Featured Stories
Election Month Ruling By Supreme Court Regrettable
FAIRFAX, Virginia, July 27 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release:
* * *
Election Month Ruling By Supreme Court Regrettable
*
June 29, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee :
"In an apparent bid to avert Democrats' threatened Supreme Court packing scheme, Republican-appointed justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett have apparently opted to just give Democrats
... Show Full Article
FAIRFAX, Virginia, July 27 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release:
* * *
Election Month Ruling By Supreme Court Regrettable
*
June 29, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee :
"In an apparent bid to avert Democrats' threatened Supreme Court packing scheme, Republican-appointed justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett have apparently opted to just give Democratseverything they want including an election month voting where ballots are counted no matter how late they arrive after Election Day. Arguing there is no prohibition against late ballots, the nation's highest court has effectively made Election Day a dead letter. Now, the only resort for the American people who want to restore same-day voting is for Congress to pass another statute to clarify what federal law has already stated for more than a century was 'the day for the election...' This ruling is regrettable and will prove Stalin's maxim that it is not those who vote, but those who count the ballots that decide everything."
For media availability contact Americans for Limited Government at media@limitgov.org.
***
Original text here: https://getliberty.org/2026/06/election-month-ruling-by-supreme-court-regrettable/
Small Business Majority: Resolution to Overturn SBA Green Card Lending Ban Offers Support to Immigrant-Owned Businesses
WASHINGTON, July 24 -- Small Business Majority issued the following statement on July 23, 2026:
* * *
Resolution to Overturn SBA Green Card Lending Ban Offers Support to Immigrant-Owned Businesses
Statement from Alexis D'Amato Falvey, Small Business Majority Senior Director of Federal Government Affairs, on the importance of protecting access to SBA-backed loans for immigrant entrepreneurs
"The introduction of a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to rescind the U.S. Small Business Administration policy that prohibits green card holders from accessing SBA-backed loans is an important
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 24 -- Small Business Majority issued the following statement on July 23, 2026:
* * *
Resolution to Overturn SBA Green Card Lending Ban Offers Support to Immigrant-Owned Businesses
Statement from Alexis D'Amato Falvey, Small Business Majority Senior Director of Federal Government Affairs, on the importance of protecting access to SBA-backed loans for immigrant entrepreneurs
"The introduction of a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to rescind the U.S. Small Business Administration policy that prohibits green card holders from accessing SBA-backed loans is an importantfirst step toward ending a disastrous policy with the potential to wreak havoc on America's entrepreneurial ecosystem and worsen our economy. This step is necessary because SBA's new loan eligibility criteria, which went into effect on March 1, specifies that all direct and indirect owners of a small business must be U.S. citizens or nationals with principal residence in the United States in order to be eligible for the 7(a) and 504 programs. These restrictions also apply to the agency's Microloan and Surety Bond programs as of April 1.
Prior to SBA's more recent efforts to limit access to government-guaranteed loan programs for legal immigrant entrepreneurs, the agency had followed decades of precedent that allowed businesses that are at least 51% owned and controlled by U.S. citizens, nationals or green card holders to qualify for SBA-backed loans.
Denying access to responsible capital for immigrant entrepreneurs who have worked hard to comply with immigration laws needlessly denies many small business owners the opportunity to grow their enterprises and contribute to local job growth and economic success.
Although invoking the CRA to overturn this harmful policy is an important action, we cannot not stop there. Congress must also pass The Investing in the American Dream Act, which would guarantee that small businesses, including those that are owned in part by green card holders and other individuals lawfully in the U.S., can have access to the capital needed to grow through SBA's flagship lending programs. Ensuring access to responsible capital for immigrant-owned businesses is critical, especially given that at least 1 in 5 business owners are immigrants, making up 27 percent of all Main Street business owners, including 34 percent of restaurant owners and 33 percent of grocery store and supermarket owners.
If Congress does not act to reward legal immigration and protect access to capital for millions of small businesses and the employees who rely on those businesses, our local communities will pay a steep price. We urge Congress to swiftly take up the resolution and pass the Investing in the American Dream Act because the historic entrepreneurial spirit of our nation depends on it as well as the economic health of the United States depends on it."
* * *
About Small Business Majority
Small Business Majority is a national small business organization that empowers America's diverse entrepreneurs to build a thriving and equitable economy. We engage our network of more than 85,000 small businesses and 1,500 business and community organizations to advocate for public policy solutions and deliver resources to entrepreneurs that promote equitable small business growth. Our deep connections with the small business community along with our scientific research enable us to educate the public about key issues impacting America's entrepreneurs, with a special focus on advancing the smallest businesses and those facing systemic inequalities. Learn more about us on our website and follow us on Twitter(X), Facebook and Instagram.
* * *
Original text here: https://smallbusinessmajority.org/press-release/resolution-overturn-sba-green-card-lending-ban-offers-support-immigrant-owned-businesses
[Category: Business]
Save the Children: Venezuela Earthquakes - Pregnant Women and New Mothers Face Growing Health Risks
WESTPORT, Connecticut, July 24 -- Save the Children, an organization that says it is giving children a healthy start in life, opportunity to learn and protection from harm, posted the following news release:
* * *
VENEZUELA EARTHQUAKES: Pregnant Women and New Mothers Face Growing Health Risks
CARACAS - Thousands of pregnant women and new mothers have been affected by earthquakes in Venezuela,[1] where dozens of health facilities remain damaged and over 20,000 people are living in temporary shelter.
The twin earthquakes, of magnitude 7.2 and 7.5, struck on June 24, destroying and damaging dozens
... Show Full Article
WESTPORT, Connecticut, July 24 -- Save the Children, an organization that says it is giving children a healthy start in life, opportunity to learn and protection from harm, posted the following news release:
* * *
VENEZUELA EARTHQUAKES: Pregnant Women and New Mothers Face Growing Health Risks
CARACAS - Thousands of pregnant women and new mothers have been affected by earthquakes in Venezuela,[1] where dozens of health facilities remain damaged and over 20,000 people are living in temporary shelter.
The twin earthquakes, of magnitude 7.2 and 7.5, struck on June 24, destroying and damaging dozensof health facilities, disrupting essential maternal and child healthcare services, and leaving families uncertain where to seek care for themselves and their children.
Many pregnant women, caregivers, and their children who lost their homes are now living in temporary shelters where access to antenatal care, nutritious food, and clean water and sanitation is limited.
The UN estimates there are 36,700 pregnant women who have been affected by the earthquakes, 4,000 of whom are expected to give birth in the next month.[2]
Yohana,* 23, who is pregnant with her first child and relies on glasses to see, was alone at home in one of the hardest-hit parts of La Guaira when the earthquake hit, causing her building to collapse. She managed to escape by breaking a window.
"I went out barefoot, just wearing my house clothes," said Yohana*. "I lost my glasses...I couldn't see, or at least I could see less."
"When the whole house collapsed, I was scared. At that moment, I didn't feel that I had hurt [my stomach], but with all the chaos, I wasn't sure if I'd gotten hurt or not. But honestly, all I was thinking about was getting out alive."
Yohana* received a healthcare checkup at a mobile clinic run by a Save the Children partner, PALUZ, in La Guaira, where the main maternity hospital remains closed.
Meanwhile, newborn babies and infants living in sodden tents are falling sick from damp conditions or are at risk of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue during the country's rainy season. Some mothers living in temporary shelters say that along with feeling stressed and anxious, being able to buy nappies and other essential supplies for their babies is challenging.
Yennifer,* 23, who is breastfeeding her four-month-old baby, Carmen,* struggled to take care of her own health after the earthquake. Carmen's* pediatrician was also killed in the earthquake.
"I couldn't eat and I had a lot of headaches. I couldn't sleep because it felt like I was shaking. It was difficult for me, and any movement put me on alert and I felt very uneasy."
"Since [Carmen's*] pediatrician passed away, that's a big worry, because now how am I going to find someone to treat her because there's no money either," Yennifer* said.
"Everything feels overwhelming and I can't rest".
Research shows that high levels of stress and anxiety during pregnancy may affect a baby's brain development and immune system, increasing the risk of preterm birth or even miscarriage. Babies exposed to elevated maternal stress during pregnancy may also show more fear, sadness and distress at three months of age than those born to mothers who experienced less stress.
Limited access to nutritious food, uncontrolled infant formula donations, and reduced antenatal care during pregnancy also heighten the risk of malnutrition in infants and increases the risk of preterm birth and low birth weight.
Fatima Andraca, Save the Children's Country Director in Venezuela, said:
"Every day, hundreds of babies are born to mothers in Venezuela whose lives have been turned upside down by the earthquake and who are dealing with huge amounts of stress. Many are bringing their newborns into a world of uncertainty, displacement and disrupted healthcare services.
"We're hearing worrying reports of young babies becoming sick in camps where families are sleeping on damp mattresses exposed to rain and poor sanitation. At the same time, women are grieving loved ones, coping with trauma and worrying about where they can access healthcare after losing trusted obstetricians and pediatricians.
"Pregnancy and caring for a newborn can be challenging under any circumstances. No mother should have to navigate those challenges while living in a tent, mourning losses and worrying about whether her child can access the healthcare they need."
Save the Children said it is imperative that pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women, and their children, are prioritized in the humanitarian response and recovery in Venezuela through urgent coordination, adequate funding, and targeted actions.
Save the Children is calling on international governments, donors and humanitarian partners to ensure that pregnant and breastfeeding women affected by the earthquake have continuous access to quality antenatal, delivery and postnatal care, skilled infant and young child feeding support, nutritious food, safe shelter, clean water and sanitation, and essential newborn supplies, both now and in the months ahead.
Save the Children is working with authorities and local partners in Venezuela, providing primary healthcare through mobile clinics, distributing hygiene kits, clean water and essential supplies. Save the Children is also supporting parents and caregivers to access services for small and nutritionally at-risk babies under six months to help them survive and thrive, including nutrition assessments for babies, and breastfeeding counselling and mental health support for caregivers. The organization is also exploring potential support to maternal and pediatric services in coordination with national health authorities.
Save the Children has been working in Venezuela since 2019. Since the humanitarian crisis started to rapidly deteriorate a few years ago, Save the Children has been scaling its response through local partners to support the increasing number of children in need. Save the Children delivers health, nutrition, education, child protection, shelter, water, sanitation and hygiene and food security and livelihoods support.
* * *
*Names changed for anonymity
Footnotes:
[1] https://www.unfpa.org/resources/flash-update-earthquakes-venezuela-24-26-june-2026
[2] https://www.unfpa.org/resources/flash-update-earthquakes-venezuela-24-26-june-2026
Help Children in Venezuela Recover After Disaster
* * *
Save the Children believes every child deserves a future. Since our founding more than 100 years ago, we've been advocating for the rights of children worldwide. In the United States and around the world, we give children a healthy start in life, the opportunity to learn and protection from harm. We do whatever it takes for children - every day and in times of crisis - transforming the future we share. Our results, financial statements and charity ratings reaffirm that Save the Children is a charity you can trust. Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.savethechildren.org/us/about-us/media-and-news/2026-press-releases/venezuela-earthquakes-pregnant-women-new-mothers
[Category: Sociological]
Peterson Institute for International Economics Issues Commentary: Trump's New Tariffs Over Forced Labor are Unlikely to Survive a Court Challenge
WASHINGTON, July 24 -- The Peterson Institute for International Economics issued the following commentary by senior research staffer Alan Wm. Wolff:
* * *
Trump's new tariffs over forced labor are unlikely to survive a court challenge
The Trump administration is again shifting its stated rationale for placing comprehensive tariffs on imports of nearly all goods from virtually all countries. After originally presenting such measures as responses to a national emergency and next as remedies for balance-of-payments problems, officials now characterize their latest effort as a tool to press other
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 24 -- The Peterson Institute for International Economics issued the following commentary by senior research staffer Alan Wm. Wolff:
* * *
Trump's new tariffs over forced labor are unlikely to survive a court challenge
The Trump administration is again shifting its stated rationale for placing comprehensive tariffs on imports of nearly all goods from virtually all countries. After originally presenting such measures as responses to a national emergency and next as remedies for balance-of-payments problems, officials now characterize their latest effort as a tool to press othercountries to intensify their efforts against forced labor.
The first two approaches failed to achieve the administration's objective of lasting world-wide US tariffs, and the third will probably fail as well.
The planned tariffs to combat forced labor, which could start taking effect this week, again raise the question of whether the president has the legal authority to determine and implement US tariff policy--an authority that the Constitution vests in Congress. The answer is no: Congress did not delegate authority of such breadth to the president. It cannot constitutionally do so. These new tariffs would represent another case of presidential overreach. If they were challenged in court, the Supreme Court would likely overturn them.
President Donald Trump first attempted to establish near-global tariffs in April 2025 when he imposed his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs, claiming authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court struck them down in February 2026. He then ordered temporary 10 percent across-the-board tariffs purportedly to address a balance of payments problem under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The Court of International Trade found that the United States did not have a balance of payment problem as specified under this law, and these tariffs expire on July 24.
Foreseeing their expiration, the administration in June proposed additional tariffs of 10 percent or 12.5 percent on goods from 60 economies under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, alleging that their governments failed to prevent imports of goods made with forced labor. US officials have signaled they could start rolling out these measures this week. There are more problems with these proposed tariffs than the lack of legal authority. The chief economic downside of imposing a comprehensive tariff is that Americans, whether businesses or end consumers, bear 90 percent of its cost, according to researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the proposed tariffs will be an effective means of reducing forced labor abroad. The world has become accustomed to higher US tariffs. There is no evidence that changing the US rationale for them will materially reduce forced labor in other countries.
The tariffs' design also raises questions about their purpose. Why are the 60 targeted economies divided into just two categories--those with laws addressing forced labor and those without--and then assigned uniform tariffs of 10 or 12.5 percent? The lack of differentiation suggests that the administration's primary objective may be maintaining global tariffs, rather than crafting a carefully calibrated response to the problem of forced labor. If the goal were genuinely to induce stronger action against forced labor, one would expect the measures to reflect meaningful differences in countries' conduct and performance on that issue.
Forced labor is already dealt with under US law
The United States has barred imports of goods made with forced labor since 1930. In addition, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 identifies the use of forced labor as an actionable foreign practice subject to the president's retaliatory authority. There is nothing in US law to suggest that the government should respond to forced labor abroad by imposing secondary sanctions, which penalize one country for its dealings with another. Even the US response to apartheid in South Africa did not rely on secondary sanctions.
The United States is not a party to international agreements that condemn the use of forced labor
The International Labor Organization's (ILO) Forced Labor Convention, agreed to in 1930, requires the 181 ratifying states to suppress its use in all forms. The ILO Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labor Convention updates the 1930 convention by requiring member states to take effective measures to prevent forced labor, protect victims, and provide access to remedies and compensation. Some 61 countries have ratified it. The United States, however, has not ratified either of these two conventions perhaps in part because the United States often subcontracts the operation of prisons to private companies which may profit from the use of forced labor.
The World Trade Organization (WTO), which administers the rules of the trading system, leaves countries free to act against the products of prison labor. Following the recent WTO ministerial conference in Cameroon, US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer criticized the WTO as "not a serious forum" for global trade governance, specifically regarding global seafood commerce and fisheries. It is true that the 166 WTO members rarely find a consensus for adoption of binding rules and the WTO's dispute settlement system can no longer issue final determinations. With respect to both shortcomings, however, the United States is currently an important source of the WTO's ineffectiveness. It has taken the lead in preventing enforcement of the rules and has begun siding with those WTO members who resist agreeing to new rules. It could act differently and work to find support of other sympathetic members for an agreed approach.
What should be done?
The United States, the world's largest economy, has enormous leverage in its dealings with other countries, as Trump has proved during his second term. Were the nations of the world largely to agree with the United States to address the problem of forced labor for reasons of morality or because doing so is deemed of critical importance to America's and others' commercial interests, there would be a fairly good opportunity to engage in negotiations to address the issue. But the United States has not called for the negotiation of an international convention on this subject. Of course, international negotiation would not be useful if the administration's primary goal is restoring global tariffs rather than acting against forced labor.
Will the courts allow retaliatory authority, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, never used before in this manner, to be used now against multiple countries to impose secondary sanctions? The use is plausible in other circumstances. It is, after all, tariff authority. It is discretionary. Congress specified forced labor as a target of the statute. Clearly the statute could be used against individual countries that are a conduit for forced labor if there is sufficient adverse impact on the US economy. But Congress has not delegated to the president authority of the breadth claimed by the Trump administration. The Supreme Court is not likely to allow this expansion of the president's retaliatory authority under Section 301 to substitute for the Congress' role in setting tariffs generally. The Supreme Court held in February that tariffs were not a tool granted by Congress to the president to deal with a national emergency. For a balance of payments crisis, Congress limited presidential tariff action to 150 days and described requirements for its use. To use the retaliatory authority of Section 301, the acts, policies, or practices of a country must be found to burden US commerce. That requirement is not clearly satisfied for the 60 targeted countries, which account for nearly all US imports and 90 percent of world trade. Additionally, nothing in the history or use of the statute implies authority to levy a tariff against all products from all countries in the form of secondary sanctions.
The Supreme Court stipulated in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), that executive agencies cannot interpret for themselves the extent of their authority. It must also find that neither can the president do so when the Constitution provides otherwise. To paraphrase Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., times change, the Constitution does not. Setting broad tariffs is the sole prerogative of the Congress, not the president.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2026/trumps-new-tariffs-over-forced-labor-are-unlikely-survive-court
[Category: Economics]
Nuclear Threat Initiative Issues Statement on U.S.-Saudi 123 Agreement
WASHINGTON, July 24 -- The Nuclear Threat Initiative issued the following statement on July 23, 2026:
* * *
Statement of the Nuclear Threat Initiative on the U.S.-Saudi 123 Agreement
The global expansion of nuclear energy, including in the Middle East, is in the United States' interest--but it should not come at the expense of security. In practice, that means any nuclear cooperation agreement must include measures to prevent the spread of technologies that can be used to produce nuclear weapons. A requirement to implement strong international safeguards through the International Atomic Energy
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 24 -- The Nuclear Threat Initiative issued the following statement on July 23, 2026:
* * *
Statement of the Nuclear Threat Initiative on the U.S.-Saudi 123 Agreement
The global expansion of nuclear energy, including in the Middle East, is in the United States' interest--but it should not come at the expense of security. In practice, that means any nuclear cooperation agreement must include measures to prevent the spread of technologies that can be used to produce nuclear weapons. A requirement to implement strong international safeguards through the International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA) to ensure that there are no undeclared nuclear activities in partner countries is also critical.
These conditions should be at the forefront as the United States considers a civil nuclear cooperation agreement ("123 Agreement") with Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom has economic reasons to want a civilian nuclear energy program, but Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has not ruled out building a nuclear weapon in the future. In fact, he has said that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, "we will have to get one." Further, the terms of the U.S.-Saudi 123 will set a precedent--current and future civil nuclear partners of the United States may seek similar agreements. While the text of the 123 has not been publicly released, several reported aspects of the agreement raise serious questions:
* How will proliferation risks be factored into the two-year study on the feasibility of indigenous enrichment in the Kingdom? Clarity is needed on how such risks and their implications for regional stability will factor in the study, how a final decision on enrichment will be reached, and the implications for the transfer of enrichment technology.
* Does the agreement address reprocessing in Saudi Arabia? The agreement should make clear that Saudi Arabia will not acquire reprocessing technology, which could be used to produce weapons-usable nuclear material.
* How will the world have confidence that there are no undeclared nuclear activities in Saudi Arabia? In addition to Saudi Arabia's standard safeguards agreement, the IAEA will reportedly inspect U.S.-affiliated facilities under a separately negotiated arrangement. However, Riyadh will not implement the IAEA's strengthened safeguards mechanism--the Additional Protocol (AP). The AP has long been a condition of supply for U.S. nuclear materials and technology and is the principal tool the IAEA uses to ensure the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.
* How will this agreement set the right nonproliferation precedent for subsequent 123 agreements? Last year's White House executive orders note that the administration plans to execute at least 19 more 123 agreements with other countries. If the U.S.-Saudi Arabia agreement goes forward without strong nonproliferation requirements in place, how will the United States respond if other countries with previously settled agreements--including the Republic of Korea and the United Arab Emirates--seek to explore a renegotiation of their nonproliferation commitments?
Any U.S.-Saudi civil nuclear cooperation agreement will be long-term. The coming years offer an opportunity to shape and influence the contours of this partnership. Going forward, the United States should prioritize minimizing proliferation risks for long-term U.S. and global security.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nti.org/news/statement-of-the-nuclear-threat-initiative-on-the-u-s-saudi-123-agreement/
[Category: National Defense]
Environmental Groups Sue to Stop Discharge of Toxic Metals From Coal Ash
CHICAGO, Illinois, July 24 -- The Environmental Law and Policy Center posted the following news release:
* * *
Environmental Groups Sue to Stop Discharge of Toxic Metals from Coal Ash
"Iowa DNR must comply with the Clean Water Act and make Alliant stop this toxic pollution as soon as possible"
-
Today, the Environmental Law & Policy Center, along with other Iowa environmental groups, sued the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for approving permits that allow hazardous disposal practices at the Ottumwa coal-ash landfill, which holds waste from the Ottumwa coal-burning power plant co-owned
... Show Full Article
CHICAGO, Illinois, July 24 -- The Environmental Law and Policy Center posted the following news release:
* * *
Environmental Groups Sue to Stop Discharge of Toxic Metals from Coal Ash
"Iowa DNR must comply with the Clean Water Act and make Alliant stop this toxic pollution as soon as possible"
-
Today, the Environmental Law & Policy Center, along with other Iowa environmental groups, sued the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for approving permits that allow hazardous disposal practices at the Ottumwa coal-ash landfill, which holds waste from the Ottumwa coal-burning power plant co-ownedby Alliant Energy and MidAmerican Energy. Toxic discharge from the coal plant pollutes Iowa's groundwater and waterways, posing a serious health risk to nearby communities, fish, and wildlife. The groups -- Iowa Environmental Council (IEC), Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC), and Sierra Club -- are asking the Court to order the DNR to require Alliant to stop the discharge of coal ash leachate.
Coal ash is a byproduct of burning coal for energy. It contains toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury, lead, and other toxins that can cause cancer, disease, and physical and neurological harm.
"Iowa has an enormous amount of coal ash across the state. In Ottumwa, Alliant has no plan to protect the public from dangerous heavy metals leaching into the groundwater from its coal ash landfill," said Michael Schmidt, General Counsel at IEC. "Iowans are facing a cancer crisis and should not have to endure this ongoing risk."
The challenge filed today is based on federal discharge limits adopted in 2024 for coal-ash landfills. The limits on coal ash apply to leachate, which is precipitation that flows through coal ash and picks up heavy metals. The limits require facilities to stop discharging leachate "as soon as possible," but the permits issued by the DNR include no timeline for doing so.
"Iowa DNR must comply with the Clean Water Act and make Alliant stop this toxic pollution as soon as possible," said Josh Mandelbaum, Senior Attorney at ELPC. "Alliant is shifting the costs of running its dirty, expensive coal plant onto Ottumwa drinking water customers, and that is wrong."
The lawsuit also challenges the coal plant's discharge of groundwater polluted with heavy metals. Under the Clean Water Act, a discharger must analyze treatment options to minimize degradation and must justify the degradation of water quality. The lawsuit alleges that the previous analysis failed to consider feasible treatment options and did not justify any degradation. While Alliant identified multiple treatment options, it only pursued treatment focused on removing iron, not other contaminants. Alliant is currently trucking the waste to the city wastewater treatment plant and has no public plans to build an adequate treatment system.
"Coal-burning power plants and their waste pollute our air, rivers, and groundwater, and Iowans depend on the Iowa DNR to hold these polluters accountable," said Kristin Henry, Managing Attorney at Sierra Club. "Until utility companies fully transition to cleaner, cheaper renewable energy sources, we will keep fighting to protect people from the harms of coal plants in Iowa."
The environmental groups have raised concerns about the need to incorporate federal limits in the permits since 2024. In both 2024 and 2025, the groups hosted in-person meetings in Ottumwa for local residents to share their concerns with the DNR.
* * *
Original text here: https://elpc.org/news/environmental-groups-sue-to-stop-discharge-of-toxic-metals-from-coal-ash/
[Category: Environment]
CAIR-NJ Urges Vigilance Following Harassment Targeting NJ Mosques and Uptick in Anti-Muslim Rhetoric and Violence
WASHINGTON, July 24 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release:
* * *
CAIR-NJ Urges Vigilance Following Harassment Targeting NJ Mosques and Uptick in anti-Muslim Rhetoric and Violence
The New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-NJ) is urging mosques across the state to remain vigilant following a recent increase in reported incidents of anti-Muslim harassment targeting New Jersey mosques. This comes amidst an increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric from elected officials and violent attacks against mosques nationally.
Over the past
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 24 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release:
* * *
CAIR-NJ Urges Vigilance Following Harassment Targeting NJ Mosques and Uptick in anti-Muslim Rhetoric and Violence
The New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-NJ) is urging mosques across the state to remain vigilant following a recent increase in reported incidents of anti-Muslim harassment targeting New Jersey mosques. This comes amidst an increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric from elected officials and violent attacks against mosques nationally.
Over the pastfew weeks, CAIR-NJ has received reports from four different New Jersey mosques describing targeted harassment, including threatening phone calls, hate mail, and incidents of physical intimidation. Law enforcement authorities also alerted CAIR-NJ that six additional mosques had received similar targeted harassment.
CAIR-NJ is encouraging all Muslim institutions to take these incidents seriously, document any suspicious activity, and promptly report all incidents to both local law enforcement and CAIR-NJ.
SEE: Anti-Islamic rhetoric from GOP politicians sparks concerns over religious hatred (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/anti-islamic-rhetoric-from-gop-politicians-spark-concerns-over-religious-hatred)
SEE: San Diego Mosque Shooting Marks a Deadly First in the United States (https://www.csis.org/analysis/san-diego-mosque-shooting-marks-deadly-first-united-states)
In a statement, CAIR-NJ Public Affairs Director Naureen Akhter said:
"If your mosque experiences any form of harassment, whether it appears minor or severe, we encourage you to immediately file a police report and notify CAIR-NJ so we can provide support, monitor trends, and advocate for an appropriate response."
"The recent rise in harassment targeting New Jersey mosques comes amid an increasingly hostile climate fueled by anti-Muslim rhetoric from elected officials and public figures across the country. When our political leaders demonize Islam and Muslims without consequence, they risk normalizing prejudice and emboldening those willing to intimidate or target our communities.
"We are seeing the effects of that hostility play out here in New Jersey, and we are especially concerned in light of the shooting at a mosque in San Diego, which underscores the real-world dangers that can follow."
"No house of worship should have to fear intimidation or harassment. Our office is working closely with community leaders and authorities to ensure these incidents are addressed and our communities remain safe."
SEE: CAIR's Muslim Community Safety Kit (https://www.cair.com/american_muslims/cair-muslim-community-safety-kit/)
This CAIR guide provides practical guidance on improving security, responding to incidents, and protecting congregations.
* * *
CAIR's mission is to protect civil rights, enhance understanding of Islam, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-nj-urges-vigilance-following-harassment-targeting-nj-mosques-and-uptick-in-anti-muslim-rhetoric-and-violence/
[Category: Sociological]
