in some lobbying activities. o   Tax Code Lobbying 101: Public charities can lobby, but they are limited in how much lobbying they may engage in. §  Insubstantial part test vs. 501(h) expenditure test. §  Under either test, lobbying includes attempts to influence legislation at any level of government. §  Track your local, state, and federal lobbying, and stay within your lobbying limits. o   State/local level lobbyist registration and reporting requirements may also apply when engaging in legislative and executive branch advocacy. o   Ballot measure advocacy (direct lobbying) could also implicate state / local campaign finance and election laws. o   Lobbying wins §  Hawaii just passed a first-of-its-kind climate tax on short-term accommodations to fund defenses against climate change fueled disasters. Sierra Club of Hawaii has been actively lobbying on climate change legislation for years. §  Ballot measure wins (h/t The Nature Conservancy) ·      California: $10 billion climate bond that funds climate resilience, protecting clean drinking water and preventing catastrophic wildfires.  ·      Washington: An effort to roll back the state's Climate Commitment Act was defeated. The CCA provides millions for conservation, climate and wildfire funding, including funding for Tribal nations and at-risk communities. ·      Minnesota: Renewal of the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund for another 25 years. The fund will provide $2 billion ($80 million per year from state lottery proceeds) to protect water, land and wildlife across the state. Resources – ·      Earth & Equity: The Advocacy Playbook for Environmental Justice ·      Public Charities Can Lobby (Factsheet) ·      Practical Guidance: what your nonprofit needs to know about lobbying in your state ·      Investing in Change: A Funder's Guide to Supporting Advocacy ·      What is Advocacy? 2.0  

Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to regulate emissions that “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are considered pollutants under the Act, so whether they can be regulated depends on whether they endanger public health. The EPA issued the Endangerment Finding that greenhouse gas emissions cross this threshold in 2009. Any actual regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is issued by EPA separately, such as greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. On March 12th, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the EPA would be initiating “formal reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other relevant agencies.” Join us Friday, May 9th, from 11am – 12pm EST, as our panel of legal experts discusses the various questions surrounding the proposed revisions, such as preemption, cost revision, and how these changes would be implemented. Featuring: Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC Richard Belzer, Independent Consultant Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law (Moderator) Laura Stanley, Gibson Dunn, LLP

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound change and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to reshape the very fabric of American governance, and its implications are far-reaching and complex.At the heart of Project 2025 is a vision to centralize executive power, placing the entire federal government's executive branch under direct presidential control. This is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that has been gaining traction since the Reagan administration. As Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, puts it, "all federal employees should answer to the president," reflecting a desire to consolidate authority in the White House[5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle or significantly alter several key federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, would be eliminated, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. These agencies, created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, have been crucial in coordinating national security efforts and preventing terrorist attacks. The idea of reverting to a pre-9/11 era in terms of national security is not only seen as irresponsible but also perilous, as it would undermine the significant progress made in protecting the homeland[1].Another agency on the chopping block is the Department of Education. Under Project 2025, this department would be eliminated, with oversight of education and federal funding for education being handed over to the states. This move would also gut regulations that prohibit sex-based discrimination, discrimination based on gender identity, and sexual orientation in schools. The potential consequences for educational equity and civil rights are dire, as states may adopt varying and potentially discriminatory policies[1].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is also targeted for significant changes. Project 2025 proposes eliminating FEMA and transferring its responsibilities to either the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation, possibly in conjunction with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). This shift would place the burden of disaster preparedness and response on state and local governments, a move that could exacerbate the challenges faced during natural disasters and other emergencies[1].The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is another agency facing drastic cuts. The plan includes eliminating many of the EPA's regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, scientific integrity, and risk information. This would essentially give corporations and big businesses a free hand to pollute the air, water, and food, posing a significant threat to public health[1].The expansion of presidential powers is a recurring theme in Project 2025. The initiative seeks to eliminate the independence of agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This centralization of power is based on a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which has been supported by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation[5].In the realm of foreign policy, Project 2025 advocates for a purge of leadership roles within the Department of State. All employees in these roles would be dismissed before January 20, 2025, to be replaced by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, has expressed her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced with those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, Skinner admitted she could not name any specific examples[5].The potential implications of these changes are vast and multifaceted. Experts warn that such a concentration of power in the executive branch could lead to a significant erosion of checks and balances, a cornerstone of American democracy. The dismantling of critical agencies and the decentralization of their functions to states or private entities could result in a patchwork of policies that lack consistency and effectiveness.As we move forward, the first 100 days of President Trump's second term have already seen many of these plans being rolled out. The coming months will be crucial in determining the full extent of these changes and how they will be implemented. The re-election of President Trump has set the stage for a dramatic reshaping of the federal government, and it remains to be seen how these reforms will impact the daily lives of Americans and the broader health of the nation's governance[4].In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in how the U.S. federal government operates, with far-reaching consequences for national security, education, disaster response, environmental protection, and the balance of power within the executive branch. As these proposals continue to unfold, it is imperative to monitor their implementation closely and consider the long-term implications for American governance and society as a whole. The future of these reforms will be shaped by the ongoing interplay between political will, public opinion, and the resilience of the institutions being targeted for change.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations and aligned with the vision of a strong, centralized executive power, aims to reshape the very fabric of American governance.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to consolidate control over the entire executive branch under the direct authority of the White House. This vision is championed by figures like Kevin Roberts, who advocates for all federal employees to answer directly to the president, a stance that reflects a significant shift from the traditional checks and balances of the U.S. system[5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle or significantly alter several key federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, would be eliminated, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. These agencies, created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, have been crucial in coordinating national security efforts and preventing terrorist attacks. The idea of reverting to a pre-9/11 era in terms of national security is not only seen as irresponsible but also fraught with risk, as it would undermine the robust security measures put in place over the past two decades[2].The Department of Education is another target, with plans to eliminate it and transfer oversight of education and federal funding to the states. This move would not only decentralize education policy but also gut regulations that prohibit sex-based discrimination, discrimination based on gender identity, and sexual orientation in schools. This change could have far-reaching implications for the rights and protections of students across the country[2].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would also face significant changes, with proposals to eliminate it and shift its responsibilities to either the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation, potentially combined with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The costs of disaster preparedness and response would be shifted to states and local governments, a move that could strain local resources and compromise the nation's ability to respond to natural disasters effectively[2].The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is another agency on the chopping block, with plans to eliminate many of its regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, and scientific integrity and risk information divisions. This would essentially give corporations and big businesses a free hand to pollute the air, water, and food, posing a significant threat to public health[2].The project's proponents argue that these changes are necessary to streamline government operations and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies. However, critics see these moves as a dangerous erosion of essential public services and regulatory protections. Kiron Skinner, who wrote the State Department chapter of Project 2025, exemplifies this ideological stance, suggesting that many State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced with ideologically vetted leaders loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, Skinner admitted she could not name any, highlighting the ideological rather than practical basis of these proposed changes[5].The expansion of presidential powers is a central theme of Project 2025. The plan seeks to eliminate the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, placing them under direct presidential control. This is part of a broader effort to centralize power in the White House, a move that has been supported by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation[5].As we move forward, the implications of Project 2025 are likely to be felt across various sectors of American society. The elimination of key agencies and the centralization of power could lead to a significant shift in how the federal government operates, potentially undermining the system of checks and balances that has been a cornerstone of U.S. democracy.In the coming months, as President Trump marks his first year in his second term, the rollout of these policies will be closely watched. The first 100 days have already seen several executive actions aligned with Project 2025's proposals, and the next milestones will be crucial in determining the full extent of these changes[3].As I reflect on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a profound reimagining of the U.S. federal government. Whether these changes will enhance efficiency and effectiveness or compromise essential public services and democratic principles remains to be seen. One thing is certain, however: the path ahead will be marked by significant challenges and transformations that will shape the future of American governance in ways both profound and far-reaching.

With all that's happened in the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, it's easy to miss big developments from various agencies. Therefore, today I'm going to give you a comprehensive update on what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been up to in the month of April.Views expressed in this episode are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, not just because of the far-reaching implications it holds for American governance, but also due to the sheer breadth of its ambitions. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, is nothing short of a blueprint for a radical transformation of the federal government, one that could reshape the very fabric of U.S. democracy.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "All federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle several critical federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, would be eliminated, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move is particularly alarming given the pivotal role these agencies have played in national security since their inception following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The idea of reverting to a pre-9/11 era of security measures is, as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) puts it, "not only irresponsible but also puts all of us at risk."[2]The Department of Education is another casualty of this plan, with oversight of education and federal funding being handed over to the states. This shift not only undermines federal standards but also jeopardizes protections against sex-based discrimination, gender identity, and sexual orientation in schools. The erosion of these safeguards could have devastating consequences for marginalized communities, leaving them vulnerable to discrimination and inequality[2].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is also on the chopping block, with its responsibilities potentially being absorbed by the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation. This change would shift the costs of disaster preparedness and response to states and local governments, a move that could exacerbate the already strained resources of these entities[2].The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faces significant cuts as well, with the elimination of regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, and scientific integrity. This would essentially give corporations a free pass to pollute, endangering public health by compromising the air, water, and food Americans rely on[2].Beyond these agency-specific changes, Project 2025 aims to dismantle the independence of various regulatory bodies. Agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are targeted for their quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles, which are designed to operate free from political interference. The project seeks to overrule the landmark Supreme Court case *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, which protected the independence of these agencies by allowing commissioners to be removed only "for cause." This would grant the president unprecedented power to remove commissioners at will, aligning these agencies more closely with the president's agenda[5].Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, exemplifies this ideological purge. She advocates for dismissing current State Department employees in leadership roles and replacing them with ideologically vetted appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. When questioned about instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not name a single example, highlighting the subjective nature of these proposed changes[4].The broader theme here is the erosion of checks and balances, a cornerstone of American democracy. By centralizing power in the White House and stripping independent agencies of their autonomy, Project 2025 threatens to create an "imperial presidency" where the president's authority is virtually unchecked. As the Center for American Progress notes, this would "destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances," allowing presidents to implement policies with little to no oversight[5].As we approach the critical year of 2025, the implications of this project become increasingly urgent. The next few months will be pivotal, with key decisions and milestones that could either halt or accelerate these radical reforms. The question on everyone's mind is: What will the future of American governance look like if Project 2025 comes to fruition?The answer, much like the project itself, is complex and multifaceted. However, one thing is clear: the stakes are high, and the consequences of inaction could be profound. As we navigate this uncertain landscape, it is imperative that we remain vigilant, ensuring that the democratic principles and institutional safeguards that have defined America for centuries are not sacrificed on the altar of ideological ambition.

Hosts: Adam Gardiner and Marty Carpenter  The focus for the first 100 days of President Trump's second administration has been on the economy and tariffs and leaked group chats about national security... but there are other things going on as well. Some of those things we aren't hearing as much about are coming from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the background of everything that's going on, the EPA has been working to clean up the air, lowering energy costs for Americans, and making the US one of the AI capitals of the world. Adam and Marty look at look at what the EPA has been doing over the past few months.

