Connect with us

News

EPA announces dozens of environmental regulations it plans to target

Published

on

EPA announces dozens of environmental regulations it plans to target

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on his nomination in January.

Ting Shen/AFP/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ting Shen/AFP/Getty Images

The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to target more than two dozen rules and policies in what the agency called the “most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history.”

The EPA didn’t provide details about what it wants to do with the regulations — whether it will try to weaken them or eliminate them entirely. In most cases, the agency said it is reconsidering rules that apply to things like climate pollution from vehicles and power plants, wastewater from coal plants and air pollution from the energy and manufacturing sectors.

The list the agency put out is a “roadmap” of the regulations it will try to roll back in the coming year, says Jason Rylander, legal director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.

Advertisement

“This EPA is planning to take a wrecking ball to environmental law as we know it,” he says. “The intent appears to be to neuter EPA’s ability to address climate change and to limit air pollution that affects public health.”

The EPA said in an email to NPR that it doesn’t have additional information to share about its plans for changing or repealing environmental regulations.

“We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a news release.

Rylander says the agency didn’t have to release a list of rules it plans to challenge. “But they’ve made clear that they intend to start that process,” he says.

Overhauling federal environmental regulations requires a so-called rulemaking process that usually takes a couple of years, Rylander says.

Advertisement

“But we’ve seen that this administration wants to move with a speed that we have not often seen,” he adds. “I suspect that you’ll start seeing proposed rules coming out on each of these in the coming weeks.”

Any effort by the EPA to rollback environmental rules will almost certainly face legal challenges.

“EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin today announced plans for the greatest increase in pollution in decades,” Amanda Leland, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “The result will be more toxic chemicals, more cancers, more asthma attacks, and more dangers for pregnant women and their children. Rather than helping our economy, it will create chaos.”

Leland said her group “will vigorously oppose Administrator Zeldin’s unlawful attack on the public health of the American people that seeks to tear down life-saving clean air standards – putting millions of people in harm’s way.”

EPA says it’s reconsidering rules for power plant emissions

The EPA says it will reconsider rules finalized under the Biden administration that limit climate pollution from power plants.

Advertisement

Power plants are the second biggest source of planet-heating greenhouse gasses behind transportation, according to the EPA. Under the regulations, existing coal and new natural gas-fired power plants that run more than 40% of the time would have to eliminate 90% of their carbon dioxide emissions, the main driver of global warming.

The rules followed a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that limited the EPA’s options for regulating power plant emissions. Justices said that without a specific law, the agency cannot force the entire power generation industry to move away from fossil fuels toward less-polluting energy sources. So, instead, the EPA under the Biden administration created regulations governing individual power plants.

When the new rules were finalized last year, Manish Bapna, chief executive of the Natural Resources Defense Council, predicted they would “drive up investment, innovation, and good jobs in the clean energy economy of the future” and give industry the certainty it “needs to meet growing demand in the cleanest, cheapest, most reliable way possible.”

However, some in the utility industry warned the restrictions would threaten electric reliability.

“The path outlined by the EPA today is unlawful, unrealistic and unachievable,” Jim Matheson, chief executive of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in a statement at the time.

Advertisement

Zeldin said in a news release on Wednesday that the EPA is “seeking to ensure that the agency follows the rule of law while providing all Americans with access to reliable and affordable energy.”

Pollution from cars and trucks is also on EPA’s list

President Trump has made it a priority to roll back the Biden administration’s multi-pronged push supporting the transition to electric vehicles. Changing EPA standards limiting air pollution from vehicle tailpipes is a crucial part of that agenda.

Former president Barack Obama toughened fuel economy and EPA vehicle emission standards. During Trump’s first term, automakers had lobbied for looser rules, but were caught off guard by how dramatically Trump rolled them back. The next few years were chaotic; some automakers struck a voluntary deal with California to keep meeting their stricter rules, even if it wasn’t legally necessary.

Under the Biden administration, the standards grew stricter over time with rules designed to accelerate a transition to EVs. The current EPA standards do not mandate a certain number of EVs, but they set emissions rules so strict that automakers would essentially have to manufacture a large portion of vehicles without emissions — as much as two thirds of the vehicles sold by 2032 — in order to meet the rules.

With EV sales growth slowing, some automakers have wondered if that is still feasible and called for the rules to be adjusted. But the industry is also frustrated with the whipsawing of regulations back and forth, which makes it difficult to plan future products. In a statement Wednesday, the trade group representing automakers called for a “balanced approach.”

Advertisement

Environmental and public health groups support the more aggressive standards, which reduce pollution that causes asthma and heart disease as well as fighting climate change. So do consumer advocacy groups: the EPA had also estimated the new rules could save drivers up to a trillion dollars in gasoline over the life of the rules. But many critics, including the oil industry, have said the rules undermine consumer choice by favoring EVs.

EPA says it’s rethinking whether climate pollution endangers public health

Underlying a lot of the EPA’s actions on climate change is a 2009 determination that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane threaten public health. The EPA now says it will reconsider that so-called endangerment finding, as well as actions the agency took that were based on the determination.

Daren Bakst, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in an email to NPR that the EPA has used the endangerment finding to try to “control large portions of the economy.”

If the EPA determines that the endangerment finding is no longer applicable, Bakst says it “would preclude future greenhouse gas regulations.” It could also pave the way to repeal some existing rules, he says.

However, environmental groups say it won’t be easy for the EPA to scrap its determination that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. The science showing the warming impact of those emissions has only gotten stronger since the Supreme Court authorized the agency in 2007 to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if it finds that they contribute to climate change.

Advertisement

“The state of climate science has evolved significantly since the endangerment finding first came out,” says Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “I can’t imagine anyone being able to conclude, on the basis of current science, that greenhouse gas pollution does not affect climate and public health. So I’m somewhat baffled that they think they’re going to be able to eliminate it and have that stand up in court.”

Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agrees.

“We’re seeing climate related disasters mount catastrophically,” Cleetus says. “We’ve seen loss of life from wildfires and extremely intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts. We’re seeing so much economic damage from these kinds of extreme climate related disasters.”

The utility industry has also raised concerns about getting rid of the endangerment finding. In a filing to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), a group that represents electric utilities, said allowing the EPA to regulate climate pollution creates an orderly system for cutting emissions while minimizing economic impacts on consumers and businesses. Rolling back the agency’s authority could expose companies to a flurry of environmental lawsuits, the group said. “This would be chaos.”

The EPA has repeatedly reaffirmed the endangerment finding, and in 2022, Congress included language in the Inflation Reduction Act that labels greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Advertisement

Conrad Schneider, senior director for the U.S. at the Clean Air Task Force, said in a statement: “This signal to deregulate air pollution is diametrically opposed to the obligation the EPA has to protect public health.”

News

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Published

on

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Havana declares two days of mourning for the Cubans killed in US operation to abduct Nicolas Maduro.

Cuba has announced the death of 32 ⁠of its ​citizens during the United States military operation to abduct and detain Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in Caracas.

Havana said on Sunday that there would be two days of mourning on ‌January 5 and ‌6 in ⁠honour of those killed and that ‌funeral arrangements would be announced.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The state-run Prensa Latina agency said the Cuban “fighters” were killed while “carrying out missions” on behalf of the country’s military, at the request of the Venezuelan government.

The agency said the slain Cubans “fell in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of the bombing of the facilities” after offering “fierce resistance”.

Advertisement

Cuba is a close ally of Venezuela’s government, and has sent military and police forces to assist in operations in the Latin American country for years.

Maduro and his wife have been flown to New York following the US operation to face prosecution on drug-related charges. The 63-year-old Venezuelan leader is due to appear in court on Monday.

He has previously denied criminal involvement.

Images of Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed by US forces have stunned Venezuelans.

Venezuelan Minister of Defence General Vladimir Padrino said on state television that the US attack killed soldiers, civilians and a “large part” of Maduro’s security detail “in cold blood”.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s armed forces have been activated to guarantee sovereignty, he said.

‘A lot of Cubans’ killed

US President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday, said that “there was a lot of death on the other side” during the raids.

He said that “a lot of Cubans” were killed and that there was “no death on our side”.

Trump went on to threaten Colombian President Gustavo Petro, saying that a US military operation in the country sounded “good” to him.

But he suggested that a US military intervention in Cuba is unlikely, because the island appears to be ready to fall on its own.

Advertisement

“Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know how they, if they can, hold that, but Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil,” Trump said.

“They’re not getting any of it. Cuba literally is ready to fall. And you have a lot of great Cuban Americans that are going to be very happy about this.”

The US attack on Venezuela marked the most controversial intervention in Latin America since the invasion of Panama 37 years ago.

The Trump administration has described Maduro’s abduction as a law-enforcement mission to force him to face US criminal charges filed in 2020, including “narco-terrorism” conspiracy.

But Trump also said that US oil companies needed “total access” to the country’s vast reserves and suggested that an influx of Venezuelan immigrants to the US also factored into the decision to abduct Maduro.

Advertisement

While many Western nations oppose Maduro, there were many calls for the US to respect international law, and questions arose over the legality of abducting a foreign head of state.

Left-leaning regional leaders, including those of Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico, have largely denounced Maduro’s removal, while countries with right-wing governments, from Argentina to Ecuador, have largely welcomed it.

The United Nations Security Council plans to meet on Monday to discuss the attack. Russia and China, both major backers of Venezuela, have criticised the US.

Beijing on Sunday insisted that the safety of Maduro and his wife be a priority, and called on the US to “stop toppling the government of Venezuela”, calling the attack a “clear violation of international law“.

Moscow also said it was “extremely concerned” about the abduction of Maduro and his wife, and condemned what it called an “act of armed aggression” against Venezuela by the US.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Published

on

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Protesters rally outside the White House Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Washington, after the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a military operation.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

President Trump’s move to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has drawn praise inside the United States, especially from Republican leaders. But the invasion also faces significant skepticism, questions about legality, and full-throated opposition from some elected officials across the political spectrum.

Here’s a survey.

Some Republicans condemn, or question, Trump’s invasion

While most conservative lawmakers voiced support for Trump’s action, a small group of Republican House members and GOP Senators described the move as unlawful or misguided.

Advertisement

“If the President believes military action against Venezuela is needed, he should make the case and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, speaking on the House floor. “Do we truly believe that Nicolás Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq or Syria?”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posting on social media, voiced skepticism that the true goal of Trump’s invasion was to stop the flow of drugs into the United States. She also described the military action as a violation of conservative “America First” principles.

“Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,” Greene posted on X. “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General, generally praised the military operation, but he also said the precedent of U.S. military intervention could embolden more aggressive action by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia.

Advertisement

“Freedom and rule of law were defended last night,” Bacon said on X, referring to the invasion of Venezuela, “but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”

At least three Republican Senators also voiced concern or skepticism about the invasion and its legal justification, while also celebrating the fall of Maduro.

“In this case, a leader who monopolized central power is removed in an action that monopolizes central power,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote on the platform X. “Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorization for a reason—to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defense.”

GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both of Alaska, said Maduro’s ouster would make the United States and the world safer, but suggested the operation could turn into a quagmire for U.S. troops.

“Late last year, I voted to proceed to debate on two resolutions that would have terminated the escalation of U.S. military operations against Venezuela absent explicit authorization from Congress,” Murkowski wrote on the platform X. She added that she expects further briefings from Trump officials on the “legal basis for these operations.”

Advertisement

“The lessons learned from what took place after the United States deposed another Latin American indicted drug lord—Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1989—could prove useful, as could the painful and difficult lessons learned after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,” Sullivan wrote on X.

Most Democrats condemn the invasion

Most Democratic lawmakers and elected officials also described Maduro as a dictator, but they generally condemned Trump’s action. At a press conference Saturday, New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani told reporters he phoned Trump and voiced opposition to the invasion.

“I called the President and spoke with him directly to register my opposition to this act and to make clear that it was an opposition based on being opposed to a pursuit of regime change, to the violation of federal and international law,” Mamdani said.

Democratic minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York accused Trump of acting in bad faith and violating the U.S. Constitution. “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said in a post on X. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

According to Schumer, the Trump administration assured him “three separate times that it was not pursuing regime change or or military action without congressional authorization.”

Advertisement

California’s Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, a frequent Trump critic, posted a series of comments on X describing Saturday’s military action and Trump’s proposed U.S. occupation of Venezuela as potentially disastrous.

“Acting without Congressional approval or the buy-in of the public, Trump risks plunging a hemisphere into chaos and has broken his promise to end wars instead of starting them,” Schiff wrote.

“Donald Trump has once again shown his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a video posted on social media, where he described the U.S. invasion as “imperialism.”

“This is the horrific logic of force that Putin used to justify his brutal attack on Ukraine,” Sanders said.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, also spoke harshly of the military strike, describing it as an effort by Trump to distract attention from domestic troubles in the United States.

“It’s not about drugs. If it was, Trump wouldn’t have pardoned one of the largest narco traffickers in the world last month,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to Trump’s decision to free former Honduran President Orlando Hernandez, who had been convicted in the U.S. of helping smuggle more than 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.

Advertisement

“It’s about oil and regime change. And they need a trial now to pretend that it isn’t. Especially to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs,” Ocasio-Cortez added on X.

Continue Reading

News

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Published

on

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro during a US military operation in Venezuela, the command of the South American country has fallen into the hands of Executive Vice President Delcy Rodríguez.

That is what Venezuela’s constitution outlines in its different scenarios anticipating a president’s absence. Under Articles 233 and 234, whether the absence is temporary or absolute, the vice president takes over the presidential duties.

Rodríguez – also minister for both finance and oil – stepped into the role on Saturday afternoon. Hours after the capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, she chaired a National Defense Council session, surrounded by other ministers and senior officials, and demanded the couple’s “immediate release” while condemning the US military operation.

Standing before the Venezuelan flag, Rodríguez said the early-morning operation represents a blatant violation of international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. She added that the action must be rejected by Venezuelans and condemned by governments across Latin America.

“We call on the peoples of the great homeland to remain united, because what was done to Venezuela can be done to anyone. That brutal use of force to bend the will of the people can be carried out against any country,” she told the council in an address broadcast by state television channel VTV.

Advertisement

Rodríguez, 56, is from Caracas and studied law at the Central University of Venezuela.

She has spent more than two decades as one of the leading figures of chavismo, the political movement founded by President Hugo Chávez and led by Maduro since Chávez’s death in 2013.

Alongside her brother Jorge Rodríguez, the current president of the National Assembly, she has held various positions of power since the Chávez era. She served as minister of communication and information from 2013 to 2014 and later became foreign minister from 2014 to 2017. In that role, she defended Maduro’s government against international criticism, including allegations of democratic backsliding and human rights abuses in the country.

As foreign minister, Rodríguez represented Venezuela at forums such as the United Nations, where she accused other governments of seeking to undermine her country.

In 2017, Rodríguez became president of the Constituent National Assembly that expanded the government’s powers after the opposition won the 2015 legislative elections. In 2018, Maduro appointed her vice president for his second term. She retained the post during his third presidential term, which began on January 10, 2025, following the controversial July 28, 2024, elections. Until the president’s capture, she served as Venezuela’s chief economic authority and minister of petroleum.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s opposition maintains that the 2024 elections were fraudulent and that Maduro is not a legitimately elected president. They insist that the true winner was former ambassador Edmundo González Urrutia, a position supported by some governments in the region.

José Manuel Romano, a constitutional lawyer and political analyst, told CNN that the positions Rodríguez has held show she is a “very prominent” figure within the Venezuelan government and someone who enjoys the president’s “full trust.”

“The executive vice president of the republic is a highly effective operator, a woman with strong leadership skills for managing teams,” Romano said.

“She is very results-oriented and has significant influence over the entire government apparatus, including the Ministry of Defense. That is very important to note in the current circumstances,” he added.

On the path to an understanding with the US?

Hours after Maduro’s capture, and before Rodríguez addressed the National Defense Council, US President Donald Trump said at a press conference that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with the vice president. According to Trump, she appeared willing to work with Washington on a new phase for Venezuela.

Advertisement

“She had a conversation with Marco. She said, ‘We’re going to do whatever you need.’ I think she was quite courteous. We’re going to do this right,” Trump said.

Trump’s remarks, however, surprised some analysts, who believe Rodríguez is unlikely to make concessions to the United States.

“She is not a moderate alternative to Maduro. She has been one of the most powerful and hard-line figures in the entire system,” Imdat Oner, a policy analyst at the Jack D. Gordon Institute and a former Turkish diplomat based in Venezuela, told CNN.

“Her rise to power appears to be the result of some kind of understanding between the United States and key actors preparing for a post-Maduro scenario. In that context, she would essentially serve as a caretaker until a democratically elected leader takes office,” the analyst added.

In her first messages following Maduro’s capture, Rodríguez showed no signs of backing down and, without referencing Trump’s statements, closed the door to any potential cooperation with the United States.

Advertisement

Earlier in the morning, during a phone interview with VTV, Rodríguez said the whereabouts of Maduro and Flores were unknown and demanded proof that they were alive. Later in the afternoon, during the National Defense Council session, she escalated her rhetoric, condemned the US operation and, despite the circumstances, insisted that Maduro remains in charge of Venezuela.

“There is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros,” said Rodríguez — now, by force of events, the most visible face of the government.

Reuters news agency contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending