 |
|
|
|||||
On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to weaken limits on some harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water roughly a year after the Biden administration finalized the first-ever national standards.The Biden administration said last year the rules could reduce PFAS exposure for millions of people. It was part of a broader push by officials then to address drinking water quality by writing rules to require the removal of toxic lead pipes and, after years of activist concern, address the threat of forever chemicals.President Donald Trump has sought fewer environmental rules and more oil and gas development. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has carried out that agenda by announcing massive regulatory rollbacks.Now, we know the EPA plans to rescind limits for certain PFAS and lengthen deadlines for two of the most common types. Here are some of the essential things to know about PFAS chemicals and what the EPA decided to do: Please explain what PFAS are to me PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation’s air, water and soil.They were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across nonstick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand the rain and keep people dry.The chemicals resist breaking down, however, which means they stay around in the environment. And why are they bad for humans? Environmental activists say that PFAS manufacturers knew about the health harms of PFAS long before they were made public. The same attributes that make the chemicals so valuableresistance to breakdownmake them hazardous to people.PFAS accumulates in the body, which is why the Biden administration set limits for two common types, often called PFOA and PFOS, at 4 parts per trillion that are phased out of manufacturing but still present in the environment.There is a wide range of health harms now associated with exposure to certain PFAS. Cases of kidney disease, low-birth weight and high cholesterol in addition to certain cancers can be prevented by removing PFAS from water, according to the EPA.The guidance on PFOA and PFOS has changed dramatically in recent years as scientific understanding has advanced. The EPA in 2016, for example, said the combined amount of the two substances should not exceed 70 parts per trillion. The Biden administration later said no amount is safe. There is nuance in what the EPA did The EPA plans to scrap limits on three types of PFAS, some of which are less well known. They include GenX substances commonly found in North Carolina as well as substances called PFHxS and PFNA. There is also a limit on a mixture of PFAS, which the agency is also planning to rescind.It appears few utilities will be impacted by the withdrawal of limits for these types of PFAS. So far, sampling has found nearly 12% of U.S. water utilities are above the Biden administration’s limits. But most utilities face problems with PFOA or PFOS.For the two commonly found types, PFOA and PFOS, the EPA will keep the current limits in place but give utilities two more yearsuntil 2031to meet them. Announcement is met with mixed reaction Some environmental groups argue that the EPA can’t legally weaken the regulations. The Safe Water Drinking Act gives the EPA authority to limit water contaminants, and it includes a provision meant to prevent new rules from being looser than previous ones.“The law is very clear that the EPA can’t repeal or weaken the drinking water standard,” said Erik Olson, a senior strategist at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.Environmental activists have generally slammed the EPA for not keeping the Biden-era rules in place, saying it will worsen public health.Industry had mixed reactions. The American Chemistry Council questioned the Biden administration’s underlying science that supported the tight rules and said the Trump administration had considered the concerns about cost and the underlying science.“However, EPA’s actions only partially address this issue, and more is needed to prevent significant impacts on local communities and other unintended consequences,” the industry group said.Leaders of two major utility industry groups, the American Water Works Association and Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, said they supported the EPA’s decision to rescind a novel approach to limit a mix of chemicals. But they also said the changes do not substantially reduce the cost of the PFAS rule.Some utilities wanted a higher limit on PFOA and PFOS, according to Mark White, drinking water leader at the engineering firm CDM Smith. They did, however, get an extension. “This gives water pros more time to deal with the ones we know are bad, and we are going to need more time. Some utilities are just finding out now where they stand,” said Mike McGill, president of WaterPIO, a water industry communications firm. The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment Michael Phillis, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
U.S. President Donald Trumps plan to accept a $400 million airplane from Qatar raises a raft of questions about the scope of laws that relate to gifts from foreign governments and are intended to thwart corruption and improper influence, legal experts said. Below is a look at some of the laws and legal precedents: WHAT DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAY? There are two provisions in the U.S Constitution that place restrictions on the president receiving an emolument, or gift, from foreign governments or from federal or state governments. One provision states that Congress must approve any gift from a “King, Prince, or foreign State” to an elected official in the United States. The other, referred to as the “domestic” emoluments clause, prohibits the president from receiving a gift beyond salary for the job. Congress has expressly approved gifts from foreign governments in the past. In 1877, Congress accepted the Statue of Liberty as a gift from France. The foreign emoluments clause did not bar President Barack Obama in 2009 from receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, which included $1.4 million in cash, without congressional consent. A memo from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel determined the prize did not violate the Constitution because the Norwegian Nobel Committee is not a King, Prince, or foreign State. Obama donated the money to charity. WHO CAN ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS? That’s unclear, and the Supreme Court has not addressed the question, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Legal experts said members of Congress, U.S. states and even potentially some private businesses could try to sue the president if they believe a gift violates the foreign Emoluments Clause, but they face challenges. U.S. courts require plaintiffs to have legal “standing” to bring claims, meaning they must be the proper party to bring the case, which is a threshold issue for any litigation to advance. WHAT HAVE U.S. COURTS SAID ABOUT EMOLUMENTS? Until Trump’s first term, there had not been substantial litigation over the clauses, and even the meaning of the term “emolument” is a matter of legal dispute. Democratic members of Congress sued Trump in 2017 after his global businesses allegedly received payments from foreign governments, including when Kuwait hosted an event at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. That case was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which said the 215 members of Congress lacked standing to sue as an institution because they did not comprise a majority. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress at the time, as they do now. The U.S. Supreme Court declined in October 2020 to review that ruling. Attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia also jointly brought an emoluments cases related to Trump’s businesses during his first term. Their case was dismissed by a panel of three judges, appointed by Republican presidents, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, also for a lack of standing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined in 2019 that restaurants and hotels in New York and Washington had standing to bring an emoluments lawsuit claiming they were harmed by Trump’s competing businesses. The case was dismissed without addressing the merits when Trump left office after losing his the 2020 election. DO OTHER U.S. LAWS GOVERN FOREIGN GIFTS? The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act sets requirements for gifts and allows the president to keep any that are worth less than $480. Gifts worth more than $480 may be accepted on behalf of United States, which retains ownership. Presidents are allowed to keep gifts above the threshold level if they reimburse the government for the fair market cost. Mike Scarcella and Tom Hals, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
National parks posting thirst traps on TikTok was not on anyones 2025 bingo card. Recently, a Yellowstone National Park fan account has gone viral for pairing clips of adult entertainers and shirtless celebrities with sweeping shots of the parks natural beauty. @visit.yellowstone Mammoth Hot Springs is a large complex of hot springs on a hill of travertine in Yellowstone National Park adjacent to Fort Yellowstone @Johnathon Caine #stitch #booktok #darkromance #masktok #fantasy #momsover30 original sound – Yellowstone National Park In one viral video with 6.8 million views, social media star Thoren Bradley peels off his shirt just before the footage cuts to a serene alpine lake. In the comments, Bradley enthusiastically consents to being used for views to raise awareness for national parks. Another video, which has 6.1 million views, features actor Jason Momoa holding up an ice cream bar and asking, Bite her or lick her? The scene cuts to Yellowstones Painted Pots. One hashtag ensures it lands with the intended demographic: #momsover30. Big fan of this campaign, one user commented. ParkTok has officially gone harder than BookTok, wrote another. Johnathon Caine, an adult entertainer on OnlyFans, says hes gained a wave of new subscribers since the Yellowstone account began using his content. In one video, Caine recalls being off-grid in the mountains when his phone suddenly blew up with national park mentions. Im happy that my TikToks can direct attention to the parks in a time of need after the NPS funding got cut. Thats wonderful, Caine said in the post, adding, whoever is running the Yellowstone National Park TikTok page . . . how you doing? Contrary to popular belief, @visit.yellowstone is not the national parks official social media account. As for whos behind it? The only hint in the bio is that the creator is happily married and just obsessed with Yellowstone. The account has since inspired a number of copycat pages, including one for Yosemite National Park, Olympic National Park, Mount Rainier National Park, and the Appalachian Trail. Do you like your national parks big or on the smaller side? a Yosemite fan account posted suggestively. Is it possible for a national park to be too big? This playful, provocative strategy comes as President Donald Trumps proposed budget slashes more than $1 billion from the National Park Service. Earlier this spring, the department also shuttered the National Park Service Academy, a program that connected young adults from diverse backgrounds with summer jobs in the parks. While the identities and intentions behind the viral TikTok accounts remain unclear, their approach is unmistakably drawing attention to U.S. national parks. As one commenter put it: Someone’s boss said fine if we don’t get government support make us TikTok famous and we will support our damn selves. Official national parks social media managers, take note.
Category:
E-Commerce
The stock price of UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) is sinking yet again this morning after reports that the private healthcare company is now under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) over possible Medicare fraud. The company says it has not been notified by the DOJ about the alleged investigation, which was reported by the Wall Street Journal. As of the time of this writing, UNH shares are currently down over 6% to $289.20 per share in premarket trading. UNH shares have not seen that low since 2020. Before todays premarket fall, UNH shares had already been hammered since 2025 began. The stock closed at $308 yesterday, marking a more than 39% decline since the year began. Over the past six months, UNH stock had fallen 48% as of yesterdays close. However, a majority of the stock’s fall has happened in the past five days. As of yesterdays close, the stock was down more than 21% over the periodand todays further fall is only adding to its losses. Here are three reasons why UNH shares have fallen this week, including the latest news about the reported DOJ criminal investigation. CEO Andrew Witty abruptly steps down On Tuesday, UnitedHealth Group investors were hit with a double whammy of bad news, which sent the stock tumbling as much as 18% that day. The first bit of that bad news was the announcement that UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty was abruptly stepping down from his role as chief executive. Witty had been in the role since 2021 and was a leader whom investors adored. During his tenure, shares in UnitedHealth Group had soared more than 60%. However, after the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024and the glee with which many Americans reacted to itWitty wrote a much-maligned op-ed in the New York Times. Witty was criticized as being out of touch with the negative experiences of customers who have been denied coverage for critical and sometimes lifesaving health procedures. Announcing Wittys immediate departure on Monday, UnitedHealth Group did not give any detailed explanation of the unexpected move. The company merely said that Witty was stepping down for personal reasons. When a CEO abruptly leaves a company, it can make investors nervous. And nervous investors often sell, which is what happened on Tuesday after the announcement of Wittys departure. However, Wittys departure isnt the only thing that sent UNH shares falling 18% that day. UnitedHealth Group suspends 2025 outlook Also announced on Tuesday was that UnitedHealth Group had decided to suspend its 2025 outlook. When a company suspends its fiscal outlook, its a sign to investors that it does not have a lot of confidence in its financial projections for the next year. This uncertainty makes investors nervous and is another reason why the stock plummeted 18% on Tuesday. The reason UnitedHealth Group gave for suspending its 2025 outlook was due to the fact that medical costs for the companys new Medicare Advantage customer base were higher than expected. Announcing the suspension of its 2025 outlook, UnitedHealth Groups new CEO, Stephen Hemsley, said he was deeply disappointed in and apologize for the performance setbacks we have encountered from both external and internal challenges. The suspension of the 2025 outlook followed a cut that UnitedHealth Group made to its 2025 outlook last month. That cut came after the company missed its quarterly earnings expectations for the first time in more than 10 years. Rumored DOJ criminal investigation Investors were surely hoping yesterday that the worst news for UnitedHealth Group this week was behind it. After the 18% drop in UNH shares on Tuesday, UnitedHealth Groups stock price closed down just over 1% yesterdaya sign the bleeding had mostly stopped. But now UNH shares are down more than 6% this morning in premarket trading after the Wall Street Journal reported that UnitedHealth Group is now under a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice over possible Medicare fraud. The Journal was light on details in what the alleged criminal allegations covered, saying the exact nature of the potential criminal allegations against UnitedHealth is unclear, but it added that it was focused “on the companys Medicare Advantage business practices. The Journals reporting of a criminal investigation follows a February report from the paper in which it said that UnitedHealth Group was facing an investigation from the DOJ over its Medicare billing practices. Insurers get paid lump sums from the government via the Medicare Advantage system, and if patients have certain conditions, those lump-sum payments could be higher. In its February report, the Journal reported that Doctors said UnitedHealth . . . trained them to document revenue-generating diagnoses, including some they felt were obscure or irrelevant.” It added, The company also used software to suggest conditions and paid bonuses for considering the suggestions, among other tactics, according to the doctors. At the time, UnitedHealth Group called the Journals report misinformation. Reached for comment about the Journal‘s latest report, UnitedHealth Group referred Fast Company to a statement published on its website: We have not been notified by the Department of Justice of the supposed criminal investigation reported, without official attribution, in the Wall Street Journal today. The WSJs reporting is deeply irresponsible, as even it admits that the exact nature of the potential criminal allegations is unclear. We stand by the integrity of our Medicare Advantage program. Fast Company has also reached out to the DOJ for comment. We will update this post if we hear back.
Category:
E-Commerce
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised on Thursday to consider Donald Trump’s attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as the Republican president seeks a major shift in how the U.S. Constitution has long been understood. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on the administration’s emergency request to scale back injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts blocking Trump’s directive nationwide. The judges found Trump’s order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The case is unusual in that the administration has used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions, and have asked the justices to rule that way and enforce Trump’s directive even without weighing its legal merits. Trump’s order was challenged by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states as well as individual pregnant immigrants and immigrant rights advocates. His administration is seeking to narrow the injunctions to apply only to the individual plaintiffs and the 22 states, if the justices find the states have the required legal standing to sue. That could allow the policy to take effect in the 28 states that did not sue, aside from any plaintiffs living in those states. Trump signed his order, a key part of his hardline approach toward immigration, on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s directive violated the 14th Amendment, which long has been understood to confer citizenship on almost anyone born on U.S. soil. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The administration contends that the citizenship clause does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. The Justice Department has argued that these people are not subject to the “political jurisdiction” of the United States because their primary allegiance is to foreign countries. Automatic birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and “birth tourism” by expectant mothers traveling the United States to give birth and secure citizenship for their children, the Justice Department said. Universal injunctions have become increasingly contentious and have been opposed in recent years by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Judges often have impeded Trump’s aggressive use of executive orders and other initiatives this year, sometimes employing universal injunctions. The plaintiffs and other critics have said Trump’s directive is the quintessential example of a case in which judges should retain the power to issue universal relief, even if that power is curtailed by the Supreme Court. The 14th Amendment overrode an infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision called Dred Scott v. Sandford that had denied citizenship to Black people and helped fuel the Civil War. An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump’s Justice Department has argued that the court’s ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.” Andrew Chung, John Kruzel, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] next »