Hosts: Adam Gardiner and Marty Carpenter  Waltz nominated to be UN ambassador, Rubio steps in as interim advisor  President Donald Trump's national security advisor Michael Waltz is expected to step down. This comes after growing frustrations with Waltz after he added a reporter to a Signal chat with top Trump officials that discussed a US military strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen. Trump had repeatedly defended both Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following the Signal incidents. Marco Rubio will act as national security advisor and Waltz is now being nominated for United Nations Ambassador. Marty and Adam discuss how all this played out this morning and what’s next.    Is Donald Trump’s involvement in crypto ethical?  Donald Trump is hosting a special crypto related dinner on May 22. The event, which is black-tie optional and hosted at the president’s private club in the Washington area with a reception for the top 25 holders. A “VIP White House Tour” will take place the following day, the site says. The website also hosts an active leaderboard displaying the usernames of top buyers. Trump's involvement with crypto has drawn plenty of criticism due to his changing stance. It raises the question: should the president be involved in this? Adam and Marty break down how Trump became a player in in the crypto scene.    You need to be OK with having less  President Donald Trump addressed the first 100 days of his presidency yesterday as well as giving an update on the tariff situation with China. He said that factories are closing "all over China" because they are not doing business right now. And it seems like what the administration is saying, is that you need to be OK with less. The administration has continuously blamed previous administrations for the situation they're in right now. Marty and Adam talk about how they see this move by the Trump administration playing out.    The EPA has been busy  The focus for the first 100 days of President Trump's second administration has been on the economy and tariffs and leaked group chats about national security... but there are other things going on as well. Some of those things we aren't hearing as much about are coming from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the background of everything that's going on, the EPA has been working to clean up the air, lowering energy costs for Americans, and making the US one of the AI capitals of the world. Adam and Marty look at look at what the EPA has been doing over the past few months.    How do federal decisions affect us in Utah?  When Congress makes sweeping decisions about spending, debt, or entitlements, those choices don’t just stay in Washington. They ripple across the country—and often land in very real, very local ways here in Utah. The Gardner Institute has released a new series of reports showing how deeply Utah is connected to the federal government—from Medicaid to public lands to defense, housing, and more. Natalie Gochnour, Director, Kem C. Gardener Policy Institute, joins Marty and Adam to discuss the impact these federal decisions are having right here in Utah.    How does government intervention affect Utah businesses?  Government intervention in business is always a sensitive subject. It’s hard to find the balancing point between what’s too much... and too little. Troy Keller, Office of Regulatory Relief, joins Adam and Marty to discuss what happens when the government intervenes too little... or too much. They talk about how government regulation is impacting Utah businesses.    Utah is becoming a “trend-setter” on a national scale  Florida is following Utah's lead by banning the addition of fluoride to public drinking water. Utah was the first state to ban fluoridation of public water during its 2025 legislative session. Is Utah becoming more relevant on the national political stage? Marty and Adam take a look at what Utah has done over the past few years to become a “trend-setter” nationally.    Politicians are getting more creative with their outreach  Senator Elissa Slotkin (Michigan) was invited to play Call of Duty Black Ops 6 with young constituents last week. Let's just say that it was a steep learning curve from Pac-Man. This isn't the first time we've seen unconventional methods to try and relate with younger voters. Adam and Marty discuss some of the things they’ve seen politicians doing to humanize themselves and be more relatable to voters.   

Story at-a-glance Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a full ban on trichloroethylene (TCE) in December 2024, corporate lobbying and political efforts are now trying to overturn it and keep the chemical in use TCE contaminates air, water, and soil near industrial sites, dry cleaners, and military bases, posing serious risks to families, workers, and vulnerable communities across the country Independent researchers and studies conducted by the EPA confirm that TCE raises the risk of cancer, organ damage, and heart defects in babies; it's also one of the most potent triggers of Parkinson's disease Legal challenges and executive orders have stalled the ban's implementation, leaving workers unprotected and prolonging unsafe exposure in industrial and commercial settings A landmark scientific review reveals that TCE disrupts energy production in your brain cells, triggering long-term inflammation and causing neuron death in the exact region linked to Parkinson's, underscoring the urgent need to reduce exposure

Join Haynes Boone Environmental Law Partners Clarissa Mills and Mary Mendoza as they recap the first 100+ days of environmental policy and enforcement under President Donald Trump in his second term. In this episode, they discuss the rapid pace of changes at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin, including executive actions, rulemaking processes and shifts in priorities. Clarissa and Mary speak with Communications Manager William Joy to provide insights into the impacts on businesses, the role of NGOs and state enforcement and the subtle yet significant adjustments flying under the radar. Listen in to understand what these changes mean for business leaders and the environment.

In this powerful episode of The One Dream Podcast, Leah Wilson is joined by Michael Connett, a seasoned attorney specializing in toxic tort law, and Scott Kiley, Associate Director of Local Advocacy at Stand for Health Freedom. Together, they shine a light on one of the most overlooked and controversial public health policies of our time: water fluoridation. Michael Connett shares firsthand insights from his recent landmark legal victory against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which a federal court deemed fluoridation of public water an “unreasonable risk” to children's health. This is a groundbreaking step in holding regulatory agencies accountable and protecting families from harmful substances in the water supply. Scott Kiley adds a powerful perspective from the ground level - explaining how local communities are organizing, educating, and pushing back through legislation and grassroots advocacy to ensure informed consent in matters of public health. Topics Covered:

This Episode is Sponsored by: RSM US LLP It's tariff time, and companies the world over are working to better understand how their operations will be impacted. Jodi Ader from RSM US LLP joined The Food Institute Podcast to discuss which products and inputs are currently subject to tariffs, and how to best mitigate supply chain risks. More about Jodi Ader: Jodi Ader is an international tax senior manager with over 25 years of experience in international trade. She is well-positioned to assist corporations in planning and creating world-class compliance operations and food safety programs. She has substantial experience in import, export control and sanction matters, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. E-mail Jodi: jodi.ader [at] rsmus.com Find Jodi on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jodi-ader-ba05b23/ More about RSM US LLP: RSM US LLP, has a robust practice supporting food and beverage brands across worldwide with a wide range of audit, tax and consulting services. The clients we serve are the engine of commerce and economic growth, and we are focused on developing leading professionals and services to meet their evolving needs in today's ever-changing business environment. RSM US LLP is part of RSM International, a global network of independent firms with 64,000 people across 120 countries. For more information, visit https://rsmus.com/, or follow us on Twitter (https://twitter.com/rsmusllp) and/or connect with us on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/rsm-us-llp/).

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive policy initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a set of policy proposals – it is a radical blueprint for reshaping the very fabric of American governance.Project 2025 is the latest in a series of "Mandate for Leadership" documents, a tradition that began with Ronald Reagan's first presidential candidacy in 1981. This 920-page manifesto is the work of over 400 conservative scholars and aims to provide a detailed policy agenda for a potential incoming Republican administration. The project's scope is vast, covering everything from education and environmental policies to media and technology regulations, and even the structure of federal agencies themselves.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its vision for education. The initiative calls for a significant reduction in the federal government's role in education, advocating for the closure of the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities to the states. This includes administering programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through the Department of Health and Human Services instead. The federal government, according to Project 2025, should be limited to a statistics-keeping role, with federal enforcement of civil rights in schools curtailed and transferred to the Department of Justice[1].The implications are profound. For instance, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas, would be allowed to expire. Public funds for education would be redirected as school vouchers, available even for private or religious schools, with no strings attached. This shift would likely exacerbate existing inequalities in education, as schools in disadvantaged areas would lose critical funding. Additionally, programs like the Head Start early education initiative, which serves over 1 million children, would be eliminated, a move criticized for lacking any evidence of the program's ineffectiveness[1][5].Environmental policies are another area where Project 2025 proposes sweeping changes. The initiative advocates for downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), closing its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reversing the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, a move that aligns with the project's broader skepticism towards climate change research. The project even suggests incentives for the public to challenge climatology research, reflecting a stark divergence from the scientific consensus on climate change[1].The project's stance on climate change is not isolated; it is part of a broader agenda to promote fossil fuels and undermine renewable energy initiatives. Project 2025 recommends preventing states from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions, relaxing restrictions on oil drilling, and encouraging Arctic drilling. These proposals are at odds with the views of many Republicans who acknowledge the importance of addressing climate change, highlighting a deep internal divide within the party[1].In the realm of media and technology, Project 2025's proposals are equally contentious. The initiative seeks to weaken the independence of public media by potentially revoking the broadcast licenses of channels critical of the administration. This could be achieved through an FCC controlled by the president, in conjunction with the DOJ and FTC, launching antitrust investigations into media companies that report negatively about the administration. This approach is seen as a threat to the First Amendment and the traditional role of the media as a check on executive power[2][4].The project also outlines significant reforms to federal agencies and emergency response mechanisms. For example, it proposes reforming FEMA's emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This includes ending preparedness grants for states and localities, a move that critics argue would leave these entities ill-prepared for disasters. Trump's recent actions, such as establishing a review council to advise on FEMA's capabilities, align with these proposals, suggesting a potential shift towards state-level disaster management[3].Project 2025's vision for the federal workforce is another critical aspect. The initiative recommends a hiring freeze and the reduction of the federal workforce, measures that have been attempted by previous administrations but with limited success. The project suggests a freeze on all top career-position hiring to prevent "burrowing-in" by outgoing political appointees, a tactic aimed at ensuring a loyal and aligned bureaucracy[3][4].The project's broader implications for American governance are far-reaching. Critics argue that Project 2025 is a blueprint for an authoritarian takeover, designed to dismantle the system of checks and balances and concentrate power in the executive branch. This would involve redefining personal autonomy and freedom, potentially harming marginalized communities and undermining democratic institutions. The project's proposals to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, restrict access to healthcare and education, and cut social safety nets further exacerbate these concerns[4].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it is clear that this initiative represents a fundamental challenge to the existing order of American governance. The project's backers see it as a necessary corrective to what they perceive as a bloated and overreaching federal government, while critics view it as a dangerous erosion of democratic norms and civil liberties.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's policies would depend on a variety of factors, including the outcome of future elections and the willingness of Congress to enact these proposals. However, the mere existence of this blueprint serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing debates about the role of government in American society. As the country navigates these complex issues, it is imperative that all stakeholders engage in a thoughtful and informed discussion about the future of American governance and the values that underpin it.In the words of Sarah E. Hunt, president of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, "The Inflation Reduction Act is crucial," and "Republicans need to engage in supporting good energy and climate policy." Such voices highlight the internal conflicts within the conservative movement and the need for a balanced approach to policy-making.As Project 2025 continues to shape the policy landscape, it remains to be seen how its proposals will be received and implemented. One thing is certain, however: the future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the choices made now will have lasting implications for generations to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive policy initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a set of recommendations – it's a blueprint for a radical transformation of the American government. This 900-page manifesto, designed to guide a potential conservative administration, outlines sweeping reforms that touch every facet of federal governance, from education and environmental policy to media regulation and disaster response.At its core, Project 2025 is about consolidating executive power and reshaping the federal government in a distinctly conservative image. One of the most striking aspects of this plan is its vision for education. The project advocates for the elimination of the Department of Education, transferring its responsibilities to the states and significantly reducing federal involvement in education policy. This includes ending federal funding for programs like Title I, which provides crucial support to schools in low-income areas, and dismantling the Head Start program that serves over a million children from low-income families[1][4][5].Roger Severino, a key figure associated with the project, has argued that Head Start does not provide value, though he has not provided evidence to support this claim. Instead, Project 2025 promotes school vouchers with no strings attached, even for private or religious schools, and cuts to funding for free school meals. This approach reflects a fundamental shift in how education is viewed – from a public good to a private one[1].The project's stance on education is just one part of a broader critique of what it terms "federal government overreach." In the realm of civil rights, Project 2025 proposes significant curtailments. It recommends ending federal investigations into schools for disparate impacts of disciplinary measures on the basis of race or ethnicity and transferring civil rights enforcement responsibilities from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice, where enforcement would be limited to litigation[1].This theme of reducing federal oversight extends to environmental policy as well. Project 2025 seeks to dismantle key components of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. It advocates for reversing the EPA's 2009 finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health, thereby preventing the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also supports increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about methane leaks, and aims to block the expansion of the national electrical grid and the transition to renewable energy[1].The project's climate policy is particularly contentious, with even some Republican climate advocates disagreeing with its stance. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change and has called Project 2025's approach "wrongheaded"[1].In addition to these policy proposals, Project 2025 also outlines a vision for media and technology policies. It suggests increasing agency accountability at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) while reducing what it deems "wasteful spending." The project promotes national security and economic prosperity through measures like expanding 5G connectivity and requiring Big Tech companies to contribute to the Universal Service Fund. However, critics argue that these recommendations could endanger democratic institutions and concentrate presidential power[2].The project's impact on disaster response is another area of concern. It proposes reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This includes ending preparedness grants for states and localities, a move that aligns with Trump's recent suggestions to leave disaster response management to the states[3].Project 2025 also delves into the realm of public health and social welfare. It advocates for withdrawing from the World Health Organization, a move Trump has already made and then reversed during his previous administration. The project criticizes the WHO's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and suggests that the U.S. should be prepared to take drastic measures against international organizations that act contrary to U.S. interests[3].The economic and social implications of these proposals are far-reaching. Project 2025 suggests cutting overtime protections for 4.3 million workers, limiting access to food assistance for over 40 million people, and restricting safety nets for farmers. It also proposes eliminating funding for key public transportation projects and consolidating or eliminating programs like the Economic Development Administration (EDA), which has invested billions in transformative infrastructure projects[5].Critics, including Democrats and some independent experts, have been vocal about the dangers of Project 2025. They argue that its recommendations could dismantle civil liberties, concentrate presidential power, and endanger democratic institutions. James Singer, a spokesperson for the Biden campaign, has likened the project to an attempt to make Trump a "tyrannical king" at the expense of American democracy[4].Despite Trump's public distancing from the project, there is significant overlap between his policies and those outlined in Project 2025. The Heritage Foundation emphasizes that while the project does not speak for any candidate, it is ultimately up to the president to decide which recommendations to implement. This ambiguity has led to a heated political debate, with Democrats using Project 2025 as a rallying cry against Trump's potential second term[4].As the 2025 presidential term approaches, Project 2025 stands as a pivotal document that could shape the future of American governance. Its proposals are not just policy recommendations but a vision for a fundamentally different role of the federal government in American life. Whether these changes will come to fruition remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in the political landscape, one that will be closely watched and fiercely debated in the months to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive and contentious initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a fundamentally transformed American governance.Project 2025 is the culmination of efforts by over 400 scholars and conservative groups, led by former Trump administration officials Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien. This 900-page manifesto outlines a sweeping overhaul of federal policies, aiming to reshape the government in line with conservative principles. The project is structured around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a playbook for actions to be taken within the first 180 days of a new administration[2][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to education. The initiative criticizes what it terms "woke propaganda" in public schools and advocates for a significant reduction in the federal government's role in education. This includes closing the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities to the states. Programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Center for Education Statistics would become part of the Census Bureau. The federal government, according to Project 2025, should merely keep statistics, rather than enforcing civil rights in schools or investigating disparate impacts of disciplinary measures on racial or ethnic grounds[1].The project also proposes drastic changes in education funding. It suggests allowing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expire, which would remove $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools. This shift is part of a broader philosophy that views education as a private rather than a public good[1].In the realm of environmental policy, Project 2025's vision is equally radical. It seeks to downsize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), close the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reverse the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also advocates for blocking the expansion of the national electrical grid, stymying the transition to renewable energy, and relaxing regulations on the fossil fuel industry. For instance, it suggests removing restrictions on oil drilling imposed by the Bureau of Land Management and promoting Arctic drilling[1].The implications of these environmental policies are far-reaching. Nonpartisan experts warn that without expanding the electrical grid, renewable energy projects will have to slow down. Additionally, the project's stance on climate change mitigation is at odds with many Republicans who acknowledge the importance of addressing climate change. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has criticized Project 2025's climate policies as "wrongheaded" and noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change[1].Project 2025 also targets other federal agencies and programs. It proposes reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This move is justified by the argument that FEMA is "overtasked" and "overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response." The project further suggests ending preparedness grants for states and localities, arguing that these grants should be terminated to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from "handing out federal tax dollars"[3].In the area of technology and media, Project 2025's recommendations are equally sweeping. It calls for increasing agency accountability while decreasing wasteful spending at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The project also advocates for promoting national security and economic prosperity by supporting the expansion of 5G networks and satellite technologies like StarLink. Additionally, it suggests that Big Tech companies should contribute to the Universal Service Fund, which is currently funded through telephone bills[4].The project's approach to civil rights and social policies is another contentious area. It proposes rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies, arguing that these policies can violate federal civil rights laws. Project 2025 also aims to dismantle the DEI apparatus in various agencies and eliminate terms like "DEI," "abortion," and "gender equality" from federal rules and regulations. This stance aligns with Trump's executive order ending all DEI programs within the federal government, which he claimed could shut out Americans "who deserve a shot at the American dream" due to their race or sex[3].Critics of Project 2025, including Democrats and some Republicans, have been vocal about its potential impacts. Vice President Kamala Harris has described the project as a plan to "return America to a dark past," and President Biden has accused Trump of lying about his connections to the initiative, stating that it "should scare every single American"[2].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the initiative's connections to his administration are undeniable. Former high-ranking officials like Ben Carson, John Ratcliffe, and Peter Navarro are listed as authors or contributors to the policy agenda. This close association has led critics to argue that Project 2025 is essentially a blueprint for a second Trump term, one that could endanger democratic institutions and concentrate presidential power[2][4].As the 2024 elections approach, Project 2025 stands as a significant milestone in the debate over the future of American governance. Its proposals, if implemented, would mark a profound shift in federal policies, from education and environmental regulation to technology and civil rights. Whether these changes would be beneficial or detrimental remains a subject of intense debate.In the words of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, the nation is "in the process of the second American Revolution," which he hopes will remain bloodless. However, the radical nature of Project 2025's proposals has raised concerns among many that this revolution could come at a steep cost to democratic values and social welfare[2].As we move forward, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be decided in the political arena. Will its vision for a more conservative, decentralized government prevail, or will it face significant resistance from those who see it as a threat to the fabric of American society? The answer will depend on the choices made by voters, policymakers, and the next administration. One thing is certain, however: Project 2025 has set the stage for a critical conversation about the future of America, one that will shape the country's trajectory for years to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive and contentious initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a fundamentally transformed American governance.Project 2025 is the culmination of efforts by over 400 scholars and conservative groups, led by former Trump administration officials such as Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien. This 900-page manifesto outlines a sweeping overhaul of federal policies, aiming to reshape the government in line with conservative principles. The project is structured around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a playbook for actions to be taken within the first 180 days of a new administration[2][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to education. The initiative criticizes what it terms "woke propaganda" in public schools, advocating for a significant reduction in the federal government's role in education. This includes closing the Department of Education and transferring control over education funding and policy to the states. The proposal also suggests that programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, and that the National Center for Education Statistics become part of the Census Bureau. The federal government, according to Project 2025, should be limited to a statistics-keeping role in education, with federal enforcement of civil rights in schools curtailed and transferred to the Department of Justice[1].The implications of these changes are profound. For instance, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas, would be allowed to expire. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools. This shift could drastically alter the educational landscape, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities. As Roger Severino, a proponent of the project, has argued, the Head Start program, which serves over a million children from low-income families, does not provide value, although he has not provided evidence to support this claim[1].Project 2025's vision extends far beyond education. In the realm of environmental policy, the initiative is starkly at odds with current climate change mitigation efforts. It advocates for downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), closing the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reversing the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also supports the expansion of fossil fuel use, including Arctic drilling, and encourages allied nations to rely on fossil fuels. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks[1].These environmental proposals have been met with significant criticism. Republican climate advocates, such as Sarah E. Hunt and Benji Backer, have disagreed with Project 2025's climate policies, emphasizing the importance of supporting good energy and climate policy. Backer noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change, calling Project 2025's stance "wrongheaded"[1].The project's impact on federal agencies is another critical area of focus. Project 2025 recommends reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This aligns with Trump's past suggestions to leave disaster response management to the states, arguing that "that's what states are for, to take care of problems"[3].In addition, the initiative calls for the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies. Trump has echoed this sentiment, signing an executive order to end all DEI programs within the federal government, claiming they can violate federal civil rights laws. Project 2025 goes further, advocating for the deletion of terms like DEI, abortion, and gender equality from all federal rules and regulations[3].The project also targets the civil service and the bureaucracy of the "Administrative State." It proposes a hiring freeze for federal civilian employees and suggests preventing "burrowing-in" by outgoing political appointees. This is part of a broader strategy to reduce the size of the federal workforce and bring independent agencies under White House control[4].Critics of Project 2025 argue that its recommendations are not only radical but also risky, potentially endangering democratic institutions and civil liberties. The initiative's approach to data collection, for example, involves consolidating the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, which could significantly impact the independence and reliability of economic data[5].The economic implications are equally concerning. Project 2025 proposes eliminating funding for key public transportation projects, such as the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, which has been crucial for awarding federal grants to local communities for infrastructure projects. This could make it harder for Americans without cars to commute and travel, affecting their ability to work and maintain social connections[5].Moreover, the project aims to restrict safety nets for farmers, limiting assistance to 'unusual situations' despite the common challenges farmers face due to unpredictable weather and market conditions. This could disproportionately impact low-income farmers who rely on these safety nets to survive economic downturns[5].As we look ahead, it is clear that Project 2025 represents a significant turning point in American governance. The initiative's comprehensive and far-reaching proposals have the potential to reshape numerous aspects of federal policy, from education and environmental regulation to civil service and economic development.Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, the connections between his policies and those of Project 2025 are undeniable. As Democrats continue to criticize the initiative, calling it a "plan to return America to a dark past," the debate surrounding Project 2025 is likely to intensify in the coming months[2].As the 2025 presidential transition approaches, the implementation of Project 2025's policies will depend on the outcome of the election and the willingness of the next administration to adopt these radical changes. Whether these proposals will become the blueprint for a new era in American governance remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of American policy hangs in the balance.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation and backed by over 100 conservative organizations, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a policy agenda, but a comprehensive plan to reshape the very fabric of American governance.At its core, Project 2025 aims to dismantle what its proponents call the "administrative state," a term that encompasses the operations of federal agencies and programs. This vision is laid out in a 900-page document that outlines a radical transformation of the federal government, one that would concentrate executive power and align it with conservative principles.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to eliminate or significantly alter several key federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, would be dismantled, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move is particularly alarming given the critical role these agencies play in national security, especially since their creation in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As AFGE President Everett Kelley noted, "Bringing our country back to the pre-9/11 era is not only irresponsible but also puts all of us at risk."The Department of Education is another target, with plans to eliminate it and transfer oversight of education and federal funding to the states. This shift would not only reduce federal involvement in education but also curtail regulations against sex-based discrimination, gender identity, and sexual orientation in schools. The project's backers argue that education should be a private rather than a public good, a stance that could have profound implications for public schools and the millions of students they serve.The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is also on the chopping block, with proposals to shift disaster preparedness and response costs to states and local governments. This change is justified by the argument that FEMA is "overtasked" and "overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response." However, critics argue that such a shift would leave vulnerable communities without the necessary federal support during times of crisis.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would also face significant cuts, with the elimination of regional labs, enforcement and compliance offices, and scientific integrity divisions. This would essentially give corporations a free hand to pollute, endangering public health and the environment. As the AFGE Public Policy Director Jacque Simon pointed out, these changes would "endanger public health by giving corporations and big businesses a greenlight to pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat."Project 2025's impact on federal employees is equally daunting. The plan seeks to end collective bargaining for public-sector workers and reinstate Trump's executive orders that bust unions and direct agencies to renegotiate contracts to obtain stronger management rights. The reintroduction of Schedule F, which would reclassify career federal employees connected to federal policy, could politicize the civil service, allowing the administration to hire and fire based on political loyalty rather than merit. This could affect over 500,000 employees, stripping them of their work protections.The project's broader policy objectives are just as sweeping. It advocates for reducing taxes on corporations and capital gains, instituting a flat income tax, and cutting Medicare and Medicaid. It also proposes reversing many of President Joe Biden's policies, including those related to environmental regulations, which would favor fossil fuels over renewable energy. Research funded by taxpayer dollars would need to align with conservative principles, with climatology research receiving significantly less funding.In the realm of education, Project 2025 criticizes what it calls "woke propaganda" in public schools and proposes a significant reduction in the federal government's role in education. It suggests closing the Department of Education and elevating school choice and parental rights, with federal funds being redirected as school vouchers for private or religious schools. This approach would not only reduce federal funding for schools in low-income areas but also end programs like Head Start, which serves over 833,000 children living in poverty.The project's stance on labor rights is equally concerning. It would allow states to ban labor unions in the private sector, make it easier for corporations to fire workers engaging in collective action, and eliminate overtime protections and the federal minimum wage. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which has relieved many federal employees of their student debt burden, would also be ended.Critics of Project 2025 are vocal about its potential to undermine democratic institutions and civil liberties. Legal experts argue that it would concentrate presidential power, undermine the rule of law, and erode the separation of powers and the separation of church and state. AFGE President Everett Kelley succinctly captured the essence of these concerns: "Project 2025 will take away freedoms and rights from every American, will hurt the middle class and working families, and is a threat to our democracy."Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project during his campaign, many of his policies align closely with those outlined in Project 2025. Since his return to the White House, he has already taken steps that mirror the project's recommendations, such as ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs within the federal government and withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization.As the country moves forward, the implications of Project 2025 will become increasingly clear. With its comprehensive and radical proposals, this initiative represents a significant turning point in American governance. Whether it will succeed in reshaping the federal government according to its vision remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of American democracy hangs in the balance.In the coming months, as more of these policies are implemented, Americans will have to grapple with the consequences of such profound changes. The upcoming elections and the actions of the current administration will serve as critical decision points that will determine the extent to which Project 2025's vision becomes a reality. As we navigate this uncertain landscape, it is crucial to remain vigilant and informed, for the future of our governance and our rights depends on it.

Should a judge be able to interfere with our executive branch in matters of national security related to deporting criminals? Pam Bondi says deportation flights will continue… Who will win this battle? In another big story, the autopen has apparently been used to sign most of Biden's executive orders and other documents. Who was really running the government? And the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claws back $20 billion in climate project funds and begins important deregulation.

In this episode of the AgNet News Hour, hosts Lorrie Boyer and Nick Papagni discuss the impact of heavy rainfall on Central Valley agriculture, emphasizing the need for fungicide treatment and the challenges farmers face in accessing fields. Betty Resnick, an economist from the American Farm Bureau Federation, highlighted the US export deficit, noting a projected $49 billion deficit in 2025, with soybean and corn exports showing stagnation. She also discussed the potential of biofuels, particularly ethanol, which saw a 36% increase in exports in 2024. The conversation also touched on the difficulty of switching crops and the importance of sustainable aviation fuel and renewable energy in California's agricultural market. In segment two, Nick and Lorrie talk about Trump administration's changes to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), particularly the Waters of the US rule. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a new rule to align with the Supreme Court's Sackett decision, aiming to clarify jurisdiction over waterways and wetlands. The rule aims to reduce regulatory burden on farmers and property owners. The conversation also touched on the Trump administration's plans to rescind vehicle fuel efficiency standards. The show rounded out with a discussion of the potential deregulation of 31 environmental regulations, including climate-smart agriculture and electric vehicle mandates affecting California by 2031. A genetic mutation of bird flu was identified in four dairy cow herds in San Bernardino, California, raising concerns about mammal-to-mammal transmission and disease severity. Cooking meat to 165 degrees Fahrenheit inactivates viruses. The discussion also touched on the high cost of eggs and the recent decline in gas prices. Additionally, the show highlighted an upcoming citrus expo in Tampa, Florida, and the expansion of the citrus greening quarantine area in Orange County.

Shoot us a Text.We're only 10 episodes away from episode 1000 of this podcast, and today, we're covering the JD Power 2025 US Customer Service Index Study. Plus, we're looking at how the Trump administration is pushing back on emissions and fuel economy standards, and how Mr. Beast is profiting from something you might not expect.Show Notes with links:For the second straight year, dealership service departments have earned strong customer satisfaction ratings, according to the J.D. Power 2025 U.S. Customer Service Index Study. The study, conducted on owners of 1- to 3-year-old vehicles, ranked brands on a 1,000-point scale across five categories: service quality, service advisor, vehicle pickup, service facility, and service initiation.Luxury segment leaders: Porsche (912), Lexus (900), and Cadillac (888). Mass-market leaders: Subaru (896), Mini (888), and Honda (881).A generational trust gap emerged, with Baby Boomers scoring trust in service providers at 6.24 on a 7-point scale, while Gen Z rated it at just 5.77.12% of issues were not fixed correctly on the first visit— and only half of those customers returned to the same dealership, while 5% went to aftermarket service providers.EV service satisfaction lagged behind ICE vehicles, attributed to technician training gaps and inconsistent communication.Satisfaction rose when recall services were bundled with maintenance, jumping from 829 to 858 points when paired with an oil change.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking steps to reverse the Biden administration's ambitious vehicle emissions rules, which would have forced automakers to ramp up electric vehicle production.The EPA is reconsidering its 2024 emissions rules, which aimed to cut passenger vehicle tailpipe emissions by 50% by 2032—a regulation that had Ford's support.At the same time, the agency is reviewing a 2022 rule that reduced smog- and soot-forming emissions from heavy-duty trucks, citing concerns that it makes trucks more expensive.California's plan to ban new gasoline-only vehicle sales by 2035 was sent to Congress for review, but the GAO ruled it cannot be repealed.MrBeast may be the most-subscribed YouTuber in the world, but his biggest business isn't content—it's chocolate. His snack brand Feastables made $251 million in sales and $20 million in profit last year, while his main media ventures lost nearly $80 million.MrBeast's high-budget videos—costing up to $4 million each—are hard to recoup with just YouTube revenue.His commerce division, led by Feastables, is now the most profitable part of Beast Industries and is projected to triple in size by 2026.The company has raised over $450 million in funding and is seeking another $200 million, pushing its valuation past $5 billion.Investors are betting on consumer products, not viral content, with new snack brands, a cereal line, and a mobileHosts: Paul J Daly and Kyle MountsierGet the Daily Push Back email at https://www.asotu.com/ JOIN the conversation on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/asotu/ Read our most recent email at: https://www.asotu.com/media/push-back-email

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created to safeguard air and water quality, but has it gone too far in expanding its reach? In this episode of American Potential, host David From is joined by Jeremiah Mosteller, Policy Director for Americans for Prosperity, to expose how the EPA is using taxpayer dollars for programs that go far beyond its core mission. From $600 million in grants just to help groups apply for more funding, to $3 billion allocated for union jobs under the guise of environmental initiatives, the agency's spending raises serious concerns about efficiency and oversight. We also dive into the controversial Green Bank program, the burdensome bureaucracy causing some grant recipients to reject EPA funding altogether, and the duplication of spending across multiple agencies. With the goal of cutting $2 trillion in government waste, this episode highlights real solutions to rein in excessive spending. Plus, find out how you can submit your own ideas to help identify wasteful government programs. Tune in to uncover the truth about how your tax dollars are being spent!

Are the products you use every day poisoning you? In this episode of Super Life, Darin Olien dives into phthalates, a class of toxic chemicals found in food packaging, personal care products, medical devices, and even children's toys. Despite mounting evidence linking phthalates to hormone disruption, infertility, obesity, and chronic illness, these chemicals remain largely unregulated in the United States. Darin breaks down why phthalates are everywhere, how they impact your body, and what you can do to protect yourself. He also highlights Minnesota's groundbreaking SF 188 bill, which aims to force food manufacturers to test and disclose phthalate contamination for the first time in U.S. history. If you care about your health, your family, and the toxic load in your daily life, this is a must-listen episode that will make you rethink what you're consuming. Government Responsibility in the Spread of Phthalates Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics more flexible and durable. Since the mid-20th century, they've been incorporated into countless consumer goods, from food packaging to personal care products. This widespread use is largely due to regulatory inaction and the prioritization of industrial interests over public health. In the United States, agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been slow to regulate phthalates, despite mounting evidence linking them to serious health issues. These include endocrine disruption, reproductive harm, and chronic illnesses such as obesity and diabetes. Unlike Europe, which has banned certain phthalates in food packaging and children's products, the U.S. has often allowed industry self-regulation, leading to widespread contamination in consumer goods. The Industrial Agricultural Revolution and Processed Foods The post-World War II industrialization of food production significantly increased the use of phthalates. As food manufacturing scaled up, plastics became integral in packaging and processing equipment, leading to phthalate leaching into our food supply. Highly processed foods are particularly susceptible due to multiple points of plastic contact during production and storage. Studies have shown that individuals consuming more processed and fast foods have higher levels of phthalates in their bodies. Minnesota's Legislative Action: A Step Forward In January 2025, Minnesota State Senator Heather Gustafson introduced Senate File 188 (SF 188), a bill requiring food manufacturers to test their products for phthalates and publicly disclose the results. If passed, this legislation would be the first of its kind in the U.S., aiming to increase transparency and encourage manufacturers to reduce phthalate levels in their products. According to Senator Gustafson, "Minnesotans have the right to know whether the food they are eating and serving their families is contaminated with toxic phthalates. My bill will help consumers make healthier buying decisions and create a strong incentive for food manufacturers to get plastic chemicals out of our food."  advocacy.consumerreports.org Why This Matters This bill is crucial because it: Increases Transparency: For the first time, food companies would be required to test for and disclose phthalate levels, creating public awareness of the contamination problem. Encourages Stricter Regulations: Public disclosure could lead to consumer pressure for stronger nationwide bans and restrictions. Prioritizes Public Health: It challenges the longstanding prioritization of industry preferences over public health, acknowledging that chemical exposure is a public health crisis. Addresses Chronic Illness: With rising rates of metabolic disorders and hormone-related diseases linked to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like phthalates, holding manufacturers accountable is a step toward reversing this trend. Products Commonly Containing Phthalates and Associated Health Risks Phthalates are pervasive in many consumer products. Here's a breakdown of common sources and the potential health implications: Personal Care Products: Items such as nail polishes, hair sprays, aftershave lotions, cleansers, and shampoos often contain phthalates.  fda.gov Food Packaging and Processed Foods: Phthalates can leach into food from packaging materials and during processing. Diets high in dairy and meat have been associated with higher levels of phthalate exposure.  webmd.com Medical Devices: Some medical devices, including intravenous bags and tubing, contain phthalates to increase flexibility.  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Household Items: Products like vinyl flooring, shower curtains, and certain furniture may contain phthalates.  toxicfreefuture.org Children's Toys: Some toys, especially those made from flexible plastics, can contain phthalates.  toxicfreefuture.org   Health Risks Associated with Phthalate Exposure Phthalates are known endocrine disruptors, meaning they can interfere with the body's hormonal systems. Potential health effects include: Reproductive Issues: Exposure has been linked to reproductive problems, including reduced fertility.  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Developmental Problems: Prenatal exposure may lead to developmental issues in children.  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Respiratory Issues: There is evidence suggesting a link between phthalate exposure and respiratory problems, such as asthma.  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Metabolic Effects: Some studies have associated phthalate exposure with metabolic disorders, including insulin resistance and obesity.  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov   Steps to Reduce Phthalate Exposure To minimize exposure to phthalates: Choose Phthalate-Free Products: Opt for personal care items labeled as phthalate-free. Limit Processed Food Intake: Reducing consumption of processed foods can decrease phthalate exposure. Use Alternatives to Plastic: Whenever possible, choose glass, stainless steel, or other non-plastic materials for food storage and household items. Stay Informed: Regularly check resources like the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep database to find products free from harmful chemicals. How You Can Take Action While Minnesota is leading the way, collective action is essential to drive nationwide change. Here are steps you can take: Support the Bill: If you're in Minnesota, contact your state legislators to express support for SF 188. You can find more information and track the bill's progress here. Sign Petitions: Look for petitions advocating for the reduction of phthalates in consumer products and add your voice. Stay Informed: Follow organizations like Consumer Reports and Clean Water Action, which are actively involved in this issue. Reduce Personal Exposure: Limit consumption of highly processed foods, use glass or stainless steel for food storage, and avoid products with "fragrance" listed as an ingredient, as it can be a source of phthalates. Active Petition to Support Minnesota's SF 188 As of now, there isn't a specific petition available for Minnesota's SF 188 bill. However, you can take proactive steps to support this legislation: Contact Legislators: Reach out to Minnesota state legislators to express your support for SF 188. Personalized messages can be impactful. Stay Informed: Monitor the bill's progress through the Minnesota Revisor's Office website. Conclusion Minnesota's initiative is a significant step toward addressing the pervasive issue of phthalate contamination. However, true accountability requires federal-level bans, a shift toward non-toxic alternatives, and a rethinking of industrial food production. By staying informed and taking action, we can collectively push for a healthier future.   Bibliography Consumer Reports. "Minnesota Senator Gustafson introduces bill to protect consumers from toxic plastic chemicals in food." January 21, 2025.  advocacy.consumerreports.org Food Safety Magazine. "Bill Introduced in Minnesota to Require Phthalate Testing for Packaged Foods." January 21, 2025.  food-safety.com Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. "SF 188 as introduced - 94th Legislature (2025)."  revisor.mn.gov Food & Wine. "Minnesota Just Became the First State to Target Plastic Chemicals in Food." January 22, 2025.  foodandwine.com Thank you for joining us on "SuperLife with Darin Olien." Let's continue to strive for a healthier, more informed world.   Research Summaries: "Phthalates and Their Impacts on Human Health" Authors: Ying Wang, Hongjun Zhu, and Yanan Kannan Summary: This study discusses the widespread use of phthalates as endocrine disruptors and their detrimental effects on human health. It highlights that phthalates are present in numerous products that come into contact with plastics during production, packaging, or delivery.  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov "Critical Review on the Presence of Phthalates in Food and Evidence of Their Impact on Human Health" Authors: Giuseppe Latini, Valentina Del Vecchio, and Andrea Massaro Summary: This review examines the presence of phthalates in various foods and their potential health impacts, including their role in increasing the risk of developing allergies and asthma.  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov "Why Phthalates Should Be Restricted or Banned from Consumer Products" Authors: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Summary: This article discusses how phthalates can leach into food from vinyl plastic equipment and materials, emphasizing the need for restrictions or bans due to associated health risks.  hsph.harvard.edu "Phthalates and Diet: A Review of the Food Monitoring and Epidemiology Data" Authors: Rolf U. Halden Summary: This review highlights epidemiological studies showing positive associations between the consumption of meats, discretionary fats, and dairy products with increased phthalate exposure.  ehjournal.biomedcentral.com "Personal Care Product Use Patterns in Association with Phthalate and Bisphenol A Exposure" Authors: Jessica T. Barson, John D. Meeker, and Kelly K. Ferguson Summary: This study investigates the relationship between personal care product usage and exposure to phthalates and BPA, finding significant associations that suggest these products are notable sources of exposure.  nature.com "What Are Phthalates and How Do They Affect Your Health?" Authors: National Center for Health Research Summary: This article provides an overview of phthalates as synthetic chemicals used to make plastics flexible and to add fragrance to products, discussing their role as endocrine disruptors and potential health effects, especially in young children.  center4research.org   Bibliography: Wang, Y., Zhu, H., & Kannan, Y. (2021). Phthalates and Their Impacts on Human Health. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 1-8.  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Latini, G., Del Vecchio, V., & Massaro, A. (2020). Critical Review on the Presence of Phthalates in Food and Evidence of Their Impact on Human Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5655.  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (2019). Why Phthalates Should Be Restricted or Banned from Consumer Products.  hsph.harvard.edu Halden, R. U. (2014). Phthalates and Diet: A Review of the Food Monitoring and Epidemiology Data. Environmental Health, 13(1), 43.  ehjournal.biomedcentral.com Barson, J. T., Meeker, J. D., & Ferguson, K. K. (2023). Personal Care Product Use Patterns in Association with Phthalate and Bisphenol A Exposure. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 33(1), 45-54.  nature.com National Center for Health Research. (2021). What Are Phthalates and How Do They Affect Your Health?.  center4research.org       What You'll Learn in This Episode: (00:00:00) Introduction – The toxic truth hiding in your everyday products. (00:03:19) What Are Phthalates? – The chemicals making plastics flexible (and your health fragile). (00:04:24) How Phthalates Get into Your Body – Food, air, water, and even medical devices. (00:05:50) The Devastating Health Effects of Phthalates – Endocrine disruption, infertility, and metabolic disease. (00:07:45) Why the U.S. Fails to Regulate Phthalates – The FDA, EPA, and corporate influence. (00:10:14) Why Europe Banned Phthalates (and the U.S. Didn't) – A look at the regulatory failures. (00:12:38) The Connection Between Phthalates & Infertility – How they are lowering sperm counts and harming pregnancy. (00:15:10) Processed Foods & Fast Foods—A Phthalate Hotspot – Why eating out could be dosing you with toxins. (00:18:49) The Hidden Dangers in Medical Devices – Why even hospitals aren't safe. (00:21:20) Minnesota's Groundbreaking SF 188 Bill – Why this legislation could change everything. (00:24:30) How Phthalates Are Even in Your Children's Toys – The shocking reality parents need to know. (00:27:15) The Impact of Phthalates on Weight Gain & Diabetes – How they disrupt metabolism. (00:30:07) The Fight for Transparency in the Food Industry – What's being done to expose these chemicals. (00:33:12) How to Reduce Your Phthalate Exposure – Simple swaps to detox your home and body. (00:36:40) What You Can Do Today – Advocacy, petitions, and making informed choices. (00:40:12) The Call to Action – Why raising awareness is the key to change.     Thank You to Our Sponsors: Our Place: Toxic-free, durable cookware that supports healthy cooking. Use code DARIN for 10% off at fromourplace.com. Therasage: Go to www.therasage.com and use code DARIN at checkout for 15% off     Find More From Darin: Website: darinolien.com Instagram: @darinolien Book: Fatal Conveniences     Key Takeaway: "Phthalates are everywhere—but they don't have to be inside you. Awareness is power, and it's time to fight back against the toxic chemicals hiding in plain sight."

Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), joins the show to discuss his first couple of months in the new role, before he details some of the concerning revelations he's uncovered regarding the EPA's finances.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Who decides what the law means? If you thought it was Congress or the courts, President Donald Trump wants you to think again. Trump has signed an executive order declaring that only the president and attorney general have the final authority to interpret U.S. laws, restricting federal agencies from making independent legal determinations. The order, signed Tuesday, bars agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from issuing their own legal interpretations, significantly curbing their regulatory independence. The sweeping order, signed Tuesday, effectively erases decades of independence for agencies that oversee everything from consumer protections and environmental laws to Wall Street regulations. The move is part of a series of executive actions, including a memorandum ordering reports on government waste, fraud, and abuse, and another expanding in vitro fertilization (IVF) access. However, legal analysts say this particular order is the most consequential, as it centralizes legal authority under Trump and his appointed attorney general. Critics warn the order could serve as a backdoor mechanism for the administration to circumvent court rulings or weaken regulatory enforcement on issues such as consumer protections, environmental laws, and Wall Street oversight. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Radon is a radioactive gas that has no smell, colour or taste. Radon is produced from the natural radioactive decay of uranium, which is found in all rocks and soils. Radon can also be found in water. Radon escapes from the ground into the air, where it decays and produces further radioactive particles. Radon from soil gas is the main cause of radon problems. Sometimes radon enters the home through well water. In a small number of hones, the building materials can give off radon, too. However, building materials rarely cause radon problems by themselves. You can either hire a radon tester or purchase a radon test kit from a hardware store and do it yourself. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends hiring a qualified tester if you are buying or selling your home. A short-term radon testing kit measures radon for 2-90 days for quick results. Radon is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless, radioactive gas. It can seep into homes and other buildings. You're at higher risk for developing lung cancer if you breathe in high levels of radon gas over time (over 4pCi/L or 148 Bq/m3). Tests can measure radon in your home. Mitigation effectively lowers radon to acceptable levels. For most people, the most likely place you're at risk of being exposed to radon is in your home. The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 1 of every 15 American homes has radon levels above the recommended safety level. People who work in mines or caverns may also be at higher risk, depending on how many hours a day you're exposed to elevated radon levels. If you smoke and are also exposed to radon, it increases your risk even more. Radon levels are usually in higher in places that are: •Closer to the ground, such as basements or underground mines •Near soil that contains more radioactive metal •Poorly ventilated •Processing or storing certain products, such as phosphate fertilizers or uranium •Very tightly sealed •Very well-insulated You can also talk to your child's school about radon levels in school buildings and whether they've had testing. And the U.S. federal government has regulations about radon levels in workplaces. If you're concerned about radon levels where you work, talk to the company's safety officer, or contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Who will decide when EV trucking goes from being an option available to anyone to an enforceable mandate that everyone must comply with? That question is at the heart of this week's interview.  Kelly Barner had the opportunity to speak with Nebraska Attorney General Michael Hilgers. His state is on the front lines of a legal effort to ensure that if regulations end up driving the EV transition, that those regulations are properly established - undertaken by elected officials with a vested interest in the people of Nebraska and the dozens of states who have stepped up to support their challenges.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state of California, and heavy duty truck manufacturers are trying to usher in changes that will have wide-reaching impact. Will that impact be for the better or the worse, and do they have the right to proceed? Listen in for a highly engaging discussion at the intersection of the law and the supply chain: Why it is important to address the proprietary of regulations before they take effect Uncertainty caused by the current state of enforceable regulations in California The role that competition should play in a market where companies make independent decisions Links: AG Michael Hilgers on LinkedIn Kelly Barner on LinkedIn Art of Supply LinkedIn newsletter  Art of Supply on AOP Subscribe to This Week in Procurement  

(Conversation recorded on January 21st, 2025)   Many of us are familiar with the problem of plastics as a distant issue in the ocean, primarily affecting fish and sea turtles. While these environmental effects are critical, the full scope of plastic's repercussions on human health and well-being is largely unknown by most people, even as the research shows alarming – and growing – adverse effects. What do we need to know about this pervasive material and how it affects the human body?  Today, Nate is joined by environmental health researchers Leo Trasande and Linda Birnbaum, as well as environmental policy advocate Christina Dixon, to discuss the harmful effects of plastic on human health and the ongoing global policy efforts to regulate the plastic and petrochemical industries. Their conversation dives into the risks of frequent plastic exposure, paths toward a world with reduced plastics use, and what it might mean for the economy if we made – or did not make – significant changes to the ways we use plastic. How can we balance the requirement for essential plastics with the urgent need to reduce our production and consumption of these toxic materials? What further unknown health effects are still in need of research - especially in the case of thousands of untested chemicals used on the market? Lastly, what is the current state of regulation on plastic production and consumption, and how can everyday citizens play a role in shaping the future of the plastic industry?    About Leo Trasande: Dr. Leo Trasande is the Jim G. Hendrick MD Professor, Director of the Division of Environmental Pediatrics, and Vice Chair for Research in the Department of Pediatrics at NYU School of Medicine. He also serves on the faculty of the NYU Wagner School of Public Service and the NYU College of Global Public Health. Leo is an internationally renowned leader in environmental health. His research focuses on the impacts of chemicals on hormones in our bodies. He has also led the way in documenting the economic costs for policy makers of failing to prevent diseases of environmental origin proactively.   About Linda Birnbaum: Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S, was director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) from 2009 to 2019. As board certified toxicologist, Linda also served as a federal scientist for 40 years, including 19 years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where she directed the largest division focusing on environmental health research. Birnbaum is now a Special Volunteer at NIEHS and conducts research as part of the Mechanistic Toxicology Branch. In October 2010, she was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, one of the highest honors in the fields of medicine and health.    About Christina Dixon: Christina Dixon is a campaign leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) in the UK, using policy, advocacy, and corporate campaigning skills towards environmental issues. Christina currently leads the EIA's plastics treaty campaign, where she oversees a diverse and highly skilled team of legal, policy and campaigning experts combating plastic (over)production & pollution, waste trade, commercial whaling, illegal marine species trade, and bycatch.    Please note that, starting with this episode, Reality Roundtables will be released on Mondays going forward.   Show Notes and More Watch this video episode on YouTube   Want to learn the whole story of The Great Simplification? Watch our 30-minute Animated Movie.   ---   Support The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future Join our Substack newsletter Join our Discord channel and connect with other listeners  

Trump is back…but should stakeholders operating within the intersecting CPG categories of functional foods, functional beverages, and nutritional supplements be cheerful about his return to the oval office? This will certainly not sound like a “hot take” or anything, but the second Trump presidential term will undoubtedly offer a mixture of risk and reward…ushering in a new era of market volatility. As press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently pointed out, "there has never been a president who communicates with the American people as openly and authentically as Donald Trump.” But while I personally enjoy that operating model…it does create an economic environment that I recently described to an industry colleague as “best suited for master sailors.” And that's because the art of both the sailor (and businessperson) is to leave nothing to chance…but sailors are artists whose medium is the wind and today's businesspeople must be artists whose medium is correctly spotting Donald Trump's subtle hints that reveal upcoming events. Furthermore, I believe a key to potentially benefitting from the Trump 2.0 “driver of demand” requires understanding how to position against a few of his known (but converging) “the art of the deal” tendencies. And these would be (1) a little hyperbole never hurts, (2) confirm an impression they were already predisposed to believe, (3) never get too attached to one deal or one approach, and (4) sometimes your best decisions are the ones you don't make. Finally, it's extremely important to consider rate of speed and level of efficiency surrounding Trump 2.0 changes. Since this is a “been here, done that” kind of thing, Trump won't fumble through the initial phase of his term he will have a better understanding around bottlenecks and getting around chokepoints…including how to flex unilateral powers. Also, given that the House and Senate are Republican majorities (at least for the next two years), that political trifecta usually creates efficiency and makes for stickier policy changes. But the inspiration behind my latest first principles thinking content piece (or I guess content miniseries) was a Trump 2.0 section titled “rhetoric foreshadowing action is greater than embellished negotiation tactics” that I included into many of functional CPG brand and supply side client presentations during the last quarter of 2024. And while each of those client presentations were packed with diverse personalized insights…I'm confident this “Trump 2.0” content miniseries, filled with a refined (and expanded) version of my generalized “base case” strategies, will be extremely valuable to my regular audience. So, just to set the stage…you can expect this “Trump 2.0” content miniseries to initially include four loosely titled parts; regulatory, global trade, financial, and commerce. And I figured part one of this Trump 2.0 content miniseries should be “regulatory,” mostly because there's arguably no more impactful leadership change to functional CPG stakeholders than with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cabinet position. And while I'll tackle several other regulatory agencies in this part, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the primary focus will be on potential effects from changes within the HHS health agencies (i.e. FDA) made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) and his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) principles.

【欢迎订阅】每天早上5:30，准时更新。【阅读原文】标题:The clean-up after the LA fires is already revealing tensionsWhen a city burns, how does recovery even begin?正文：A hazmat team sifts through piles of ash on their hands and knees, slowly, methodically. They poke and prod mounds of debris with a shovel. They were tasked by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to examine what is left of Altadena, a neighbourhood destroyed by the fires that razed parts of Los Angeles County last month. The crew wears jumpsuits and gas masks while they look for pesticides, paint cans and propane tanks—anything toxic or prone to explode. They avoid walking near chimneys, which are often the only things left standing on incinerated lots. They could topple over at any minute. To the north, the charred mountains loom.知识点：Hazmat n. [ˈhæzmæt]Dangerous substances; hazardous material 危险品e.g. hazmat shipments 危险品运输获取外刊的完整原文以及精讲笔记，请关注微信公众号「早安英文」，回复“外刊”即可。更多有意思的英语干货等着你！【节目介绍】《早安英文-每日外刊精读》，带你精读最新外刊，了解国际最热事件：分析语法结构，拆解长难句，最接地气的翻译，还有重点词汇讲解。所有选题均来自于《经济学人》《纽约时报》《华尔街日报》《华盛顿邮报》《大西洋月刊》《科学杂志》《国家地理》等国际一线外刊。【适合谁听】1、关注时事热点新闻，想要学习最新最潮流英文表达的英文学习者2、任何想通过地道英文提高听、说、读、写能力的英文学习者3、想快速掌握表达，有出国学习和旅游计划的英语爱好者4、参加各类英语考试的应试者（如大学英语四六级、托福雅思、考研等）【你将获得】1、超过1000篇外刊精读课程，拓展丰富语言表达和文化背景2、逐词、逐句精确讲解，系统掌握英语词汇、听力、阅读和语法3、每期内附学习笔记，包含全文注释、长难句解析、疑难语法点等，帮助扫除阅读障碍。

This week, I sat down with Jim Aidala, Senior Government Affairs Consultant at B&C and its consulting affiliate, The Acta Group (Acta®), to discuss the early days of the new Administration, what changes we can expect at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) generally, and key issues the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) can be expected to tackle. Jim's unique perspective as a former Assistant Administrator of what is now called the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and keen understanding of the pesticide world always make for a wonderful and insightful conversation. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2025 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The [WEF][CB] are continuing to push their agenda in the EU. This will fail, just like the covid passports. Trump is cleaning out the EPA, there goes the green agenda. China fights back against Trump tariffs, big fail, Trump and the US have the leverage. The calls of ending the Fed are getting louder. The [DS] is now preparing for riots, using antifa and the illegals. Stephen Miller reminds the people that the insurrection can be used. 10th military division in position. Ops have begun. It is being report that Trump is attending the Super Bowl. Sum of All Fears. The fun begins right after the Super Bowl. Panic In DC.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1886741427276730770 Trump's EPA Housecleaning Begins: 1,000 Bureaucrats Get Termination Notices Through Email The swamp is being drained once again. The Trump administration has sent shockwaves through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by notifying over 1,000 employees that they are on the chopping block, marking a decisive step in dismantling bloated government agencies notorious for regulatory overreach. EPA employees who have been with the agency for less than a year received an email last week notifying them that they could be dismissed immediately, according to NBC News citing sources familiar with the matter. These employees, who are still on their “probationary” status, were bluntly informed that their tenure could end without delay at the administration's discretion. Source: thegatewaypundit.com  https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1886646042139017378    resources to stop the flow of fentanyl. Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are, and will be, working on protecting the Border. In addition, Canada is making new commitments to appoint a Fentanyl Czar, we will list cartels as terrorists, ensure 24/7 eyes on the Border, launch a Canada-U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering. I have also signed a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl, and we will be backing it with $200 million.” As President, it is my responsibility to ensure the safety of ALL Americans, and I am doing just that. I am very pleased with this initial outcome, and the Tariffs announced on Saturday will be paused for a 30 day period to see whether or not a final Economic deal with Canada can be structured. FAIRNESS FOR ALL! https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1886658930186559735   tariff (marked 2) on all imported U.S. coal and liquefied gas and a 10% tariff (marked 1) on U.S. crude oil, agricultural machinery, and large vehicles and trucks. https://twitter.com/DefenseBulletin/status/1886693709905059897 Big Panda Announces Retaliatory Tariffs – Mostly, In Name Only – It's all Propaganda Never was that reality clearer, than in the example of the retaliatory tariffs announced in response to President Trump's trade tariffs. First, tariffs on energy products are pure propaganda.  Coal, LNG and crude oil are fungible. In the case of China the energy products arrive from a global market, there is no identifiable way to tariff American energy products.  This is not like Canada where the Candian energy products are entirely dependent on pipelines into the USA, and therefore unavoidably easy to tariff by Trump. Chairman Xi gets most of the Chinese imported energy resources from Russia, specifically Coal, LNG and Crude Oil.  So, this subset of tariffs against American energy products is pure propaganda,

SwRI researchers used the machine-learning tool Highlight™ to evaluate dozens of consumer products for chemicals, and the potential for human exposure. They looked at clothing, upholstery, fabrics, rubber and plastics samples and subjected them to various heat settings and solvents. They determined what chemicals were present and whether they could be emitted or extracted with normal use. Researchers identified both chemicals known to be harmful to human health and safe chemicals in the household products. The collaborative study with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was published in the Environmental Science & Technology Journal. Listen now as SwRI analytical chemist Dr. Kristin Favela and chemical engineer William Watson discuss how the study will advance the field of exposomics, the type of products that tested as most risky and the SwRI software tool that illuminated the data.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: 5:05pm- On Thursday, Interior Secretary nominee Doug Burgum testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee where he described how the incoming Trump Administration will assure American energy dominance. Meanwhile, Lee Zeldin—nominated to serve as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator—told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that China is an adversary and isn't necessarily the best nation to partner with regarding “clean energy.” 5:15pm- During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent emphasized that the United States may be in an energy race with China—but it's completely false to suggest China prioritizes clean energy. During one notable exchange, Bessent used statistics to destroy Sen. Michael Bennet's claim that the 2017 Trump Administration tax cuts only benefited the wealthy. 5:30pm- While speaking with Politico, Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) said Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard has not done enough to win his vote. The Wall Street Journal reports that Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) is also skeptical of Gabbard. However, Democrat Jon Ossoff, of Georgia, is open to voting “yes.”

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (01/16/2025): 3:05pm- On Wednesday night, President Joe Biden delivered a farewell address from the Oval Office where he warned Americans of a developing “oligarchy” within big tech—claiming that Meta and X are allowing for the dissemination of disinformation by not actively censoring speech. Biden cited President Dwight Eisenhower's famous warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex and explained that big tech presented a similar, modern-day challenge to Americans. 3:15- While appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended his decision to end censorship on Facebook, citing previous editorial errors and a desire to restore free speech online. Zuckerberg revealed that the Biden Administration pressured his platforms to censor certain posts regarding COVID-19 vaccine side effects. While Rich is glad Zuckerberg and Meta are backing away from censorship, he refuses to believe the decision was made for anything other than political reasons. 3:20pm- Last week, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in TikTok, Inc. v. Garland—which will determine whether or not the federal government can ban an application owned by a foreign country designated as a foreign adversary. The potential ban could occur as soon as Sunday, January 19th. According to reports, Donald Trump—who will be sworn in on the 20th—is looking to save the app, potentially via an executive order or a partial sale of the company. Trump, according to The Washington Post, is also considering adopting “Project Texas” which would provide the U.S. government with a “kill switch” for TikTok should the app violate norms. 3:30pm- What president would you want to have a beer with? PLUS, have you ever heard audio of Lyndon Baines Johnson ordering a pair of slacks? 3:40pm- Speaking with The Washington Post, First Lady Jill Biden revealed that she was disappointed in Nancy Pelosi for her actions that led to Joe Biden being replaced as the Democrat Party's presidential nominee. She explained, “we were friends for 50-years.” 4:05pm- Jack Carr—#1 New York Times Best Selling Author of “The Terminal List”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth's Senate confirmation hearing. PLUS, Carr talks about his soon-to-be-released book: “Cry Havok.” 4:30pm- Justin Goodman—Senior Vice President of Advocacy and Public Policy for the White Coat Waste Project—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss a new article his organization co-authored with Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis, “Here's how Trump 2.0 can cut $20 billion in spending, wipe out Fauci's leftover bloat—and save animals.” Is the government using taxpayer dollars to fund experiments involving monkeys doing drugs and gambling??? You can read the article here: https://nypost.com/2025/01/16/us-news/how-donald-trump-can-cut-20-billion-in-spending-wipe-out-anthony-faucis-leftover-bloat-and-save-animals/ 5:05pm- On Thursday, Interior Secretary nominee Doug Burgum testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee where he described how the incoming Trump Administration will assure American energy dominance. Meanwhile, Lee Zeldin—nominated to serve as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator—told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that China is an adversary and isn't necessarily the best nation to partner with regarding “clean energy.” 5:15pm- During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent emphasized that the United States may be in an energy race with China—but it's completely false to suggest China prioritizes clean energy. During one notable exchange, Bessent used statistics to destroy Sen. Michael Bennet's claim that the 2017 Trump Administration tax cuts only benefited the wealthy. 5:30pm- While speaking with Politico, Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) said Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard has ...

Recognizing it has much to do and little time to complete its tasks, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has been issuing final rules at a fast and furious rate since the election last month. This week, I discuss OPPT's to-do list with my colleague, Dr. Richard E. Engler, Director of Chemistry for B&C and The Acta Group (Acta®), our consulting affiliate. In addition to multiple final Section 6 risk management rules, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also issued final revisions to its new chemicals review process and a Section 8(d) rule. We conclude with Rich's thoughts on OPPT in 2025. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

On this episode of the podcast, former Chief of Staff at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Mandy Gunasekara, talks about her time serving in the first Trump Administration and her bold insights on environmental policy. Gunasekara recounts her pivotal role in the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, exposing the economic pitfalls and the lack of accountability from major polluters like China and India.Gunasekara critiques the Biden Administration's environmental agenda, calling for a leaner, more effective EPA and advocating for the global adoption of U.S. pollution control technology. She also shares her perspective on the importance of private sector collaboration in government and the challenges faced by Trump officials navigating the ‘deep state' in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, Gunasekara discusses the reforms needed during the second term of Donald Trump's presidency and the critical need to push back against entrenched bureaucracies.You can follow Mandy on X (formerly Twitter) by searching: @MississippiMG and you can get her book “Y'all Fired” on Amazon.com today!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently finalized the Biden administration's new tax on methane emissions from oil and gas operations, raising important questions for royalty owners about potential impacts on their royalty payments in the form of additional post-production deductions.  And while this rule may get overturned by the GOP majority in the house, in the meantime operators may still need to report emissions for 2024. As always, links to the resources mentioned in this week's episode can be found in the show notes at mineralrightspodcast.com.

This week, I sat down with our two government affairs experts, Jim Aidala and Mark Washko, to get their take on the very eventful past two weeks and seek their thoughts on what 2025 might look like legislatively and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administratively. With the Republican trifecta and some surprising Cabinet and EPA-designate picks, we have much to discuss. We cover the election results, the transition period between now and Inauguration Day, and then speculate on the remainder of 2025, a year that promises to be like no other. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe farmers are pushing back, they know the [WEF] and installed politicians are trying to take their land, this will fail. Trump is going to reverse the EV policies and he is most likely going to restart the XL pipeline. Ron Paul points out that are troubles began in 1913 and Elon says he hit the target. The [DS] is now throwing everything they have at Trump's picks, the wrap up smear campaign is in full swing. The [DS] is pushing war very hard, the Ukraine people want peace not war. Matt Gaetz dropped out of the running to be the AG. Trump and Gaetz said they had a little secret. Every pick Trump makes is to push confusion, most of these individuals are probably not the real picks. Game theory.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy French Farmers Dump Manure and Block Roads in Latest Round of Protests Against Mercosur Trade Agreement and ‘Green' Failed Policies The tragic situation of the European farmers is a by-product of the EU elites' obsession with their ‘Net-zero' fantasies, leading them to impose a whole host of crippling, failed agricultural policies, making farming in Europe difficult and expensive. Of course, these same heartless elites are more than happy to turn around and negotiate a free-trade agreement with South American countries that have great, much cheaper agricultural produce since in Mercosur there is no equivalent ‘green' legislation. So now European farmers are on a war footing.   Farmers in southwestern France staged a blockade at the Port of Bordeaux today, demanding government action over unfair foreign competition. With the power of their tractors, they blocked all access roads to the a key grain terminal. No less than 82% of French citizens support farmers' strikes. All around France, farmers have dumped manure and blocked roads in their latest round of protests.     Source: thegatewaypundit.com Ford to Cut 4,000 Jobs in Europe by 2027  Ford is set to cut 4,000 jobs across Europe by the end of 2027, primarily affecting Germany and the UK, as part of restructuring efforts due to weak electric vehicle (EV) sales and economic challenges. This reduction represents about 14% of Ford's European workforce, with approximately 2,900 jobs to be eliminated in Germany and 800 in the UK. The decision is driven by significant losses and the transition to electrified mobility, hindered by consumer reluctance and the removal of government incentives, particularly in Germany.  Source: valuetainment.com  Trump Could Make Biden's EV Mandates Obsolete, Revamp Auto Industry With One Move The incoming Trump administration could potentially scale back President Joe Biden's regulatory agenda to electrify vehicles, bolster auto manufacturers around the country and drastically increase tariffs on imported vehicles, One potential change that could effectively make the Biden Administration's current gas-powered vehicle regulations obsolete would be to determine that regulatory agencies do not have the legal authority to push the electrification of vehicles. “The Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could make a determination that the EPA has no authority under the Clean Air Act to mandate – to force – the electrification of the U.S. automobile fleet,” Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the DCNF. “The Biden administration set greenhouse gas emission standards, which are really just de facto fuel economy standards,

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (11/19/2024): 3:05pm- Trump Announces Secretary of Commerce Pick. In a statement, Donald Trump announced: “I am thrilled to announce that Howard Lutnick, Chairman & CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, will join my Administration as the United States Secretary of Commerce. He will lead our Tariff and Trade agenda, with additional direct responsibility for the Office of the United States Trade Representative. In his role as Co-Chair of the Trump-Vance Transition Team, Howard has created the most sophisticated process and system to assist us in creating the greatest Administration America has ever seen.” 3:15pm- Last week, Donald Trump appointed Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) which will seek to find and eliminate wasteful spending practices throughout the federal government. During a segment of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart admitted that the 2024 election proved to be a repudiation of the bureaucratic system. 3:30pm- Daniel Turner—Founder and Executive Director of Power the Future—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to Donald Trump's cabinet picks including former Congressman Lee Zeldin's appointment as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To learn more about Power the Future, visit: https://x.com/DanielTurnerPTF 3:50pm- Gaetz Has Less Than Even Odds of Being Confirmed by Senate. Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan of The New York Times report: “The president-elect is taking a flood-the-zone approach to his cabinet nominations, betting that the Senate won't dare to turn them all down…In his private conversations over the past few days, President-elect Donald J. Trump has admitted that his besieged choice for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, has less than even odds of being confirmed by the Senate. But Mr. Trump has shown no sign of withdrawing the nomination, which speaks volumes about his mind-set as he staffs his second administration. He is making calls on Mr. Gaetz's behalf, and he remains confident that even if Mr. Gaetz does not make it, the standard for an acceptable candidate will have shifted so much that the Senate may simply approve his other nominees who have appalled much of Washington.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/politics/trump-cabinet.html 3:55pm- On Tuesday, FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell testified during a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing. In notable exchanges with Congressmen Scott Perry and Jeff Van Drew, Criswell was asked about reports that FEMA withheld vital hurricane relief aid from Trump supporters. 4:00pm- Trump Picks Administrator for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In a statement, Donald Trump announced: “I am very pleased to nominate Dr. Mehmet Oz to serve as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator. America is facing a Healthcare Crisis, and there may be no Physician more qualified and capable than Dr. Oz to Make America Healthy Again. He is an eminent Physician, Heart Surgeon, Inventor, and World-Class Communicator, who has been at the forefront of healthy living for decades. Dr. Oz will work closely with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to take on the illness industrial complex, and all the horrible chronic diseases left in its wake.” 4:10pm- Does Cory Booker Agree with RFK Jr.? In a video posted to social media, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) said he is “raising the alarm of the dangers of our current food system.” 4:20pm- Philly City Soda Tax: Where'd the Money Go? Journalist John Stossel investigated the Philadelphia soda tax—which politicians pledged would go towards funding public schools. However, less than half the money raised ultimately ended up in the school systems and the tax harmed local businesses. 4:40pm- Dr. EJ Antoni—Research Fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Donald Trump's tariff policy an ...

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: 3:05pm- Trump Announces Secretary of Commerce Pick. In a statement, Donald Trump announced: “I am thrilled to announce that Howard Lutnick, Chairman & CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, will join my Administration as the United States Secretary of Commerce. He will lead our Tariff and Trade agenda, with additional direct responsibility for the Office of the United States Trade Representative. In his role as Co-Chair of the Trump-Vance Transition Team, Howard has created the most sophisticated process and system to assist us in creating the greatest Administration America has ever seen.” 3:15pm- Last week, Donald Trump appointed Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) which will seek to find and eliminate wasteful spending practices throughout the federal government. During a segment of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart admitted that the 2024 election proved to be a repudiation of the bureaucratic system. 3:30pm- Daniel Turner—Founder and Executive Director of Power the Future—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to Donald Trump's cabinet picks including former Congressman Lee Zeldin's appointment as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To learn more about Power the Future, visit: https://x.com/DanielTurnerPTF 3:50pm- Gaetz Has Less Than Even Odds of Being Confirmed by Senate. Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan of The New York Times report: “The president-elect is taking a flood-the-zone approach to his cabinet nominations, betting that the Senate won't dare to turn them all down…In his private conversations over the past few days, President-elect Donald J. Trump has admitted that his besieged choice for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, has less than even odds of being confirmed by the Senate. But Mr. Trump has shown no sign of withdrawing the nomination, which speaks volumes about his mind-set as he staffs his second administration. He is making calls on Mr. Gaetz's behalf, and he remains confident that even if Mr. Gaetz does not make it, the standard for an acceptable candidate will have shifted so much that the Senate may simply approve his other nominees who have appalled much of Washington.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/politics/trump-cabinet.html 3:55pm- On Tuesday, FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell testified during a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing. In notable exchanges with Congressmen Scott Perry and Jeff Van Drew, Criswell was asked about reports that FEMA withheld vital hurricane relief aid from Trump supporters.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:00pm- Gaetz Nomination Doomed in U.S. Senate? Lindsay Wise, Xavier Martinez, and Siobhan Hughes of The Wall Street Journal write of Donald Trump's selection of Matt Gaetz to serve as U.S. Attorney General: “Trump can afford to lose the support of no more than three GOP senators on his most contentious picks, assuming all Democrats are opposed, in a chamber that will be split 53-47 in the new Congress. People familiar with discussions among Senate Republicans said that far more than three of them are prepared to vote no if the matter comes to a vote, and some said there was already talk of trying to convince Trump to pull the nominee, or for Gaetz to voluntarily withdraw his name.” You can read the full report here: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/matt-gaetz-attorney-general-nominee-donald-trump-b07d3a4f?mod=opinion_lead_pos2 6:15pm- Doug Collins Nominated for Secretary for Veterans Affairs. In a statement, Donald Trump announced: “I am pleased to announce my intent to nominate former Congressman Doug Collins, of Georgia, as The United States Secretary for Veterans Affairs (VA). Doug is a Veteran himself, who currently serves our Nation as a Chaplain in the United States Air Force Reserve Command, and fought for our Country in the Iraq War. We must take care of our brave men and women in uniform, and Doug will be a great advocate for our Active Duty Servicemembers, Veterans, and Military Families to ensure they have the support they need. Thank you, Doug, for your willingness to serve our Country in this very important role!” 6:20pm- In response to several of Donald Trump's cabinet selections—particularly Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Matt Gaetz—the media has stated the nominees are unqualified. But, for example, what were Pete Buttigieg's qualifications when he was named U.S. Secretary of Transportation? Buttigieg famously explained that he had “a personal love of transportation ever since childhood.” 6:40pm- REPLAY: Steve Milloy—Former Trump EPA Transition Team Member & Founder of JunkScience.com—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to Donald Trump selecting Lee Zeldin to serve as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Plus, Milloy reviews his list of energy action items for the incoming Trump Administration. You can find the list here: https://junkscience.com/2024/11/top-10-climate-and-energy-action-items-for-president-trump/

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:00pm- Trump Expected to Select Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Lead HHS. Meridith McGraw and Chelsea Cirruzzo of Politico write: “President-elect Donald Trump is expected to nominate former presidential candidate and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, according to a person with direct knowledge of the selection.” You can read the full report here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/14/robert-f-kennedy-jr-trump-hhs-secretary-pick-00188617 4:15pm- Gaetz Nomination Doomed in U.S. Senate? Lindsay Wise, Xavier Martinez, and Siobhan Hughes of The Wall Street Journal write of Donald Trump's selection of Matt Gaetz to serve as U.S. Attorney General: “Trump can afford to lose the support of no more than three GOP senators on his most contentious picks, assuming all Democrats are opposed, in a chamber that will be split 53-47 in the new Congress. People familiar with discussions among Senate Republicans said that far more than three of them are prepared to vote no if the matter comes to a vote, and some said there was already talk of trying to convince Trump to pull the nominee, or for Gaetz to voluntarily withdraw his name.” You can read the full report here: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/matt-gaetz-attorney-general-nominee-donald-trump-b07d3a4f?mod=opinion_lead_pos2 4:20pm- Trump Officially Announces Robert F. Kennedy Jr. As Secretary of Health and Human Services. In a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump wrote: “I am thrilled to announce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as The United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health. The Safety and Health of all Americans is the most important role of any Administration, and HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming Health Crisis in this Country. Mr. Kennedy will restore these Agencies to the traditions of Gold Standard Scientific Research, and beacons of Transparency, to end the Chronic Disease epidemic, and to Make America Great and Healthy Again!” 4:30pm- Steve Milloy—Former Trump EPA Transition Team Member & Founder of JunkScience.com—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to Donald Trump selecting Lee Zeldin to serve as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Plus, Milloy reviews his list of energy action items for the incoming Trump Administration. You can find the list here: https://junkscience.com/2024/11/top-10-climate-and-energy-action-items-for-president-trump/

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (11/14/2024): 3:05pm- A recount has been triggered in the U.S. Senate race between Bob Casey and Dave McCormick. In response to the news, McCormick's campaign said in a statement: “Senator-Elect McCormick's lead is insurmountable, which the AP made clear in calling the race. A recount will be a waste of time and taxpayer money, but it is Senator Casey's prerogative. Senator-Elect McCormick knows what it's like to lose an election and is sure Senator Casey will eventually reach the right conclusion." Democratic Strategist Mark Singel said of Casey: “He has had a good and distinguished career, but it's time to concede and move on.” Rich notes that the recount will cost Pennsylvania taxpayers roughly $1 million—and wonders if this recount is simply a fundraising gimmick for Democrats? 3:30pm- In response to several of Donald Trump's cabinet selections—particularly Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Matt Gaetz—the media has stated the nominees are unqualified. But, for example, what were Pete Buttigieg's qualifications when he was named U.S. Secretary of Transportation? Buttigieg famously explained that he had “a personal love of transportation ever since childhood.” 4:00pm- Trump Expected to Select Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Lead HHS. Meridith McGraw and Chelsea Cirruzzo of Politico write: “President-elect Donald Trump is expected to nominate former presidential candidate and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, according to a person with direct knowledge of the selection.” You can read the full report here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/14/robert-f-kennedy-jr-trump-hhs-secretary-pick-00188617 4:15pm- Gaetz Nomination Doomed in U.S. Senate? Lindsay Wise, Xavier Martinez, and Siobhan Hughes of The Wall Street Journal write of Donald Trump's selection of Matt Gaetz to serve as U.S. Attorney General: “Trump can afford to lose the support of no more than three GOP senators on his most contentious picks, assuming all Democrats are opposed, in a chamber that will be split 53-47 in the new Congress. People familiar with discussions among Senate Republicans said that far more than three of them are prepared to vote no if the matter comes to a vote, and some said there was already talk of trying to convince Trump to pull the nominee, or for Gaetz to voluntarily withdraw his name.” You can read the full report here: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/matt-gaetz-attorney-general-nominee-donald-trump-b07d3a4f?mod=opinion_lead_pos2 4:20pm- Trump Officially Announces Robert F. Kennedy Jr. As Secretary of Health and Human Services. In a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump wrote: “I am thrilled to announce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as The United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health. The Safety and Health of all Americans is the most important role of any Administration, and HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming Health Crisis in this Country. Mr. Kennedy will restore these Agencies to the traditions of Gold Standard Scientific Research, and beacons of Transparency, to end the Chronic Disease epidemic, and to Make America Great and Healthy Again!” 4:30pm- Steve Milloy—Former Trump EPA Transition Team Member & Founder of JunkScience.com—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to Donald Trump selecting Lee Zeldin to serve as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Plus, Milloy reviews his list of energy action items for the incoming Trump Administration. You can find the list here: https://junkscience.com/2024/11/top-10-climate-and-energy-action-items-for-president-trump/ 5:0 ...