Podcasts about environmental protection agency epa

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

In this week's Security Sprint, Dave and Andy are joined by Alec Davison and they covered the following topics:Warm Open:• Crypto ISAC• Odin.fun Exploited for $7 Million as 58.2 BTC Stolen in Security Breach• BtcTurk under attack again: withdrawals suspended after alleged $50 million hack & Major Turkish Crypto Exchange BtcTurk Allegedly Hacked for Nearly $50 Million• Treasury Sanctions Cryptocurrency Exchange and Network Enabling Sanctions Evasion and Cyber Criminals• More everyday in the SUN. Join the GRIP! Get the SUN! Main Topics:EPA, WaterISAC caution utilities on drone threats and cyber risks in evolving security landscape. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and WaterISAC recognized that UASs (unmanned aerial systems), or drones, can pose significant threats to critical infrastructure, due to their accessibility, versatility, and potential for misuse. These threats can range from unauthorized surveillance, physical attacks, and even cyber attacks. Drones have revolutionized the critical infrastructure sector by enabling efficient and cost-effective inspections, reducing the need for manual labor and minimizing safety risks associated with hazardous environments, while providing real-time data and high-resolution imagery, allowing for more accurate monitoring and maintenance of infrastructure assets, leading to improved operational efficiency and reduced downtime. UK NPSA: Security Fences and Gates. Fences, along with integrated gates, play a key role in delivering security solutions both for perimeters and protecting important assets. This guidance is intended to aid those responsible for delivering security solutions including fences and gates to identify the factors that need to be considered. NPSA wish to advise that fences and gates are no longer tested to the Manual Forced Entry Standard (MFES). As a result, all fences and gates which were previously given an MFES rating have been removed from the Catalogue of Security Equipment. This document provides advice on the requirements for security fences and gates and signpost alternative security standards that should be considered. Please use the NPSA Forced Entry Standards Guidance1 to assist you. NPSA Forced Entry Standard 2024Hurricane Erin: • NHC issuing advisories for the Atlantic on Hurricane Erin• Key messages regarding Hurricane Erin• Hurricane Erin to grow, will next threaten US coast with dangerous conditionsQuick Hits:• NOAA - July 2025 was planet's 3rd warmest on record • Dragos Industrial Ransomware Analysis: Q2 2025 • CISA: Foundations for OT Cybersecurity: Asset Inventory Guidance for Owners and Operators• Canada's Guide on Biometric Management Is a Useful Resource for All Corporate Security Directors• Canadian Centre for Cyber Securityo Steps to address data spillage in the cloud (ITSAP.50.112)o Introduction to cloud computing (ITSAP.50.110)o Models of cloud computing (ITSAP.50.111)• Norway spy chief blames Russian hackers for hijacking dam• Colt Telecom attack claimed by WarLock ransomware, data up for sale• SNI5GECT: Sniffing and Injecting 5G Traffic Without Rogue Base Stations & Risky Bulletin: Academics pull off novel 5G attack• Hundreds of N-able N-central Instances Affected by Exploited Vulnerabilities• ReliaQuest Uncovers New Critical Vulnerability in SAP NetWeaver• Plex warns users to patch security vulnerability immediately• ClickFix phishing links increased nearly 400% in 12 months, report says

An 8.8-magnitude earthquake rocks the Pacific. Now, tsunami threats stretch from Alaska to Hawaii — and even California. Plus, the New York City gunman meant to target the National Football League (NFL). But he got off on the wrong floor. Who he killed instead, and what we're learning about the plan. Also, a major rollback on pollution rules. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reverses course on clean air standards for cars, power plants and factories. These stories and more highlight your Unbiased Updates for Wednesday, July 30, 2025.

An 8.8-magnitude earthquake rocks the Pacific. Now, tsunami threats stretch from Alaska to Hawaii — and even California. Plus, the New York City gunman meant to target the National Football League (NFL). But he got off on the wrong floor. Who he killed instead, and what we're learning about the plan. Also, a major rollback on pollution rules. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reverses course on clean air standards for cars, power plants and factories. These stories and more highlight your Unbiased Updates for Wednesday, July 30, 2025.  

President Donald Trump hails the New York City Police Department as he vows to get to the bottom of Monday night's Manhattan shooting that killed four. Police said Tuesday they found a suicide note in the shooter's possession, and that he was specifically targeting the NFL headquarters. A vigil is scheduled Tuesday night as investigations continue.U.S. and Chinese officials on Tuesday wrapped up the second and final day of trade talks in Sweden. The two sides agreed to possibly extend a pause on tariffs, with the current deadline approaching in two weeks. Trump is expected to make a decision Wednesday.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal Tuesday to rescind a 2009 finding that linked human-caused climate change to public health risks. The finding is the basis for multiple regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called the proposed rollback “one of the largest deregulatory actions in the history of the United States.”

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) released its 2025 Dirty Dozen list, a “Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce,” and it serves as a solid reminder that we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to cleaning up the food system. This year, the report found that more than 75 percent of non-organic samples tested positive for at least one pesticide.And get this: Topping the list on the basis of the level and toxicity of detected pesticides were green beans, spinach, bell peppers and hot peppers, kale, collard and mustard greens. In addition, blueberries remain, and alarmingly, green beans (which landed just outside the Dirty Dozen in 2025) displayed residue of acephate, a toxic pesticide that was banned from use on green beans grown for food by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more than a decade ago. Plus, blackberries and potatoes landed on the list as new additions in 2025.

Send us a text and chime in!The 2024 Water Quality Report, also known as the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), is now available for residents of Chino Valley. This annual report provides detailed information about the quality of the town's drinking water, where it comes from, and how it measures up to state and federal safety standards. What Is the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)? The CCR is designed to keep consumers informed about the safety and quality of their drinking water. The report summarizes water testing data collected by the Chino Valley Utilities Department to ensure compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Arizona Department of Environmental... For the written story, read here >> https://www.signalsaz.com/articles/2024-chino-valley-water-quality-report-now-available/Check out the CAST11.com Website at: https://CAST11.com Follow the CAST11 Podcast Network on Facebook at: https://Facebook.com/CAST11AZFollow Cast11 Instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/cast11_podcast_network

Futureproof Clare (FPC), a grassroots environmental group active in Clare and the Shannon region, recently made a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to object to the renewal of the Aughinish Alumina (AAL) dredging and dumping at sea licence. The EPA has granted a new licence to Russian-owned alumina refinery to extend its dredging operations around Foynes port and to dump dredged materials at a new dredging site near Foynes Island. The 10-year dredging and dumping at sea licence was granted by the EPA despite local objections from individuals and groups expressing concerns for the wellbeing of the Shannon Estuary. For more on this, Alan Morrissey was joined by Sinéad Sheehan, campaigner with Futureproof Clare.

There have been a number of efforts to regulate a transition to lower logistics-related emissions, and all of them involved the state of California and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  California always plays a unique role in these debates because they have the most air pollution in the country and also the toughest emissions regulations. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) predates the EPA. In the past, they have been able to make their own rules, only requiring waivers when newly proposed standards are tougher than Federal standards.  On May 22, 2025, the Senate voted to strip California of its ability to impose tougher standards on heavy duty trucks and ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. California may be down, but they are certainly not out. They are using other creative ways to regulate the emissions associated with logistics. In this episode of Art of Supply, Kelly Barner looks at this alternate approach to regulation: The Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program (known as WAIRE) and the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (ISR) How these rules are are intended to work and how they are being enforced Whether this alternative approach will be effective in achieving its objectives Links: Examining the Practicality of the EV Truck Mandate Nebraska v. California: The EV Trucking Transition Who will decide the future of EV trucking? Kelly Barner on LinkedIn Art of Supply LinkedIn newsletter  Art of Supply on AOP Subscribe to This Week in Procurement  

Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S. is the former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP). After retirement, she was granted scientist emeritus status and still maintains a laboratory. As a board-certified toxicologist, Birnbaum served as a federal scientist for 40 years. Prior to her appointment as NIEHS and NTP Director in 2009, she spent 19 years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where she directed the largest division focusing on environmental health research. Birnbaum has received many awards and recognitions. In 2016, she was awarded the North Carolina Award in Science. She was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, one of the highest honors in the fields of medicine and health. She was also elected to the Collegium Ramazzini, an independent, international academy comprised of internationally renowned experts in the fields of occupational and environmental health and received an honorary Doctor of Science from the University of Rochester and a Distinguished Alumna Award from the University of Illinois. She has also received Honorary Doctorates from the University of Rhode Island, Ben-Gurion University, Israel, and Amity University, India; the Surgeon General's Medallion 2014; and 14 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards, which reflect the recommendations of EPA's external Science Advisory Board, for specific publications. Dr. Birnbaum recently received the Winslow Award, the highest honor from the Yale School of Public Health and was elected an AAAS Fellow. She has also received numerous awards from professional societies and citizen's groups. Birnbaum is an active member of the scientific community. She was vice president of the International Union of Toxicology, the umbrella organization for toxicology societies in more than 50 countries, and former president of the Society of Toxicology, the largest professional organization of toxicologists in the world. She is the author of more than 1000 peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, abstracts, and reports. Birnbaum's own research focuses on the pharmacokinetic behavior of environmental chemicals, mechanisms of action of toxicants including endocrine disruption, and linking of real-world exposures to health effects. She is an adjunct professor at the University of Queensland in Australia, the School of Public Health of Yale University, the Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Curriculum in Toxicology, and the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as in the Integrated Toxicology and Environmental Health Program at Duke University where she is also a Scholar in Residence. A native of New Jersey, Birnbaum received her M.S. and Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

This week, I was pleased to welcome back to the studio Jim Aidala, Senior Government Affairs Consultant at B&C and its consulting affiliate, The Acta Group (Acta®), to discuss the first six months of the Trump Administration. We have all been trying to take in and process the many Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other developments of all sorts coming out of the White House at a head-spinning pace, and assess their  impacts on the industrial and agricultural chemical community and federal workforce. Jim is a keen observer of Presidential and executive level administrative action, having served as the Assistant Administrator of Toxics at The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and in other senior EPA leadership positions. We discuss Presidential actions, their impact on the EPA workforce, EPA actions to date, and a bit about the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Report's “Make Our Children Healthy Again” Assessment and its impact on the pesticide community. 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

Researchers at TU Dublin have secured over €650K to develop innovative cancer diagnostic technology under the prestigious Taighde Éireann - Research Ireland Pathway Programme. The award is part of a national €23 million investment announced today by Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, James Lawless TD, aimed at empowering Ireland's emerging research leaders. "This investment, through Research Ireland's Pathway programme, will support emerging researchers in their journey from postdoctoral work towards establishing themselves as independent investigators. The projects receiving funding span a broad range of disciplines, ensuring a broad impact on scientific discovery and societal progress. By aligning with Ireland's national research priorities, these projects will help drive advancements in key sectors such as healthcare, environmental sustainability, history and education," stated Minister Lawless The research, led by Dr Anand V.R., a postdoctoral research fellow at TU Dublin's Photonics Research Centre (PRC), will combine two advanced light-based technologies - whispering gallery mode (WGM) sensing and surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) - to build a powerful new tool for detecting cancer. This new system won't need chemical labels and will be highly sensitive, making it possible to quickly and accurately detect important cancer signals in the body, even in very small amounts. Based at TU Dublin's Photonics Research Centre, the project will benefit from the Centre's state-of-the-art facilities, including 90m of specialised lab space and a multidisciplinary research environment. The project will also engage a PhD student under the co-supervision of PRC Director Prof. Yuliya Semenova. Further collaboration will come from TU Dublin's Nanolab Research Centre (NRC), led by Dr Furong Tian, whose expertise in nanomaterials and nanoparticle modification will support the development of the sensor's biomedical capabilities. A key outcome of the project will be the creation of a proof-of-concept prototype for a rapid, non-invasive diagnostic tool that can detect minute quantities of breast cancer biomarkers in blood samples, offering promise for earlier detection and improved patient outcomes. "I am honoured to receive this support through the Taighde Éireann - Research Ireland Pathway Programme. This funding will enable us to develop a next-generation biosensing platform that merges the unique advantages of whispering gallery mode resonant sensing and surface-enhanced Raman scattering," said Dr Anand V.R. "Our goal is to dramatically improve the speed, sensitivity, and accuracy of breast cancer detection. This project is a testament to the collaborative research environment fostered at the Photonics Research Centre and Nanolab Research Centre, and I look forward to translating our scientific innovation into real-world clinical impact." Commenting on the awards, Celine Fitzgerald, Interim CEO, Research Ireland, said "Our Pathway programme equips promising researchers with the resources needed to reach the next level and help drive impactful discoveries. These projects will contribute valuable insights into pressing global and national issues, including public health policy, digital well-being, technological advancements, healthcare and more." The Taighde Éireann - Research Ireland Pathway Programme is co-funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI), and Met Éireann, contributing a total of €1.7 million to support projects with cross-sectoral relevance in sustainability, environment, and climate. For more information, please visit www.tudublin.ie/PRC More about Irish Tech News Irish Tech News are Ireland's No. 1 Online Tech Publication and often Ireland's No.1 Tech Podcast too. You can find hundreds of fantastic previous episodes and subscribe using whatever platform you like via our Anchor.fm page here: https://anchor.fm/irish-te...

In this edition of Plan Sea, hosts Anna Madlener and Wil Burns sit down with Kyla Westphal and Mallory Ringham from Ebb Carbon to discuss Project Macoma — the company's pilot ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) study being conducted in Port Angeles, Washington this summer. A first-of-its-kind endeavor, Project Macoma aims to remove up to 1,000 tonnes of  CO2 from the atmosphere using Ebb Carbon's electrochemical OAE technology. Kyla and Mallory join to share more about their journey engaging the local community on this proposed research, securing a permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and establishing Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) standards as this work gets underway. Project Macoma continues the work of the late Dr. Matthew Eisaman, Co-Founder of Ebb Carbon and a pivotal figure in the ocean-based carbon dioxide removal (oCDR) field. Matt dedicated his life to fostering a clear understanding of the scientific path forward for potential oCDR solutions, while also creating an inclusive and environmentally-responsible sector. For more background into Ebb Carbon and a deep dive into their approach, listen to our episode with Matt HERE. Kyla Westphal, Vice President of External Affairs at Ebb Carbon, joins Anna and Will to discuss her role developing safe and responsible deployment of OAE. Building on her experience working in what she calls “the intersection between technology and humanity,” Kyla oversees both the stakeholder engagement and ecological safety aspects of Ebb Carbon's work. She shares how Project Macoma is building on years of foundational environmental research and engagement with Washington state regulators, community groups, and tribal governments to earn local buy-in and support. Mallory Ringham, Lead Oceanographer and Head of MRV, then discusses how Ebb Carbon secured the first-ever National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) approval for oCDR under the Clean Water Act. She shares how the permit requires a slow, careful, and continuously monitored operation to ensure water quality standards are met within prescribed mixing zones. Mallory also discusses how Ebb's foundational research created a strong understanding of the seasonal and tidal variability in the region, allowing for more accurate monitoring and analysis of the project. This summer, Mallory will continue to oversee the monitoring process to ensure the project is operating safely, responsibly, and effectively.Plan Sea is a semi-weekly podcast exploring ocean-based climate solutions, brought to you by the Carbon to Sea Initiative & the American University Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal.ACRONYMS / CONCEPTS:MRV (1:05); Monitoring, Reporting and VerificationNPDES (14:56); National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemMCDR; Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal  (21:58)Plan Sea is a semi-weekly podcast exploring ocean-based climate solutions, brought to you by the Carbon to Sea Initiative & the American University Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal.

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) 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.

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

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.

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/).

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 ...

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.

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 ...