Connect with us

World

A right to drink? Inside the debate to protect US workers against the heat

Published

on

A right to drink? Inside the debate to protect US workers against the heat

Dallas, Texas – More than a decade later, Eva Marroquin’s voice still shakes when she talks about it.

The 51-year-old mother of five had been working construction in Austin, Texas, for about five years when she heard that a friend had died of heat exposure at a worksite. It was 2012, and he had been helping to build a bridge at the intersection of two local highways.

“He just couldn’t get to the water in time,” Marroquin said.

The news shook Marroquin, who had experienced her own close calls with the sweltering temperatures that broil the southern United States in the summertime.

After days of painting walls or cleaning up sites, Marroquin’s face would burn red in the heat. Sometimes, she felt feverish and dizzy. Her throat would even close. It left her with haunting thoughts of what her friend must have lived through in his final moments.

Advertisement

“I distinctly remember how that felt, and it made me want to speak up even more,” Marroquin told Al Jazeera.

Marroquin is among the advocates pushing for greater protections for workers facing extreme temperatures in the US.

The US Department of Health and Human Services found that heat-related deaths overall have been on the rise, as climate change drives temperatures to new heights. In 2023, an estimated 2,302 people died from heat-related conditions, up from 1,722 in 2022 and 1,602 in 2021.

But in the US, there are no federal protections specifically designed to protect workers from environmental heat.

Marroquin and other workplace advocates are lobbying to change that — but in the meantime, state and local governments in the US have been duking it out over the authority to protect workers from the stifling heat.

Advertisement
Employees in Riverwoods, Illinois, work through a heat dome that spread across the midwestern and northeastern United States on June 17 [Nam Y Huh/AP Photo]

A fight between state and local authority

On July 1, a new law comes into effect in Florida that reflects those tensions.

Last summer was the hottest on record in the state, prompting Miami-Dade County to consider an ordinance that would mandate heat safety training, regular breaks and access to water during high-temperature days.

But Florida Governor Ron DeSantis blocked that attempt, signing a law that instead banned local governments from establishing their own workplace safety requirements for heat exposure.

“There was a lot of concern out of one county, Miami-Dade,” DeSantis told local press at the time, warning that the local ordinance would have caused “a lot of problems”.

Florida was the second state in recent months to pass such a law. In 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott also signed what critics called the “Death Star” bill — so named for its ability to destroy local regulations that went beyond existing state mandates.

Advertisement

It, too, prevented municipalities from implementing their own heat safety laws, effectively killing ordinances in areas like Austin and Dallas. Houston and other cities have challenged the law in court.

As in Florida, however, proponents of the law have argued that a patchwork of local regulations would be too cumbersome for companies to navigate. Business groups also warned of “local government overreach”.

“The Texas law is mostly focused on preventing the big municipalities from doing basically anything that might make doing business in Texas inconvenient or location-specific,” said Alison Grinter, a civil rights lawyer in the Dallas metropolitan area.

She explained that the oil and gas industries have long held sway in Texas politics and helped craft the state’s business-friendly reputation. That, in turn, has attracted technology and finance companies to the state as well.

Grinter added that part of the motive for blocking the local ordinances was also political. While the Texas state government is dominated by Republicans, several of its biggest cities — including Houston and Austin — are led by Democrats.

Advertisement

“For culture war purposes, the idea that there are four or five different big oases in the middle of the state that are sanctuaries from all of the reactionary social laws really galls lawmakers,” Grinter said.

Still, only five states have taken it upon themselves to pass heat-exposure protections. They include California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Minnesota.

“The Texas government doesn’t want local laws, but they also don’t want a statewide law,” said Ana Gonzalez of the Texas AFL-CIO, a labour union. “So workers are stuck.”

Governor Ron DeSantis speaks into a microphone in front of a screen that shows his presidential campaign logo.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill this year that bans local governments from passing their own standards for environmental heat safety [File: Michael Dwyer/AP Photo]

Petitioning the federal government

That gridlock on the state and local level has shifted the battle over workplace protections to the federal government.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandates that employers implement a workplace safety policy, but it does not indicate how that policy must address heat protection.

That may be changing, though. In 2021, OSHA announced it would start to develop a rule to mitigate the risks of heat-related injuries and deaths for workers, and a spokesperson, Kimberly Darby, told Al Jazeera that this month marked an important step forward.

Advertisement

“Last week, OSHA’s proposed rule was sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review,” Darby said. “We are another step closer to giving workers the protections they need and deserve.”

The proposed rule, however, has yet to be published — and its exact contents are therefore unknown. In addition, new OSHA rules can take years to achieve final approval.

So some advocates are looking to another federal body: the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA.

On June 17, 31 organisations — including immigrants’ rights groups, environmental nonprofits and farmworkers unions — petitioned FEMA (PDF) to provide disaster relief funds for extreme heat, as well as areas affected by wildfire smoke.

It is part of a broader effort to convince the federal government to step in for their local counterparts, according to Will Humble, who signed the petition on behalf of the Arizona Public Health Association, a nonprofit.

Advertisement

“Planning for and saving lives is a state and local responsibility,” Humble told Al Jazeera. “But FEMA really should include heat emergencies in their funding. Many county health departments are understaffed.”

An electronic billboard shows the temperature to be 108 degrees Fahrenheit. Behind the billboard, the skyline of Phoenix, Arizona, is lit by an orange sunset.
Cities like Phoenix, Arizona, reported a record number of days with triple-digit heat last year [File: Matt York/AP Photo]

‘Not seen as human’

In the absence of strong federal action, activists like Christine Bolaños say that employers are left with all the power to decide how to address extreme heat in the workplace, leaving workers at risk.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), at least 600 workers died from heat exposure while working from 2005 to 2021. An additional 43 deaths were documented in 2022 alone.

Experts indicate the actual number is likely higher, as heat-related deaths are difficult to track.

A broad swath of the workforce is at risk, too. The bureau estimates that 33 percent of American employees spend time outdoors as part of their everyday work.

Especially vulnerable are foreign-born Latino labourers, including both legal and undocumented immigrants, who represent a disproportionate number of work-related deaths.

Advertisement

Though these workers make up only 8.2 percent of the workforce, they represent 14 percent of on-the-job fatalities. The bureau also noted that Latino workers make up the majority of the construction and agricultural labour, two industries where heat exposure is an acute risk.

Bolaños — a staff member at the Workers Defense Project, a community organisation that fights for the rights of low-wage immigrant construction workers in Texas — said the heightened risks are part of a pattern of exploitation.

“Immigrant workers are especially prone to wage theft and other violations of their rights, and they’re often not aware of their rights,” said Bolaños.

The lack of heat-related protections, she added, was a reflection of how workplaces perceive these employees.

“Sometimes, they’re not seen as human,” Bolaños said. “They are not valued for their humanity, just what they can produce. Employers forget workers need to drink water. They need shade; they need breaks.”

Advertisement
Representative Greg Casar stands in front of the Capitol dome with fellow demonstrators.
US Representative Greg Casar of Texas has led ‘thirst strikes’ on the steps of the US Capitol [File: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters]

‘The monster is here’

Congressman Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat, believes part of the problem is also scepticism towards climate change itself — and a resistance to addressing its dangers.

“Many of us progressives used to campaign on ‘the climate crisis is coming,’ and we were accused of making up a monster that didn’t exist,” Casar told Al Jazeera.

“Now the monster is here, and the things we’re fighting for have become so basic. We’re arguing over food and housing. We’re arguing over people having the right to a water break.”

Casar has spent years organising demonstrations to showcase the plight of workers — including through “thirst strikes”, where he and others refused to drink for hours, to demonstrate the risks of extreme heat.

At a “thirst strike” last year, Marroquin’s coarse, strong hands clutched a sign that read, “PEOPLE OVER PROFITS”.

Tears flowed from her eyes, which she says have been damaged by the sun and heat. She explained she developed pterygium, a kind of fleshy growth near one of her eyes, from her exposure to hot, dry conditions.

Advertisement

Now, a year later, Marroquin told Al Jazeera she hopes change will come soon. Just this month, she spoke to OSHA about her experience and gave feedback on the forthcoming federal rule.

“It’s really difficult to implement laws about work,” she conceded. “But we have to demand that OSHA implements rules as a whole across construction sites, in the same way they demand scaffolding is built in a certain way.”

But even with a federal standard on the way, advocates and legal experts are wary. Several told Al Jazeera that new OSHA rules are notoriously difficult to pass because of understaffing and a high standard of review, as well as potential legal challenges.

Gonzalez, the advocate from the Texas AFL-CIO, said she was bracing for the mandatory public commenting period for the eventual rule — at which time, she expects corporations to weigh in.

“I’m sure there will be pushback from the state or associations, because the rule will impact all industries,” she said. “But hopefully, this is going to prevent people from dying.”

Advertisement

World

Video: Pakistan Launches Airstrikes on Afghanistan

Published

on

Video: Pakistan Launches Airstrikes on Afghanistan

new video loaded: Pakistan Launches Airstrikes on Afghanistan

Tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan escalated on Friday as the two countries clashed.
Advertisement

By Monika Cvorak

February 27, 2026

    Denmark’s Prime Minister Calls For a Snap Parliamentary Election

    1:36

    Marco Rubio Says U.S. Is Probing Deadly Cuban Shooting

    0:45

    Amid Chaos in Mexico, False Images Stoked Fears

    2:45

    Advertisement
    Violence in Mexico After Cartel Boss Is Killed

    1:40

    Violence Erupts Across Mexico After Cartel Boss Killed

    0:58

    The Japanese Airport That Doesn’t Lose Bags

    2:59

Video ›

Today’s Videos

Advertisement

U.S.

Politics

Immigration

NY Region

Science

Advertisement

Business

Culture

Books

Wellness

World

Advertisement

Africa

Americas

Asia

South Asia

Donald Trump

Advertisement

Middle East Crisis

Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Visual Investigations

Opinion Video

Advertisement

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Continue Reading

World

State Dept authorizes non-essential US Embassy personnel in Jerusalem to depart ahead of possible Iran strikes

Published

on

State Dept authorizes non-essential US Embassy personnel in Jerusalem to depart ahead of possible Iran strikes

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The State Department is allowing non-essential personnel working at the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem to leave Israel ahead of possible strikes on Iran. The embassy announced the decision early Friday morning and said that “in response to security incidents and without advance notice” it could place further restrictions on where U.S. government employees can travel within Israel.

Advertisement

The decision came after meetings and phone calls through the night Thursday into Friday, according to The New York Times, which reviewed a copy of an email that U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee sent to embassy workers.

The Times reported that the ambassador said in his email that the move was a result of “an abundance of caution” and that those wishing to leave “should do so TODAY.” He reportedly urged them to look for flights out of Ben Gurion Airport to any destination, cautioning that the embassy’s move “will likely result in high demand for airline seats today.”

The U.S. has authorized non-essential embassy personnel to leave Israel amid escalating tensions with Iran. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Iranian Leader Press Office/Anadolu via Getty Images)

In the email, Huckabee also said that there was “no need to panic,” but he underscored that those looking to leave should “make plans to depart sooner rather than later,” the Times reported.

“Focus on getting a seat to anyplace from which you can then continue travel to D.C., but the first priority will be getting expeditiously out of country,” Huckabee said in the email, according to the Times.

Advertisement

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, U.S. President Donald Trump’s nominee to be ambassador to Israel, arrives to testify during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Mar. 25, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

TRUMP MEETS NETANYAHU, SAYS HE WANTS IRAN DEAL BUT REMINDS TEHRAN OF ‘MIDNIGHT HAMMER’ OPERATION

The embassy reiterated the State Department’s advisory for U.S. citizens to reconsider traveling to Israel and the West Bank “due to terrorism and civil unrest.” Additionally, the department advised that U.S. citizens not travel to Gaza because of terrorism and armed conflict, as well as northern Israel, particularly within 2.5 miles of the Lebanese and Syrian borders because of “continued military presence and activity.” 

It also recommended that U.S. citizens not travel within 1.5 miles of the Egyptian border, with the exception of the Taba crossing, which remains open.

“Terrorist groups, lone-actor terrorists and other violent extremists continue plotting possible attacks in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Terrorists and violent extremists may attack with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, and local government facilities,” the embassy said in its warning. “The security environment is complex and can change quickly, and violence can occur in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza without warning.”

Advertisement

Israeli and U.S. flags are placed on the road leading to the U.S. consulate in the Jewish neighborhood of Arnona, on the East-West Jerusalem line in Jerusalem, May 9, 2018. (Corinna Kern/picture alliance via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

While the embassy did not specifically mention Iran in its warning, it referenced “increased regional tensions” that could “cause airlines to cancel and/or curtail flights into and out of Israel.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the State Department and the White House for comment on this matter.

Advertisement

Related Article

Iran’s shadowy chemical weapons program draws scrutiny as reports allege use against protesters
Continue Reading

World

Has India’s influence in Afghanistan grown under the Taliban?

Published

on

Has India’s influence in Afghanistan grown under the Taliban?

Pakistan has accused Afghanistan’s Taliban of serving as a “proxy” for India, amid escalating hostilities between Islamabad and Kabul.

Just hours after Pakistan bombed locations in Kabul early on Friday, Pakistan’s Minister of Defence Khawaja Asif wrote on X that after NATO forces withdrew from Afghanistan in July 2021, “it was expected that peace would prevail in Afghanistan and that the Taliban would focus on the interests of the Afghan people and regional stability”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“However, the Taliban turned Afghanistan into a colony of India,” he wrote and accused the Taliban of “exporting terrorism”.

“Pakistan made every effort, both directly and through friendly countries, to keep the situation stable. It carried out extensive diplomacy. However, the Taliban became a proxy of India,” he alleged as he declared an “open war” with Afghanistan.

This is not the first time that Asif has brought India into tensions with Afghanistan.

Advertisement

Last October, he alleged: “India wants to engage in a low-intensity war with Pakistan. To achieve this, they are using Kabul.”

So far, Asif has presented no evidence to back his claims and the Taliban has rejected accusations that it is being influenced by India.

But India has condemned the Pakistani military’s recent actions in Afghanistan, adding to Islamabad’s growing discernment that its nuclear rival and the Taliban are edging closer.

Earlier this week, after the Pakistani military carried out air raids inside Afghanistan on Sunday, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that New Delhi “strongly condemns Pakistan’s airstrikes on Afghan territory that have resulted in civilian casualties, including women and children, during the holy month of Ramadan”.

After Friday morning’s flare-up between Pakistan and Afghanistan, India’s foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal again said New Delhi “strongly” condemned Pakistan’s air strikes and also noted that they took place on a Friday during the holy month of Ramadan.

Advertisement

“It is another attempt by Pakistan to externalise its internal failures,” Jaiswal said in a statement on X.

Has India’s influence in Afghanistan grown under the Taliban and what is India’s endgame with Afghanistan?

Here’s what we know:

How have relations between India and the Taliban evolved?

When the Taliban first rose to power in Afghanistan in 1996, India adopted a hostile policy towards the group and did not recognise its assumption of power. India also shunned all diplomatic relations with the Taliban.

At the time, New Delhi viewed the Taliban as a proxy for Pakistan’s intelligence agencies. Pakistan, together with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, were the only three countries to have also recognised the Taliban administration at that point.

Advertisement

Then, in 2001, India supported the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, which toppled the Taliban administration. India then reopened its embassy in Kabul and embraced the new government led by Hamid Karzai. The Taliban, in response, attacked Indian embassies and consulates in Afghanistan. In 2008, at least 58 people were killed when the Taliban bombed India’s embassy in Kabul.

In 2021, after the Taliban returned to power, India closed its embassy in Afghanistan once again and also did not officially recognise the Taliban as the government of the country.

But a year later, as relations between Pakistan and the Taliban deteriorated over armed groups which Pakistan accuses Afghanistan of harbouring, India began engaging with the Taliban.

In 2022, India sent a team of “technical experts” to run its mission in Kabul and officially reopened its embassy in the Afghan capital last October. New Delhi also allowed the Taliban to operate Afghanistan consulates in the Indian cities of Mumbai and Hyderabad.

Over the past two years, officials from New Delhi and Afghanistan have also held meetings abroad, in Kabul and in New Delhi.

Advertisement

In January last year, the Taliban administration’s Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi met India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates.

Then, in October 2025, he visited New Delhi and met Indian foreign minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.

After this meeting, Muttaqi told journalists that Kabul “has always sought good relations with India” and, in a joint statement, Afghanistan and India pledged to have “close communication and continue regular engagement”.

Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi arrives at Darul Uloom Deoband, an Islamic seminary, in Deoband in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, India [File: Anushree Fadnavis/Reuters]

Besides beefing up diplomatic ties, India has also offered humanitarian support to Afghanistan under the Taliban’s rule.

After a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck northern Afghanistan in November last year, India shipped food, medicine and vaccines, and Jaishankar was also among the first foreign ministers to call Muttaqi and offer his support. Since last December, India has also approved and implemented several healthcare infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, according to a December 2025 report by the country’s press information bureau.

Advertisement

Praveen Donthi, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that the costs of avoiding engagement with the Taliban in the past have compelled the Indian government to adopt strategic pragmatism towards the Afghan leadership this time.

“New Delhi does not want to disregard this relationship on ideological grounds or create strategic space for India’s main strategic rivals, Pakistan and China, in its neighbourhood,” he said.

Raghav Sharma, professor and director at the Centre for Afghanistan Studies at the OP Jindal Global University in India, added that the current engagement also stems from New Delhi’s pragmatic realisation that the Taliban is now in charge in Afghanistan and that there is no meaningful opposition.

“States engage in order to protect and further their interests. While there is little by way of ideological convergence, there are areas of strategic convergence, which is what has pushed India to engage with the Taliban, some of their unpalatable policies notwithstanding,” he said.

Is this a new stance towards Afghanistan?

No. India’s growing influence and engagement with Afghanistan began well before the Taliban returned to power in August 2021.

Advertisement

Between December 2001 and September 2014, during the US presence in Afghanistan, New Delhi was a strong supporter of the Karzai government, and then of his successor, Ashraf Ghani’s government, which was in power from September 2014 until August 2021, when the US withdrew from the country.

In October 2011, under Karzai, India and Afghanistan renewed ties by signing an agreement to form a strategic partnership. New Delhi also pledged to support Afghanistan in the face of foreign troops in the nation as a part of this agreement.

Under both Karzai and his successor, Ghani, India invested more than $3bn in humanitarian aid and reconstruction work in Afghanistan. This included reconstruction projects like schools and hospitals, and also a new National Assembly building in Kabul, which was inaugurated in December 2015 when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Afghanistan for the first time.

India’s Border Road Organisation (BRO) also assisted Afghanistan in the development of infrastructure projects like the 218km Zaranj-Delaram highway in 2009 under Karzai’s government.

Under Ghani, New Delhi undertook building the Salma Dam project to help with irrigating Afghanistan. In June 2016, when Modi visited Afghanistan once again, he inaugurated this $290m dam project. In May 2016, Iran, India and Afghanistan also signed a trilateral trade and transit agreement on the Chabahar port.

Advertisement
Modi and Ghani
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi (L) and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani hold sweets as they inaugurate Afghanistan’s new parliament building in Kabul, Afghanistan [File: Stringer/Reuters]

During this period – 2001-2021 – Pakistan’s unease with New Delhi and Kabul’s new partnership grew.

In October 2011, after signing a strategic agreement with India, Karzai had assured Islamabad that while “India is a great friend, Pakistan is a twin brother”.

But Karzai was critical of Pakistan’s support for the Taliban. In his last speech as president of Afghanistan in Kabul in September 2014, he stated that he believed most of the Taliban leadership lived in Pakistan.

In a 2011 report by a Washington, DC-based think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Amer Latif, former director for South Asian affairs in the US Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, noted that Karzai was walking a “fine line between criticising Pakistan’s activities while also referring to Pakistan as Afghanistan’s ‘twin brother’.”

“It is in this context that Karzai appears to be looking to solidify long-term partnerships with countries that will aid his stabilisation efforts,” he said, referring to Karzai’s visit to India and his efforts to improve relations with the subcontinent.

When Ghani rose to power in September 2014, he tried to reset ties with Pakistan and also visited the country in November that year. But his efforts did not result in improved ties due to border disputes with Pakistan continuing until his administration was overthrown by the Taliban in August 2021.

Advertisement

So why has India maintained ties with Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Initially, when the Taliban returned to power in 2021 following the withdrawal of the US, political analysts largely expected Pakistan to lead the way in recognising the Taliban administration as the official government of Afghanistan, improving bilateral relations which had turned icy under Karzai and Ghani.

But relations turned hostile, with Pakistan repeatedly accusing the Taliban of allowing anti-Pakistan armed groups like the Pakistan Taliban (TTP) to operate from Afghan soil. The Taliban denies this.

Then, the deportation of tens of thousands of Afghan refugees by Pakistan in recent years further strained ties between the two neighbours.

India has ultimately taken a pragmatic approach to the Taliban in order to maintain the good relations it built with Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, and has somewhat leveraged poor relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan to cement these.

“With Pakistan’s increasingly strained relations with Afghanistan, the logic of ‘enemy’s enemy’ is acting as a glue between Kabul and New Delhi,” International Crisis Group’s Donthi said.

Advertisement

He added that despite the fact that India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government opposes Islamist organisations, “the strategic necessity to counter Pakistan has led it to engage with the Taliban proactively”.

India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed rivals which engaged in a four-day conflict in May 2025 after armed rebels killed Indian tourists in Pahalgam, a popular tourist spot in Indian-administered Kashmir, last April. New Delhi accused Pakistan of supporting rebel fighters, a charge Pakistan strongly denied.

For its part, Afghanistan took the opportunity to strongly condemn the Pahalgam attack and the Indian Ministry of External Affairs expressed “deep appreciation” to the Taliban for its “strong condemnation of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam … as well as for the sincere condolences”.

India has also condemned Pakistani military action in Afghanistan and has provided aid to thousands of Afghan refugees displaced from Pakistan.

So what is India’s endgame in Afghanistan?

Sharma, the OP Jindal Global University professor, said India wants to ensure that Pakistan and China, whose influence has grown in South Asia in recent years, “do not have a free run”, as “there is a divergence of interest on Afghanistan” with both Pakistan and its ally, China.

Advertisement

“There are security interests New Delhi is keen to further and protect for which engagement [with the Taliban] is the only option,” he added.

Anil Trigunayat, a former Indian diplomat, noted that while Afghanistan and Pakistan relations have their own dynamic, currently the Taliban leadership, even if not a monolith, refuses to play to the tunes of the Pakistan military and its intelligence agency.

“Hence they [Pakistan] accuse Indian complicity in Taliban actions in Pakistan,” he said.

But the Taliban, he said, “understands and appreciates India’s intent, policies and [humanitarian] contributions”, making its leaders keen to continue collaboration with New Delhi.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending