Public Policy & NGOs
Here's a look at documents from public policy and non-governmental organizations
Public Policy & NGOs
Featured Stories
Wildlife Society Issues Commentary: Harm of Redefining 'Harm'
BETHESDA, Maryland, Aug. 5 -- The Wildlife Society, a wildlife conservation organization, posted the following commentary on Aug. 4, 2026, by Chief Program Officer Cameron J. Kovach:
* * *
The harm of redefining 'harm'
In rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" while suggesting a different interpretation of the term, is the USFWS ignoring its own logic?
-
Last year, The Wildlife Society submitted comments critical of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act. On September 14, that rule is set to take ... Show Full Article BETHESDA, Maryland, Aug. 5 -- The Wildlife Society, a wildlife conservation organization, posted the following commentary on Aug. 4, 2026, by Chief Program Officer Cameron J. Kovach: * * * The harm of redefining 'harm' In rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" while suggesting a different interpretation of the term, is the USFWS ignoring its own logic? - Last year, The Wildlife Society submitted comments critical of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act. On September 14, that rule is set to takeeffect. While framed as an effort to limit agency authority after the Supreme Court's decision overturning the Chevron deference, the rule raises a fundamental question: Can an agency claim it lacks authority to define a statutory term while simultaneously advancing a new interpretation of that same term?
The Chevron deference was a Supreme Court legal doctrine that directed courts to defer to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. The Supreme Court overturned this doctrine in the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).
As identified in TWS' comments on USFWS' proposal, the rule does more than remove a regulatory definition. In the accompanying narrative provided by the USFWS and promoted by agency officials, the now finalized rule implies that habitat modification no longer constitutes "harm" under the ESA. The agency is effectively replacing one interpretation of "harm" with another. That creates an obvious tension. If agencies lack authority to define ambiguous statutory terms, they should also lack authority to substitute a new definition for an old one.
As TWS notes in our comments, when the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference, the Court did not overturn prior precedents and explicitly stated that earlier decisions relying on Chevron remain intact. To that point, the federal Supreme Court has already spoken on the definition of "harm." In Babbitt v. Sweet Home (1995), the Court held that habitat modification can constitute "harm" under the ESA and found the agency's definition consistent with the statute's text, structure and legislative history. Unless Congress amends the ESA or the Supreme Court revisits Babbitt v. Sweet Home, the governing interpretation of "harm" remains unchanged.
Similarly, TWS' position remains unchanged. If agencies wish to remove regulations post-Chevron deference, they should also acknowledge that existing Supreme Court precedent continues to govern the meaning of the law and that Congress retains ultimate authority to clarify ambiguous statutory terms. Any suggestion beyond that effectively rewrites the law without action from either Congress or the Court. It also mires the law in uncertainty and conflict where none should exist.
Unfortunately, this legal contradiction could have real-world consequences. Habitat loss remains one of the leading causes of species decline, and uncertainty surrounding the meaning of "harm" could complicate implementation and enforcement of ESA.
If you want to take action, contact the branch of government constitutionally responsible for creating and amending federal law. Contact your congressional representatives.
Read TWS' comments on the ESA regulatory definition of harm here (https://wildlife.org/tws-comments-on-esa-regulatory-definition-of-harm-2025/).
* * *
Original text here: https://wildlife.org/the-harm-of-redefining-harm/
[Category: Environment]
* * *
The harm of redefining 'harm'
In rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" while suggesting a different interpretation of the term, is the USFWS ignoring its own logic?
-
Last year, The Wildlife Society submitted comments critical of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act. On September 14, that rule is set to take ... Show Full Article BETHESDA, Maryland, Aug. 5 -- The Wildlife Society, a wildlife conservation organization, posted the following commentary on Aug. 4, 2026, by Chief Program Officer Cameron J. Kovach: * * * The harm of redefining 'harm' In rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" while suggesting a different interpretation of the term, is the USFWS ignoring its own logic? - Last year, The Wildlife Society submitted comments critical of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act. On September 14, that rule is set to takeeffect. While framed as an effort to limit agency authority after the Supreme Court's decision overturning the Chevron deference, the rule raises a fundamental question: Can an agency claim it lacks authority to define a statutory term while simultaneously advancing a new interpretation of that same term?
The Chevron deference was a Supreme Court legal doctrine that directed courts to defer to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. The Supreme Court overturned this doctrine in the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).
As identified in TWS' comments on USFWS' proposal, the rule does more than remove a regulatory definition. In the accompanying narrative provided by the USFWS and promoted by agency officials, the now finalized rule implies that habitat modification no longer constitutes "harm" under the ESA. The agency is effectively replacing one interpretation of "harm" with another. That creates an obvious tension. If agencies lack authority to define ambiguous statutory terms, they should also lack authority to substitute a new definition for an old one.
As TWS notes in our comments, when the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference, the Court did not overturn prior precedents and explicitly stated that earlier decisions relying on Chevron remain intact. To that point, the federal Supreme Court has already spoken on the definition of "harm." In Babbitt v. Sweet Home (1995), the Court held that habitat modification can constitute "harm" under the ESA and found the agency's definition consistent with the statute's text, structure and legislative history. Unless Congress amends the ESA or the Supreme Court revisits Babbitt v. Sweet Home, the governing interpretation of "harm" remains unchanged.
Similarly, TWS' position remains unchanged. If agencies wish to remove regulations post-Chevron deference, they should also acknowledge that existing Supreme Court precedent continues to govern the meaning of the law and that Congress retains ultimate authority to clarify ambiguous statutory terms. Any suggestion beyond that effectively rewrites the law without action from either Congress or the Court. It also mires the law in uncertainty and conflict where none should exist.
Unfortunately, this legal contradiction could have real-world consequences. Habitat loss remains one of the leading causes of species decline, and uncertainty surrounding the meaning of "harm" could complicate implementation and enforcement of ESA.
If you want to take action, contact the branch of government constitutionally responsible for creating and amending federal law. Contact your congressional representatives.
Read TWS' comments on the ESA regulatory definition of harm here (https://wildlife.org/tws-comments-on-esa-regulatory-definition-of-harm-2025/).
* * *
Original text here: https://wildlife.org/the-harm-of-redefining-harm/
[Category: Environment]
Virtua Health Appoints Ibrahim Sultan, MD, Internationally Recognized Cardiovascular Surgeon, as VP of Clinical Operations for Cardiovascular Services
MARLTON, New Jersey, Aug. 5 -- Virtua Health, a provider of health care services, issued the following news:
* * *
Virtua Health Appoints Ibrahim Sultan, MD, Internationally Recognized Cardiovascular Surgeon, as VP of Clinical Operations for Cardiovascular Services
Dr. Sultan will help advance patient care and expand access to leading-edge heart and vascular services throughout the region
-
Virtua Health, South Jersey's largest health system, has appointed Ibrahim Sultan, MD, FACS, FACC, FAHA, as vice president of clinical operations for Virtua's cardiovascular service line.
Dr. Sultan is ... Show Full Article MARLTON, New Jersey, Aug. 5 -- Virtua Health, a provider of health care services, issued the following news: * * * Virtua Health Appoints Ibrahim Sultan, MD, Internationally Recognized Cardiovascular Surgeon, as VP of Clinical Operations for Cardiovascular Services Dr. Sultan will help advance patient care and expand access to leading-edge heart and vascular services throughout the region - Virtua Health, South Jersey's largest health system, has appointed Ibrahim Sultan, MD, FACS, FACC, FAHA, as vice president of clinical operations for Virtua's cardiovascular service line. Dr. Sultan isan internationally recognized cardiothoracic surgeon, researcher, educator, and physician leader with extensive experience in complex cardiac surgery, clinical program development, quality, research, and innovation. In this role, he will help shape strategy, operations, quality, growth, and innovation across Virtua's cardiovascular programs. He will collaborate with clinicians and leaders to advance patient care, strengthen clinical programs, and expand access to advanced heart and vascular services throughout the region.
"Virtua has established itself as a leader in delivering high-quality cardiovascular care," said Dr. Sultan. "I look forward to partnering with Virtua's exceptional clinicians and leaders to expand access to complex cardiovascular therapies, strengthen multidisciplinary programs and deliver care that reflects the highest standards of quality, innovation, and patient-centered outcomes."
Before joining Virtua, Dr. Sultan held senior academic and clinical leadership roles at UPMC and the University of Pittsburgh, including professor and chief of cardiac surgery, executive vice chair for cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, and co-director of the Heart and Vascular Institute.
Dr. Sultan has deep expertise in complex cardiovascular disease, with a particular focus on thoracic aortic disease, including aortic aneurysms and dissections, as well as surgical and transcatheter approaches to aortic and mitral valve repair and replacement. He has authored more than 500 peer-reviewed publications, served as a principal investigator in more than 20 clinical trials, and delivered more than 200 invited lectures worldwide.
Dr. Sultan has also contributed to national cardiovascular leadership, professional society governance, and quality initiatives. He serves on the board of directors of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and has held leadership roles within the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.
"Dr. Sultan is an extraordinary physician, researcher, and leader whose accomplishments have earned him national and international recognition," said Jennifer Khelil, DO, MBA, executive vice president and chief clinical officer for Virtua Health. "His commitment to innovation, quality, and patient-centered care aligns perfectly with Virtua's mission. We are thrilled to welcome him to Virtua and look forward to the impact he will have on our cardiovascular programs and the communities we serve."
A speaker of three languages - Urdu, Hindi, and English - Dr. Sultan earned his medical degree from Weill Cornell Medical College. He completed his general surgery residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital, followed by cardiothoracic surgery training and advanced fellowship training in aortic and minimally invasive cardiac surgery at the University of Pennsylvania.
View Dr. Sultan's office locations and phone numbers to schedule an appointment (https://doctors.virtua.org/provider/ibrahim-sultan/7162359).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.virtua.org/news/virtua-appoints-ibrahim-sultan-md-vp-clinical-operations-for-cardiovascular-services
[Category: Health Care]
* * *
Virtua Health Appoints Ibrahim Sultan, MD, Internationally Recognized Cardiovascular Surgeon, as VP of Clinical Operations for Cardiovascular Services
Dr. Sultan will help advance patient care and expand access to leading-edge heart and vascular services throughout the region
-
Virtua Health, South Jersey's largest health system, has appointed Ibrahim Sultan, MD, FACS, FACC, FAHA, as vice president of clinical operations for Virtua's cardiovascular service line.
Dr. Sultan is ... Show Full Article MARLTON, New Jersey, Aug. 5 -- Virtua Health, a provider of health care services, issued the following news: * * * Virtua Health Appoints Ibrahim Sultan, MD, Internationally Recognized Cardiovascular Surgeon, as VP of Clinical Operations for Cardiovascular Services Dr. Sultan will help advance patient care and expand access to leading-edge heart and vascular services throughout the region - Virtua Health, South Jersey's largest health system, has appointed Ibrahim Sultan, MD, FACS, FACC, FAHA, as vice president of clinical operations for Virtua's cardiovascular service line. Dr. Sultan isan internationally recognized cardiothoracic surgeon, researcher, educator, and physician leader with extensive experience in complex cardiac surgery, clinical program development, quality, research, and innovation. In this role, he will help shape strategy, operations, quality, growth, and innovation across Virtua's cardiovascular programs. He will collaborate with clinicians and leaders to advance patient care, strengthen clinical programs, and expand access to advanced heart and vascular services throughout the region.
"Virtua has established itself as a leader in delivering high-quality cardiovascular care," said Dr. Sultan. "I look forward to partnering with Virtua's exceptional clinicians and leaders to expand access to complex cardiovascular therapies, strengthen multidisciplinary programs and deliver care that reflects the highest standards of quality, innovation, and patient-centered outcomes."
Before joining Virtua, Dr. Sultan held senior academic and clinical leadership roles at UPMC and the University of Pittsburgh, including professor and chief of cardiac surgery, executive vice chair for cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, and co-director of the Heart and Vascular Institute.
Dr. Sultan has deep expertise in complex cardiovascular disease, with a particular focus on thoracic aortic disease, including aortic aneurysms and dissections, as well as surgical and transcatheter approaches to aortic and mitral valve repair and replacement. He has authored more than 500 peer-reviewed publications, served as a principal investigator in more than 20 clinical trials, and delivered more than 200 invited lectures worldwide.
Dr. Sultan has also contributed to national cardiovascular leadership, professional society governance, and quality initiatives. He serves on the board of directors of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and has held leadership roles within the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.
"Dr. Sultan is an extraordinary physician, researcher, and leader whose accomplishments have earned him national and international recognition," said Jennifer Khelil, DO, MBA, executive vice president and chief clinical officer for Virtua Health. "His commitment to innovation, quality, and patient-centered care aligns perfectly with Virtua's mission. We are thrilled to welcome him to Virtua and look forward to the impact he will have on our cardiovascular programs and the communities we serve."
A speaker of three languages - Urdu, Hindi, and English - Dr. Sultan earned his medical degree from Weill Cornell Medical College. He completed his general surgery residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital, followed by cardiothoracic surgery training and advanced fellowship training in aortic and minimally invasive cardiac surgery at the University of Pennsylvania.
View Dr. Sultan's office locations and phone numbers to schedule an appointment (https://doctors.virtua.org/provider/ibrahim-sultan/7162359).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.virtua.org/news/virtua-appoints-ibrahim-sultan-md-vp-clinical-operations-for-cardiovascular-services
[Category: Health Care]
U.S. Beekeepers Sue USDA, Alleging Imported 'Organic' Honey Misleads Consumers and Violates Federal Law
FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Aug. 5 -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following news:
* * *
U.S. Beekeepers Sue USDA, Alleging Imported 'Organic' Honey Misleads Consumers and Violates Federal Law
Four major U.S. commercial beekeeping operations have sued the USDA, alleging the agency allows millions of pounds of imported honey to carry the USDA organic seal through certification pathways unavailable to American producers. The lawsuit claims the practice misleads consumers, ... Show Full Article FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Aug. 5 -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following news: * * * U.S. Beekeepers Sue USDA, Alleging Imported 'Organic' Honey Misleads Consumers and Violates Federal Law Four major U.S. commercial beekeeping operations have sued the USDA, alleging the agency allows millions of pounds of imported honey to carry the USDA organic seal through certification pathways unavailable to American producers. The lawsuit claims the practice misleads consumers,undermines domestic beekeepers and violates federal organic law by creating a double standard for organic honey certification.
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
Four major U.S. commercial beekeeping operations are suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for allegedly allowing millions of pounds of imported honey to carry the USDA organic seal through regulatory loopholes unavailable to American producers.
Royal Honey Farm LLC of Washington, Strehlow Bees Inc. and Adee Honey Farms LLC of South Dakota, and Fischer Honey Farm Inc. of Texas filed the complaint today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
The producers allege that USDA organic standards make it impossible to mass-produce organic honey in the U.S. At the same time, foreign producers -- particularly in Brazil -- are allowed to use different, substantially less stringent certification rules, which allow them to bypass USDA standards and mass-produce and export honey to the U.S. that is then stamped with the USDA certified organic label.
This honey is sold to U.S. consumers as "organic" by major distributors, including Costco, without public knowledge that the product likely does not meet U.S. organic standards, the plaintiffs allege.
Rather than seeking monetary damages, the beekeepers are asking the court to stop the alleged "false labeling." They want the court to order USDA to stop allowing the use of the licensed USDA organic seal on foreign honey labels until the agency brings its certification practices into compliance with federal law.
The beekeepers allege the USDA created multiple loopholes for foreign producers that mislead consumers and push U.S. beekeepers out of the market in violation of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.
"US consumers who rely on the USDA organic seal to guarantee honey is produced by bees feeding in an agrichemical-free environment are being defrauded," Bruce Kaser, an Oregon organic hazelnut farmer and attorney representing the U.S. honey producers who filed the suit, said in a statement.
"We are hoping that this lawsuit awakens the public to the problems," he told The Defender.
CHD's Back to School Toolkit: Protect Their Health. Know Your Rights. Ask The Right Questions. - Get the Toolkit
Imported honey dominates market
Approximately 80% of all honey sold in the U.S. is imported, according to the organic watchdog organization OrganicEye. A substantial portion of that honey carries the organic label.
Imported organic honey has significantly altered the U.S. honey market, according to the beekeepers' lawsuit. They cite figures showing that U.S. beekeepers sold approximately 116 million pounds of honey -- both conventional and organic -- in 2025, down 14% from the year before. Organic honey imports exceeded 78 million pounds during the same period.
The lawsuit also alleges that roughly 60 million pounds of domestic honey remained unsold in warehouses, with some producers holding as much as three years' worth of inventory.
Those who did sell honey in spring 2026 sold at a loss, according to the complaint.
Commercial beekeepers must move large numbers of beehives from place to place to pollinate crops and produce honey. Bees fly miles from their hives, and beekeepers can't control where they forage.
USDA organic standards require bees to forage within a 1.8-mile radius consisting entirely of certified organic farmland or qualifying wildland. That means certified organic honey in the U.S. must come from bees that forage exclusively on certified organic land within a 10-square-mile area.
"That is an impossible standard," Kaser said, because commercial beekeeping depends on moving hives through landscapes that inevitably include conventional agricultural land.
There are only four certified organic honey operations in the U.S. All are located in Hawaii.
The plaintiffs attribute the downturn in domestic honey sales to what they describe as "cheap, low quality ('adulterated') foreign honey imports" produced by companies outside the U.S. that exploit loopholes so they can label their products as "certified organic" even though their products aren't produced according to USDA organic standards.
Most organic honey imported to the U.S. comes from Brazil. The lawsuit alleges that it is implausible that the 60 million pounds of Brazilian "organic" honey could have been produced by bees with no access to commercial agroindustrial land.
"Based on the number of hives involved and the need to regularly rotate them to new feeding grounds, the reality is quite different -- particularly given Brazil's dominance in worldwide conventional, GMO grain markets," according to OrganicEye.
Brazilian farmers are not committing fraud, Kaser said -- they are using loopholes -- created by the USDA -- to get certified.
Costco, Whole Foods, Kroger and other major retailers are misleading consumers
In the U.S., the organic certification process includes a site visit, during which a third-party inspector examines a farm to determine if it complies with organic growing practices, which exclude the use of pesticides. The inspection is a key requirement in the U.S. system.
Non-U.S. farmers can instead use "group certification," a process under which large agricultural organizations receive certification covering multiple individual producers. Kaser said the process was originally intended to ease certification for small farmers in the Global South.
But as demand for organic products has grown, so has reliance on group certification, Kaser said. Today, he said, group certification abroad is often administered by agribusinesses that review producers' agriculture plans rather than inspecting farms directly.
The beekeepers' lawsuit alleges that Congress never authorized this certification model under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.
Another alleged loophole is the U.S.-Canada Organic Equivalency Arrangement, under which the USDA recognizes Canadian organic certification as equivalent to its own. Because Canadian standards are considered equivalent to U.S. standards, honey certified under Canadian rules can also receive the USDA organic seal.
But Canadian standards allow hives to be located near conventional farmland where synthetic fertilizers are used. Canadian standards also apply different rules for pesticide exposure and bee forage.
Canada also allows group certification, and certifying organizations accredited by the Canadian government operate globally, issuing Canadian certification to growers worldwide -- who can then use it to obtain the USDA stamp.
According to the lawsuit, these standards are materially different from U.S. law, yet result in honey bearing the USDA organic seal. This creates what they describe as a "hidden certification pathway" that lets producers in Brazil and other countries market honey as USDA organic even though similarly situated U.S. producers cannot.
As a result, the lawsuit alleges, major retailers -- including Costco, Walmart -- can use what plaintiffs characterize as misleading labeling.
Bottles labeled "Organic Raw Honey" and "Product of Brazil," bearing the USDA organic seal, communicate to consumers that the honey was produced under USDA organic standards, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs argue the USDA has effectively created two classes of honey producers: U.S. beekeepers who cannot qualify for organic certification under current standards, and foreign producers who receive more favorable treatment through alternative certification pathways.
U.S. farmers won't survive if they have to compete against fraud
Mark Kastel, founder of OrganicEye, said the problem extends beyond honey.
"It's by no means the only case where what we buy in the United States and assume meets the federal standards has been undermined by imports that are skipping the regulatory oversight that U.S. farmers and marketers have to abide by."
A growing share of organic products sold in the U.S. are imported, Kastel said, including grains fed to chickens that produce "organic" eggs -- and producers can use similar loopholes to obtain the USDA label for those products.
That leaves U.S. farmers facing higher costs and more stringent regulations to compete with cheaper imported products that get the same USDA stamp of approval, Kastel said, making it difficult to recruit new farmers into organic growing.
In the last few years, the Organic Trade Association spent $100 million from USDA training new organic farmers, Kastel said. "We recruited and trained these people to fail. If there isn't a sustainable and secure marketplace and they have to compete against fraud, they're not going to survive."
Kastel said the situation is part of a long-standing problem with regulatory capture in the organic industry. Many members of the National Organic Standards Board come from large organic agriculture conglomerates that have an interest in buying cheaper imported goods.
Under the Trump administration, he said, things have gotten worse. The board should have 15 members, but the administration has failed to fill a third of the slots. It has no representative from certifiers.
* * *
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.
* * *
Original text here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/beekeepers-sue-usda-alleging-imported-organic-honey-misleads-consumers-violates-federal-law/
[Category: Health Care]
* * *
U.S. Beekeepers Sue USDA, Alleging Imported 'Organic' Honey Misleads Consumers and Violates Federal Law
Four major U.S. commercial beekeeping operations have sued the USDA, alleging the agency allows millions of pounds of imported honey to carry the USDA organic seal through certification pathways unavailable to American producers. The lawsuit claims the practice misleads consumers, ... Show Full Article FRANKLIN LAKES, New Jersey, Aug. 5 -- Children's Health Defense, an organization that says it restores and protects the health of children by eliminating exposures to environmental toxins, issued the following news: * * * U.S. Beekeepers Sue USDA, Alleging Imported 'Organic' Honey Misleads Consumers and Violates Federal Law Four major U.S. commercial beekeeping operations have sued the USDA, alleging the agency allows millions of pounds of imported honey to carry the USDA organic seal through certification pathways unavailable to American producers. The lawsuit claims the practice misleads consumers,undermines domestic beekeepers and violates federal organic law by creating a double standard for organic honey certification.
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
Four major U.S. commercial beekeeping operations are suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for allegedly allowing millions of pounds of imported honey to carry the USDA organic seal through regulatory loopholes unavailable to American producers.
Royal Honey Farm LLC of Washington, Strehlow Bees Inc. and Adee Honey Farms LLC of South Dakota, and Fischer Honey Farm Inc. of Texas filed the complaint today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
The producers allege that USDA organic standards make it impossible to mass-produce organic honey in the U.S. At the same time, foreign producers -- particularly in Brazil -- are allowed to use different, substantially less stringent certification rules, which allow them to bypass USDA standards and mass-produce and export honey to the U.S. that is then stamped with the USDA certified organic label.
This honey is sold to U.S. consumers as "organic" by major distributors, including Costco, without public knowledge that the product likely does not meet U.S. organic standards, the plaintiffs allege.
Rather than seeking monetary damages, the beekeepers are asking the court to stop the alleged "false labeling." They want the court to order USDA to stop allowing the use of the licensed USDA organic seal on foreign honey labels until the agency brings its certification practices into compliance with federal law.
The beekeepers allege the USDA created multiple loopholes for foreign producers that mislead consumers and push U.S. beekeepers out of the market in violation of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.
"US consumers who rely on the USDA organic seal to guarantee honey is produced by bees feeding in an agrichemical-free environment are being defrauded," Bruce Kaser, an Oregon organic hazelnut farmer and attorney representing the U.S. honey producers who filed the suit, said in a statement.
"We are hoping that this lawsuit awakens the public to the problems," he told The Defender.
CHD's Back to School Toolkit: Protect Their Health. Know Your Rights. Ask The Right Questions. - Get the Toolkit
Imported honey dominates market
Approximately 80% of all honey sold in the U.S. is imported, according to the organic watchdog organization OrganicEye. A substantial portion of that honey carries the organic label.
Imported organic honey has significantly altered the U.S. honey market, according to the beekeepers' lawsuit. They cite figures showing that U.S. beekeepers sold approximately 116 million pounds of honey -- both conventional and organic -- in 2025, down 14% from the year before. Organic honey imports exceeded 78 million pounds during the same period.
The lawsuit also alleges that roughly 60 million pounds of domestic honey remained unsold in warehouses, with some producers holding as much as three years' worth of inventory.
Those who did sell honey in spring 2026 sold at a loss, according to the complaint.
Commercial beekeepers must move large numbers of beehives from place to place to pollinate crops and produce honey. Bees fly miles from their hives, and beekeepers can't control where they forage.
USDA organic standards require bees to forage within a 1.8-mile radius consisting entirely of certified organic farmland or qualifying wildland. That means certified organic honey in the U.S. must come from bees that forage exclusively on certified organic land within a 10-square-mile area.
"That is an impossible standard," Kaser said, because commercial beekeeping depends on moving hives through landscapes that inevitably include conventional agricultural land.
There are only four certified organic honey operations in the U.S. All are located in Hawaii.
The plaintiffs attribute the downturn in domestic honey sales to what they describe as "cheap, low quality ('adulterated') foreign honey imports" produced by companies outside the U.S. that exploit loopholes so they can label their products as "certified organic" even though their products aren't produced according to USDA organic standards.
Most organic honey imported to the U.S. comes from Brazil. The lawsuit alleges that it is implausible that the 60 million pounds of Brazilian "organic" honey could have been produced by bees with no access to commercial agroindustrial land.
"Based on the number of hives involved and the need to regularly rotate them to new feeding grounds, the reality is quite different -- particularly given Brazil's dominance in worldwide conventional, GMO grain markets," according to OrganicEye.
Brazilian farmers are not committing fraud, Kaser said -- they are using loopholes -- created by the USDA -- to get certified.
Costco, Whole Foods, Kroger and other major retailers are misleading consumers
In the U.S., the organic certification process includes a site visit, during which a third-party inspector examines a farm to determine if it complies with organic growing practices, which exclude the use of pesticides. The inspection is a key requirement in the U.S. system.
Non-U.S. farmers can instead use "group certification," a process under which large agricultural organizations receive certification covering multiple individual producers. Kaser said the process was originally intended to ease certification for small farmers in the Global South.
But as demand for organic products has grown, so has reliance on group certification, Kaser said. Today, he said, group certification abroad is often administered by agribusinesses that review producers' agriculture plans rather than inspecting farms directly.
The beekeepers' lawsuit alleges that Congress never authorized this certification model under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.
Another alleged loophole is the U.S.-Canada Organic Equivalency Arrangement, under which the USDA recognizes Canadian organic certification as equivalent to its own. Because Canadian standards are considered equivalent to U.S. standards, honey certified under Canadian rules can also receive the USDA organic seal.
But Canadian standards allow hives to be located near conventional farmland where synthetic fertilizers are used. Canadian standards also apply different rules for pesticide exposure and bee forage.
Canada also allows group certification, and certifying organizations accredited by the Canadian government operate globally, issuing Canadian certification to growers worldwide -- who can then use it to obtain the USDA stamp.
According to the lawsuit, these standards are materially different from U.S. law, yet result in honey bearing the USDA organic seal. This creates what they describe as a "hidden certification pathway" that lets producers in Brazil and other countries market honey as USDA organic even though similarly situated U.S. producers cannot.
As a result, the lawsuit alleges, major retailers -- including Costco, Walmart -- can use what plaintiffs characterize as misleading labeling.
Bottles labeled "Organic Raw Honey" and "Product of Brazil," bearing the USDA organic seal, communicate to consumers that the honey was produced under USDA organic standards, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs argue the USDA has effectively created two classes of honey producers: U.S. beekeepers who cannot qualify for organic certification under current standards, and foreign producers who receive more favorable treatment through alternative certification pathways.
U.S. farmers won't survive if they have to compete against fraud
Mark Kastel, founder of OrganicEye, said the problem extends beyond honey.
"It's by no means the only case where what we buy in the United States and assume meets the federal standards has been undermined by imports that are skipping the regulatory oversight that U.S. farmers and marketers have to abide by."
A growing share of organic products sold in the U.S. are imported, Kastel said, including grains fed to chickens that produce "organic" eggs -- and producers can use similar loopholes to obtain the USDA label for those products.
That leaves U.S. farmers facing higher costs and more stringent regulations to compete with cheaper imported products that get the same USDA stamp of approval, Kastel said, making it difficult to recruit new farmers into organic growing.
In the last few years, the Organic Trade Association spent $100 million from USDA training new organic farmers, Kastel said. "We recruited and trained these people to fail. If there isn't a sustainable and secure marketplace and they have to compete against fraud, they're not going to survive."
Kastel said the situation is part of a long-standing problem with regulatory capture in the organic industry. Many members of the National Organic Standards Board come from large organic agriculture conglomerates that have an interest in buying cheaper imported goods.
Under the Trump administration, he said, things have gotten worse. The board should have 15 members, but the administration has failed to fill a third of the slots. It has no representative from certifiers.
* * *
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.
* * *
Original text here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/beekeepers-sue-usda-alleging-imported-organic-honey-misleads-consumers-violates-federal-law/
[Category: Health Care]
Trump Administration's Plan to Put Louisiana in Charge of Toxic Coal Ash Pollution Threatens Sources of Drinking Water
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 5 -- Earthjustice posted the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026:
* * *
Trump Administration's Plan to Put Louisiana in Charge of Toxic Coal Ash Pollution Threatens Sources of Drinking Water
Testing at all Louisiana coal plants found groundwater contamination above federal safe drinking water standards
-
Baton Rouge, LA -- Today, Earthjustice, the Alliance for Affordable Energy Louisiana, and the Sierra Club urged the Trump administration to abandon its plan to put the State of Louisiana in charge of oversight of toxic coal ash waste due to the state's abysmal ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 5 -- Earthjustice posted the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026: * * * Trump Administration's Plan to Put Louisiana in Charge of Toxic Coal Ash Pollution Threatens Sources of Drinking Water Testing at all Louisiana coal plants found groundwater contamination above federal safe drinking water standards - Baton Rouge, LA -- Today, Earthjustice, the Alliance for Affordable Energy Louisiana, and the Sierra Club urged the Trump administration to abandon its plan to put the State of Louisiana in charge of oversight of toxic coal ash waste due to the state's abysmalenvironmental track record. Coal ash is generated when coal is burned, and massive quantities are stored at coal-burning power plants near Baton Rouge, Alexandria, and Shreveport.
Coal ash contains arsenic, mercury, chromium, lead, lithium, radium, and other heavy metals, which have been linked to numerous types of cancer, heart and thyroid disease, respiratory illness, reproductive failure, and neurological harm.
At all three active Louisiana coal plants (Big Cajun 2, Brame Energy Center, R S Nelson), and one retired plant (Dolet Hills), records indicate groundwater contamination with toxic chemicals above federal safe drinking water standards. Chemicals found above those levels in groundwater at one or more plants include arsenic, boron, cobalt, lead, lithium, radium, sulfate, and thallium. More than 61% of Louisiana's population relies on groundwater for all or part of their drinking water supply.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has repeatedly allowed coal plants to violate federal coal ash protections. For instance, LDEQ has allowed plants to close coal ash dumps with ash in groundwater, ensuring that the dumps will contaminate groundwater with toxic chemicals indefinitely. The LDEQ should not be in charge of issuing permits that let coal plants continue to violate the law. These permits will shield power plants from federal enforcement and prevent Louisiana residents from stopping coal ash pollution.
"Coal ash pollution in Louisiana will go from bad to worse if the Trump administration has its way," said Earthjustice senior attorney Mychal Ozaeta. "When someone completely fails at a job, you shouldn't give them a major promotion to cause even more problems. The only things that the State of Louisiana has succeeded at doing when it comes to coal ash are keeping the polluters happy and turning a blind eye to the toxic waste that is putting Louisiana communities at risk."
"The Trump Environmental Protection Agency's move to hand off regulation of extremely toxic coal ash to LDEQ is an obvious favor to the corporate polluters that own coal plants -- and one that will only further harm our health, air, and water," said Margie Vicknair-Pray, Sierra Club Delta Chapter Conservation Projects Coordinator. "LDEQ is likely one of the most hands-off environmental regulators in the entire country. Allowing LDEQ to manage coal ash and its dangerous mercury and heavy metal pollution means that we can all expect severely diminished oversight of these toxins."
LDEQ is known as a severely understaffed and extremely lenient environmental regulator. In addition to its coal ash failures, its air monitors are far away from Louisiana's heaviest air-polluting facilities, and the agency has for years been criticized for approving permits for wealthy polluters, including LNG terminals and a massive Formosa plastics factory. Louisianans know all too well that LDEQ fails to protect low-income communities of color, and it creates a lax regulatory environment that has enabled disasters like the recent Smitty's Supply explosion and spill.
Please see the Earthjustice Louisiana coal ash page (https://earthjustice.org/feature/coal-ash-states/louisiana).
* * *
Additional Resources
* About the Clean Energy Program (https://earthjustice.org/office/clean-energy)
* * *
About Earthjustice
Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit environmental law organization. We wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people's health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change. We are here because the earth needs a good lawyer.
* * *
Original text here: https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/trump-administrations-plan-to-put-louisiana-in-charge-of-toxic-coal-ash-pollution-threatens-sources-of-drinking-water
[Category: Environment]
* * *
Trump Administration's Plan to Put Louisiana in Charge of Toxic Coal Ash Pollution Threatens Sources of Drinking Water
Testing at all Louisiana coal plants found groundwater contamination above federal safe drinking water standards
-
Baton Rouge, LA -- Today, Earthjustice, the Alliance for Affordable Energy Louisiana, and the Sierra Club urged the Trump administration to abandon its plan to put the State of Louisiana in charge of oversight of toxic coal ash waste due to the state's abysmal ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 5 -- Earthjustice posted the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026: * * * Trump Administration's Plan to Put Louisiana in Charge of Toxic Coal Ash Pollution Threatens Sources of Drinking Water Testing at all Louisiana coal plants found groundwater contamination above federal safe drinking water standards - Baton Rouge, LA -- Today, Earthjustice, the Alliance for Affordable Energy Louisiana, and the Sierra Club urged the Trump administration to abandon its plan to put the State of Louisiana in charge of oversight of toxic coal ash waste due to the state's abysmalenvironmental track record. Coal ash is generated when coal is burned, and massive quantities are stored at coal-burning power plants near Baton Rouge, Alexandria, and Shreveport.
Coal ash contains arsenic, mercury, chromium, lead, lithium, radium, and other heavy metals, which have been linked to numerous types of cancer, heart and thyroid disease, respiratory illness, reproductive failure, and neurological harm.
At all three active Louisiana coal plants (Big Cajun 2, Brame Energy Center, R S Nelson), and one retired plant (Dolet Hills), records indicate groundwater contamination with toxic chemicals above federal safe drinking water standards. Chemicals found above those levels in groundwater at one or more plants include arsenic, boron, cobalt, lead, lithium, radium, sulfate, and thallium. More than 61% of Louisiana's population relies on groundwater for all or part of their drinking water supply.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has repeatedly allowed coal plants to violate federal coal ash protections. For instance, LDEQ has allowed plants to close coal ash dumps with ash in groundwater, ensuring that the dumps will contaminate groundwater with toxic chemicals indefinitely. The LDEQ should not be in charge of issuing permits that let coal plants continue to violate the law. These permits will shield power plants from federal enforcement and prevent Louisiana residents from stopping coal ash pollution.
"Coal ash pollution in Louisiana will go from bad to worse if the Trump administration has its way," said Earthjustice senior attorney Mychal Ozaeta. "When someone completely fails at a job, you shouldn't give them a major promotion to cause even more problems. The only things that the State of Louisiana has succeeded at doing when it comes to coal ash are keeping the polluters happy and turning a blind eye to the toxic waste that is putting Louisiana communities at risk."
"The Trump Environmental Protection Agency's move to hand off regulation of extremely toxic coal ash to LDEQ is an obvious favor to the corporate polluters that own coal plants -- and one that will only further harm our health, air, and water," said Margie Vicknair-Pray, Sierra Club Delta Chapter Conservation Projects Coordinator. "LDEQ is likely one of the most hands-off environmental regulators in the entire country. Allowing LDEQ to manage coal ash and its dangerous mercury and heavy metal pollution means that we can all expect severely diminished oversight of these toxins."
LDEQ is known as a severely understaffed and extremely lenient environmental regulator. In addition to its coal ash failures, its air monitors are far away from Louisiana's heaviest air-polluting facilities, and the agency has for years been criticized for approving permits for wealthy polluters, including LNG terminals and a massive Formosa plastics factory. Louisianans know all too well that LDEQ fails to protect low-income communities of color, and it creates a lax regulatory environment that has enabled disasters like the recent Smitty's Supply explosion and spill.
Please see the Earthjustice Louisiana coal ash page (https://earthjustice.org/feature/coal-ash-states/louisiana).
* * *
Additional Resources
* About the Clean Energy Program (https://earthjustice.org/office/clean-energy)
* * *
About Earthjustice
Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit environmental law organization. We wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people's health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change. We are here because the earth needs a good lawyer.
* * *
Original text here: https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/trump-administrations-plan-to-put-louisiana-in-charge-of-toxic-coal-ash-pollution-threatens-sources-of-drinking-water
[Category: Environment]
Peterson Institute for International Economics Issues Commentary: Who Pays for Tariffs? Insights From Recent Research
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The Peterson Institute for International Economics issued the following commentary on Aug, 3, 2026, by senior research fellow Kimberly Clausing and Maurice Obstfeld:
* * *
Who pays for tariffs? Insights from recent research
"Optimal tariffs" are far from optimal: Part 2
-
he Trump administration has mounted many varied claims to support its trade war, but a central argument is that foreigners, not US citizens, pay the price for tariffs. As discussed in our first blog, even if one thought it appropriate to foist tax burdens onto foreigners, there are more efficient and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The Peterson Institute for International Economics issued the following commentary on Aug, 3, 2026, by senior research fellow Kimberly Clausing and Maurice Obstfeld: * * * Who pays for tariffs? Insights from recent research "Optimal tariffs" are far from optimal: Part 2 - he Trump administration has mounted many varied claims to support its trade war, but a central argument is that foreigners, not US citizens, pay the price for tariffs. As discussed in our first blog, even if one thought it appropriate to foist tax burdens onto foreigners, there are more efficient andeffective ways to do so. Further, multiple practical issues impede the use of so-called optimal tariffs to improve national welfare. Perhaps the biggest of these is that US households and businesses have borne most of the burden of Trump's tariffs in practice.
Do foreigners pay for tariffs?
The Trump administration (and previously the Trump campaign) has often asserted that foreigners bear the burden of US tariffs, and indeed, the eagerness with which foreign governments have negotiated speaks to the fear of Trump's tariff threats abroad. If foreign export firms could easily redirect exports to other partners without cutting prices, their governments could simply ignore US tariff threats without much consequence.
Still, study after study of the 2018-19 US tariffs found that US buyers of imports suffered essentially the entire burden of the tariffs, with nearly complete pass-through shown in the data.[1] Preliminary assessments of the 2025 tariffs, reviewed in Clausing and Obstfeld (2025), also held that US consumers and firms were likely to bear the vast majority of the burden.
Sixteen months have passed since President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, invoking emergency powers that were later invalidated by the Supreme Court. Since then, multiple sophisticated studies have further clarified the impact of US tariffs. One clear finding from the recent literature is that US consumers are paying higher prices because of the tariffs, although the degree to which US importing firms pass the costs through to US consumer prices varies across studies. One recent study (Minton, Ray, and Somale 2026) finds that pass-through to consumer prices is complete about seven months after implementation, with 1-to-1 price effects. The authors find that tariffs account for the entirety of post-pandemic excess inflation (relative to pre-pandemic inflation). Another examination using earlier data (Cavallo, Llamas, Vasquez 2026) finds clear increases in consumer prices due to tariffs, but incomplete pass-through as of six months after tariff implementation, with a cumulative effect on the consumer price index (CPI) of about 0.8 percentage points by early 2026.
Amiti et al. (2026), Fajgelbaum and Khandelwal (2026), and Gopinath and Neiman (2025) all find a degree of pass-through that implies that US buyers of imports--US consumers and firms together--bore about 90 percent of the tariff burden in 2025. Another recent study finds that US importers bear the full burden of paying the tariffs. It also finds that the quality of US imports has declined (Ahn, Rotunno, and Ruta 2026), illustrating another key mechanism of firm response to tariffs.[2]
Thus, the preponderance of evidence indicates that, as of mid-2026, the incidence of US tariffs burdens US consumers, contributing to today's salient concerns about grocery prices, the high cost of living, and the ever-present laments about affordability. If policymakers desire a quick and easy response to affordability concerns, removing the tariffs would be an obvious answer.[3]
But tariffs take time to affect consumer prices. There are multiple rationales for lagged effects. There is substantial legal and policy uncertainty around the tariffs, as multiple rounds of Trump tariffs have been found unlawful by courts, and the administration has a near constant stream of new trade policy announcements that continue to roil business decisions.[4] In the face of policy uncertainty, firms may be more willing to suffer reduced margins in the short run to avoid price increases that they might have to reverse later. They may pause price increases while lobbying for tariff exemptions or seeking cheaper foreign suppliers (Leibovici and Chinagorom-Abiakalam 2026)--another set of business costs of the tariff regime. Indeed survey evidence suggests that firms are still planning price increases in response to tariffs that were imposed some time ago. Macroeconomic factors can also affect the price impact of tariffs, causing lagged effects on inflation (Halbersleben, Jorda, and Nechio 2026; Kalemli-Ozcan, Soylu, and Yildirim 2026).
Effect on intermediate business costs
A second clear finding of recent research is that US firms are harmed by the tariffs through higher costs of intermediate inputs. Tariffs reduce exporting firms' ability to compete in foreign markets, since US manufacturers must pay more for imported inputs than their competitors abroad. Even the Trump administration recognizes this dynamic, which is why it has exempted some key firms and industries (including AI) from tariffs on inputs.
Yet other manufacturing firms are less lucky (e.g., tariffs on steel and aluminum remain), and as a result, the overall jobs picture for blue collar employment has been disappointing at best, as shown in the figure below. The intermediate-input cost channel is also negative for the macroeconomy, one reason den Besten et al. (2026) find that tariffs have tended to have contractionary macroeconomic effects throughout history. Recent analysis from JPMorganChase (2026) notes that midsize firms may be bearing an especially significant cost from tariffs.
In June 2026, Stephen Miran, former chair of President Trump's Council of Economic Advisers, claimed that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the 2025 tax legislation, could offset the impact of higher tariffs on US firms' costs of imported intermediate inputs, since these higher costs can simply be deducted due to more generous investment provisions in OBBBA. Any business knows this contention is far from a solution to higher costs. Indeed, most business costs can be immediately deducted, but the business still pays the after-tax cost of their inputs, whether imported or domestic. Indeed, Miran's logic implies that a $25 minimum wage wouldn't be a problem for firms either, since wage costs are deductible.[5]
Forgone scale economies--which normally lower costs for higher trade volumes--can also generate increased costs from tariffs, as tariffs reduce the size of import orders, simultaneously cutting into exporter margins and harming the importers. This one-two punch implies that both parties can together face burdens that total more than 100 percent of the size of the tariff, harming exporters and importers simultaneously due to the loss of scale economies (see Ganapati and Hottman 2026). In short, while tariffs can meaningfully harm foreign exporters, that does not leave US buyers off the hook.
Conclusion
In the end, tariffs hurt everyone: foreign exporters, US importers--both businesses and consumers--US foreign relations, and the US economy writ large. Tariffs also present opportunities for corruption and rent-seeking--including lobbying for exemptions or for new tariffs on competitors--even as they generate distortions that shift resources away from their optimal uses. The "optimal tariff" is a mirage, useful as a classroom exercise but with little practical relevance. The postwar trade system aimed to prevent countries from pursuing it. Sadly, the Trump administration's tariff warfare both undermines that system and, in the end, demonstrates the system's wisdom in the first place.
Authors' note: We thank Ariyasuren Baldansenge, Madona Devasahayam, Samantha Elbouez, Mary Lovely, Benjamin Wallace, and Steven Weisman for their help. All errors and opinions are ours.
* * *
Notes
1. See Clausing and Lovely (2024) for a review of those studies, which include Amiti, Redding, and Weinstein (2019), Cavallo et al. (2021), Fajgelbaum et al. (2020a, 2020b), Fajgelbaum and Khandelwal (2022), Flaaen, Hortacsu, and Tintelnot (2020), and Houde and Wang (2023).
2. Bai, Jaccard, and Stumpner (2026) also show a novel mechanism of firm response, using scanner-level consumer price data during the 2018-2019 China tariff episode. They find full tariff pass-through into consumer retail prices alongside a quantitatively important product replacement channel, whereby old products were replaced by new products (with different bar codes) that had higher price/weight ratios ("shrinkflation"). This mechanism can explain the combination of full pass-through at the border coupled with more meager retail price increases of existing products.
3. While addressing housing, healthcare, and education costs is likely even more important, those sectors require more difficult and sustained reforms. (But removing tariffs on construction materials would be significant for the building industry.)
4. The Supreme Court ruled the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unlawful in February 2026. The US International Trade Court ruled that the replacement Section 122 tariffs were also unlawful in May 2026, but that case is being appealed to the federal circuit and it was not resolved prior to the initial expiration date of the Section 122 tariffs (July 24, 2026). The expanded use of Section 301 tariffs to recreate the IEEPA tariff regime is also vulnerable to legal challenges (Wolff 2026). To justify new tariffs on Canada, the administration has invoked Section 338 of the notorious Smoot-Hawley tariff law of 1930.
5. Further, the higher deficits/debt from OBBBA imply higher interest rates, which crowd out domestic investment.
Data Disclosure
The data underlying this analysis can be downloaded here (https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/2026-08/2026-08-03-clausing-obstfeld.zip).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2026/who-pays-tariffs-insights-recent-research
[Category: Economics]
* * *
Who pays for tariffs? Insights from recent research
"Optimal tariffs" are far from optimal: Part 2
-
he Trump administration has mounted many varied claims to support its trade war, but a central argument is that foreigners, not US citizens, pay the price for tariffs. As discussed in our first blog, even if one thought it appropriate to foist tax burdens onto foreigners, there are more efficient and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- The Peterson Institute for International Economics issued the following commentary on Aug, 3, 2026, by senior research fellow Kimberly Clausing and Maurice Obstfeld: * * * Who pays for tariffs? Insights from recent research "Optimal tariffs" are far from optimal: Part 2 - he Trump administration has mounted many varied claims to support its trade war, but a central argument is that foreigners, not US citizens, pay the price for tariffs. As discussed in our first blog, even if one thought it appropriate to foist tax burdens onto foreigners, there are more efficient andeffective ways to do so. Further, multiple practical issues impede the use of so-called optimal tariffs to improve national welfare. Perhaps the biggest of these is that US households and businesses have borne most of the burden of Trump's tariffs in practice.
Do foreigners pay for tariffs?
The Trump administration (and previously the Trump campaign) has often asserted that foreigners bear the burden of US tariffs, and indeed, the eagerness with which foreign governments have negotiated speaks to the fear of Trump's tariff threats abroad. If foreign export firms could easily redirect exports to other partners without cutting prices, their governments could simply ignore US tariff threats without much consequence.
Still, study after study of the 2018-19 US tariffs found that US buyers of imports suffered essentially the entire burden of the tariffs, with nearly complete pass-through shown in the data.[1] Preliminary assessments of the 2025 tariffs, reviewed in Clausing and Obstfeld (2025), also held that US consumers and firms were likely to bear the vast majority of the burden.
Sixteen months have passed since President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, invoking emergency powers that were later invalidated by the Supreme Court. Since then, multiple sophisticated studies have further clarified the impact of US tariffs. One clear finding from the recent literature is that US consumers are paying higher prices because of the tariffs, although the degree to which US importing firms pass the costs through to US consumer prices varies across studies. One recent study (Minton, Ray, and Somale 2026) finds that pass-through to consumer prices is complete about seven months after implementation, with 1-to-1 price effects. The authors find that tariffs account for the entirety of post-pandemic excess inflation (relative to pre-pandemic inflation). Another examination using earlier data (Cavallo, Llamas, Vasquez 2026) finds clear increases in consumer prices due to tariffs, but incomplete pass-through as of six months after tariff implementation, with a cumulative effect on the consumer price index (CPI) of about 0.8 percentage points by early 2026.
Amiti et al. (2026), Fajgelbaum and Khandelwal (2026), and Gopinath and Neiman (2025) all find a degree of pass-through that implies that US buyers of imports--US consumers and firms together--bore about 90 percent of the tariff burden in 2025. Another recent study finds that US importers bear the full burden of paying the tariffs. It also finds that the quality of US imports has declined (Ahn, Rotunno, and Ruta 2026), illustrating another key mechanism of firm response to tariffs.[2]
Thus, the preponderance of evidence indicates that, as of mid-2026, the incidence of US tariffs burdens US consumers, contributing to today's salient concerns about grocery prices, the high cost of living, and the ever-present laments about affordability. If policymakers desire a quick and easy response to affordability concerns, removing the tariffs would be an obvious answer.[3]
But tariffs take time to affect consumer prices. There are multiple rationales for lagged effects. There is substantial legal and policy uncertainty around the tariffs, as multiple rounds of Trump tariffs have been found unlawful by courts, and the administration has a near constant stream of new trade policy announcements that continue to roil business decisions.[4] In the face of policy uncertainty, firms may be more willing to suffer reduced margins in the short run to avoid price increases that they might have to reverse later. They may pause price increases while lobbying for tariff exemptions or seeking cheaper foreign suppliers (Leibovici and Chinagorom-Abiakalam 2026)--another set of business costs of the tariff regime. Indeed survey evidence suggests that firms are still planning price increases in response to tariffs that were imposed some time ago. Macroeconomic factors can also affect the price impact of tariffs, causing lagged effects on inflation (Halbersleben, Jorda, and Nechio 2026; Kalemli-Ozcan, Soylu, and Yildirim 2026).
Effect on intermediate business costs
A second clear finding of recent research is that US firms are harmed by the tariffs through higher costs of intermediate inputs. Tariffs reduce exporting firms' ability to compete in foreign markets, since US manufacturers must pay more for imported inputs than their competitors abroad. Even the Trump administration recognizes this dynamic, which is why it has exempted some key firms and industries (including AI) from tariffs on inputs.
Yet other manufacturing firms are less lucky (e.g., tariffs on steel and aluminum remain), and as a result, the overall jobs picture for blue collar employment has been disappointing at best, as shown in the figure below. The intermediate-input cost channel is also negative for the macroeconomy, one reason den Besten et al. (2026) find that tariffs have tended to have contractionary macroeconomic effects throughout history. Recent analysis from JPMorganChase (2026) notes that midsize firms may be bearing an especially significant cost from tariffs.
In June 2026, Stephen Miran, former chair of President Trump's Council of Economic Advisers, claimed that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the 2025 tax legislation, could offset the impact of higher tariffs on US firms' costs of imported intermediate inputs, since these higher costs can simply be deducted due to more generous investment provisions in OBBBA. Any business knows this contention is far from a solution to higher costs. Indeed, most business costs can be immediately deducted, but the business still pays the after-tax cost of their inputs, whether imported or domestic. Indeed, Miran's logic implies that a $25 minimum wage wouldn't be a problem for firms either, since wage costs are deductible.[5]
Forgone scale economies--which normally lower costs for higher trade volumes--can also generate increased costs from tariffs, as tariffs reduce the size of import orders, simultaneously cutting into exporter margins and harming the importers. This one-two punch implies that both parties can together face burdens that total more than 100 percent of the size of the tariff, harming exporters and importers simultaneously due to the loss of scale economies (see Ganapati and Hottman 2026). In short, while tariffs can meaningfully harm foreign exporters, that does not leave US buyers off the hook.
Conclusion
In the end, tariffs hurt everyone: foreign exporters, US importers--both businesses and consumers--US foreign relations, and the US economy writ large. Tariffs also present opportunities for corruption and rent-seeking--including lobbying for exemptions or for new tariffs on competitors--even as they generate distortions that shift resources away from their optimal uses. The "optimal tariff" is a mirage, useful as a classroom exercise but with little practical relevance. The postwar trade system aimed to prevent countries from pursuing it. Sadly, the Trump administration's tariff warfare both undermines that system and, in the end, demonstrates the system's wisdom in the first place.
Authors' note: We thank Ariyasuren Baldansenge, Madona Devasahayam, Samantha Elbouez, Mary Lovely, Benjamin Wallace, and Steven Weisman for their help. All errors and opinions are ours.
* * *
Notes
1. See Clausing and Lovely (2024) for a review of those studies, which include Amiti, Redding, and Weinstein (2019), Cavallo et al. (2021), Fajgelbaum et al. (2020a, 2020b), Fajgelbaum and Khandelwal (2022), Flaaen, Hortacsu, and Tintelnot (2020), and Houde and Wang (2023).
2. Bai, Jaccard, and Stumpner (2026) also show a novel mechanism of firm response, using scanner-level consumer price data during the 2018-2019 China tariff episode. They find full tariff pass-through into consumer retail prices alongside a quantitatively important product replacement channel, whereby old products were replaced by new products (with different bar codes) that had higher price/weight ratios ("shrinkflation"). This mechanism can explain the combination of full pass-through at the border coupled with more meager retail price increases of existing products.
3. While addressing housing, healthcare, and education costs is likely even more important, those sectors require more difficult and sustained reforms. (But removing tariffs on construction materials would be significant for the building industry.)
4. The Supreme Court ruled the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unlawful in February 2026. The US International Trade Court ruled that the replacement Section 122 tariffs were also unlawful in May 2026, but that case is being appealed to the federal circuit and it was not resolved prior to the initial expiration date of the Section 122 tariffs (July 24, 2026). The expanded use of Section 301 tariffs to recreate the IEEPA tariff regime is also vulnerable to legal challenges (Wolff 2026). To justify new tariffs on Canada, the administration has invoked Section 338 of the notorious Smoot-Hawley tariff law of 1930.
5. Further, the higher deficits/debt from OBBBA imply higher interest rates, which crowd out domestic investment.
Data Disclosure
The data underlying this analysis can be downloaded here (https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/2026-08/2026-08-03-clausing-obstfeld.zip).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2026/who-pays-tariffs-insights-recent-research
[Category: Economics]
Menopause Society: Worse Menopause Symptoms May Accompany Type 2 Diabetes
PEPPER PIKE, Ohio, Aug. 5 (TNSjou) -- The Menopause Society, an organization that is dedicated to empowering healthcare professionals and providing them with the tools and resources to improve the health of women during the menopause transition and beyond, issued the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026:
* * *
Worse Menopause Symptoms May Accompany Type 2 Diabetes
New study suggests that type 2 diabetes is significantly associated with a higher number of and more severe menopause symptoms
-
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The type of menopause symptoms, as well as their severity, can differ greatly among ... Show Full Article PEPPER PIKE, Ohio, Aug. 5 (TNSjou) -- The Menopause Society, an organization that is dedicated to empowering healthcare professionals and providing them with the tools and resources to improve the health of women during the menopause transition and beyond, issued the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026: * * * Worse Menopause Symptoms May Accompany Type 2 Diabetes New study suggests that type 2 diabetes is significantly associated with a higher number of and more severe menopause symptoms - CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The type of menopause symptoms, as well as their severity, can differ greatly amongwomen. A number of earlier studies have suggested various reasons for those differences. A new study suggests that type 2 diabetes mellitus can play a role in significantly increasing the number of menopause symptoms and their severity. Results of the study are published online today in Menopause, the journal of The Menopause Society.
Midlife women are at increased risk of a number of chronic illnesses such as type 2 diabetes mellitus as a result of hormone changes caused by menopause. Women in midlife commonly experience weight gain and a redistribution of fat to the midsection resulting in increased belly fat and an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The global prevalence of diabetes was estimated in 2024 at 10%, and that risk continues to increase with age.
Previous studies have shown a strong reciprocal relationship between menopause and the development of diabetes, identifying early menopause and the postmenopause stages as triggering factors. However, most previous studies have focused on menopause stage, age at menopause, or menopause timing rather than directly assessing menopause symptom burden. A new study involving nearly 300 women aged 40 to 64 years aimed to assess menopause symptoms using the Midlife Women's Symptom Index and to examine whether type 2 diabetes is associated with the number and severity of menopause symptoms.
Across all menopause stages, women in the diabetic group (diabetes and prediabetes) reported a higher prevalence of menopause symptoms. However, the difference was only statistically significant in the postmenopause stage. Similarly, although symptom severity was consistently higher in the diabetic groups across menopause stages, a statistically significant difference was observed only in the postmenopause stage.
These findings suggest the importance of integrating menopause symptom assessment and management into diabetes care for midlife women to improve quality of life. Additional longitudinal studies are recommended to further clarify the biological and psychosocial mechanisms linking glucose metabolism and menopause symptom burden in this population.
Survey results are published in the article "Association between type 2 diabetes mellitus and menopause symptoms among Korean midlife women (https://menopause.org/wp-content/uploads/press-release/MENO-D-26-00078.pdf)."
"This study demonstrates that women with diabetes may experience a greater burden of menopause symptoms. Prior research has also shown that cardiovascular risk factors, including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, are associated with more frequent vasomotor symptoms, and women with a higher vasomotor symptom burden tend to have a less favorable cardiometabolic risk profile. Together, these findings not only highlight the need to recognize and address menopause symptoms in women with diabetes but also underscore the menopause transition as an important opportunity to identify and manage cardiovascular risk factors in all women," says Dr. Stephanie Faubion, medical director for The Menopause Society.
* * *
The Menopause Society is dedicated to empowering healthcare professionals and providing them with the tools and resources to improve the health of women during the menopause transition and beyond. As the leading authority on menopause since 1989, the nonprofit, multidisciplinary organization serves as the independent, evidence-based resource for healthcare professionals, researchers, the media, and the public and leads the conversation about improving women's health and healthcare experiences. To learn more, visit menopause.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://menopause.org/press-releases/worse-menopause-symptoms-may-accompany-type-2-diabetes
[Category: Medical]
* * *
Worse Menopause Symptoms May Accompany Type 2 Diabetes
New study suggests that type 2 diabetes is significantly associated with a higher number of and more severe menopause symptoms
-
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The type of menopause symptoms, as well as their severity, can differ greatly among ... Show Full Article PEPPER PIKE, Ohio, Aug. 5 (TNSjou) -- The Menopause Society, an organization that is dedicated to empowering healthcare professionals and providing them with the tools and resources to improve the health of women during the menopause transition and beyond, issued the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026: * * * Worse Menopause Symptoms May Accompany Type 2 Diabetes New study suggests that type 2 diabetes is significantly associated with a higher number of and more severe menopause symptoms - CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The type of menopause symptoms, as well as their severity, can differ greatly amongwomen. A number of earlier studies have suggested various reasons for those differences. A new study suggests that type 2 diabetes mellitus can play a role in significantly increasing the number of menopause symptoms and their severity. Results of the study are published online today in Menopause, the journal of The Menopause Society.
Midlife women are at increased risk of a number of chronic illnesses such as type 2 diabetes mellitus as a result of hormone changes caused by menopause. Women in midlife commonly experience weight gain and a redistribution of fat to the midsection resulting in increased belly fat and an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The global prevalence of diabetes was estimated in 2024 at 10%, and that risk continues to increase with age.
Previous studies have shown a strong reciprocal relationship between menopause and the development of diabetes, identifying early menopause and the postmenopause stages as triggering factors. However, most previous studies have focused on menopause stage, age at menopause, or menopause timing rather than directly assessing menopause symptom burden. A new study involving nearly 300 women aged 40 to 64 years aimed to assess menopause symptoms using the Midlife Women's Symptom Index and to examine whether type 2 diabetes is associated with the number and severity of menopause symptoms.
Across all menopause stages, women in the diabetic group (diabetes and prediabetes) reported a higher prevalence of menopause symptoms. However, the difference was only statistically significant in the postmenopause stage. Similarly, although symptom severity was consistently higher in the diabetic groups across menopause stages, a statistically significant difference was observed only in the postmenopause stage.
These findings suggest the importance of integrating menopause symptom assessment and management into diabetes care for midlife women to improve quality of life. Additional longitudinal studies are recommended to further clarify the biological and psychosocial mechanisms linking glucose metabolism and menopause symptom burden in this population.
Survey results are published in the article "Association between type 2 diabetes mellitus and menopause symptoms among Korean midlife women (https://menopause.org/wp-content/uploads/press-release/MENO-D-26-00078.pdf)."
"This study demonstrates that women with diabetes may experience a greater burden of menopause symptoms. Prior research has also shown that cardiovascular risk factors, including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, are associated with more frequent vasomotor symptoms, and women with a higher vasomotor symptom burden tend to have a less favorable cardiometabolic risk profile. Together, these findings not only highlight the need to recognize and address menopause symptoms in women with diabetes but also underscore the menopause transition as an important opportunity to identify and manage cardiovascular risk factors in all women," says Dr. Stephanie Faubion, medical director for The Menopause Society.
* * *
The Menopause Society is dedicated to empowering healthcare professionals and providing them with the tools and resources to improve the health of women during the menopause transition and beyond. As the leading authority on menopause since 1989, the nonprofit, multidisciplinary organization serves as the independent, evidence-based resource for healthcare professionals, researchers, the media, and the public and leads the conversation about improving women's health and healthcare experiences. To learn more, visit menopause.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://menopause.org/press-releases/worse-menopause-symptoms-may-accompany-type-2-diabetes
[Category: Medical]
Democracy Forward Sues USCIS for Withholding Records on the Use of Immigration Databases in Elections
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026:
* * *
Democracy Forward Sues USCIS for Withholding Records on the Use of Immigration Databases in Elections
Lawsuit Seeks Records About Trump-Vance Administration's Use of Databases and Voter Roll Activities Ahead of the Midterm Elections
-
Democracy Forward today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) after the agency failed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026: * * * Democracy Forward Sues USCIS for Withholding Records on the Use of Immigration Databases in Elections Lawsuit Seeks Records About Trump-Vance Administration's Use of Databases and Voter Roll Activities Ahead of the Midterm Elections - Democracy Forward today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) after the agency failedto comply with multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking records about the Trump-Vance administration's efforts to use immigration systems in connection with voter registration, voter roll maintenance, and other election-related activities ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The lawsuit seeks records related to the administration's implementation of Executive Order 14399, which directs federal agencies to help verify U.S. citizenship for federal elections by compiling and sharing citizenship data with states; communications among senior USCIS officials about elections; the U.S. Department of Justice's use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program for voter registration and voter roll maintenance activities; agreements involving mail-in and absentee ballot datasets; and internal planning documents regarding the use of immigration databases to review voter rolls. Democracy Forward also challenges USCIS's refusal to expedite the requests despite the urgent public interest in understanding the federal government's role in election administration before Americans cast their ballots.
"The Trump-Vance administration can't claim it's protecting elections while hiding the facts from the public," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "Americans deserve evidence, not rhetoric. The government is asserting unprecedented and unconstitutional authority over election administration while refusing to disclose the policies, data, and communications behind those actions. In a democracy, public confidence in our elections depends on transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. Our team is honored to bring this suit to uncover for the American people what the administration is hiding."
FOIA requires agencies to promptly respond to requests for records, particularly where there is an urgent need to inform the public about government activity. Despite that obligation, USCIS failed to make timely determinations on Democracy Forward's requests and denied expedited processing, even as the administration continues to publicly promote its election citizenship verification efforts.
The lawsuit asks the court to order USCIS to process the requests on an expedited basis and produce the requested records so the public can understand the federal government's actions before the 2026 elections.
The case is Democracy Forward Foundation v. USCIS, and the legal team in this case includes Amy Vickery, Daniel McGrath, Ronald Fein, and Robin F. Thurston.
Read the complaint here (https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/1.-USCIS-Complaint_FILED.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/democracy-forward-sues-uscis-for-withholding-records-on-the-use-of-immigration-databases-in-elections/
[Category: Political]
* * *
Democracy Forward Sues USCIS for Withholding Records on the Use of Immigration Databases in Elections
Lawsuit Seeks Records About Trump-Vance Administration's Use of Databases and Voter Roll Activities Ahead of the Midterm Elections
-
Democracy Forward today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) after the agency failed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Aug. 4, 2026: * * * Democracy Forward Sues USCIS for Withholding Records on the Use of Immigration Databases in Elections Lawsuit Seeks Records About Trump-Vance Administration's Use of Databases and Voter Roll Activities Ahead of the Midterm Elections - Democracy Forward today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) after the agency failedto comply with multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking records about the Trump-Vance administration's efforts to use immigration systems in connection with voter registration, voter roll maintenance, and other election-related activities ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The lawsuit seeks records related to the administration's implementation of Executive Order 14399, which directs federal agencies to help verify U.S. citizenship for federal elections by compiling and sharing citizenship data with states; communications among senior USCIS officials about elections; the U.S. Department of Justice's use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program for voter registration and voter roll maintenance activities; agreements involving mail-in and absentee ballot datasets; and internal planning documents regarding the use of immigration databases to review voter rolls. Democracy Forward also challenges USCIS's refusal to expedite the requests despite the urgent public interest in understanding the federal government's role in election administration before Americans cast their ballots.
"The Trump-Vance administration can't claim it's protecting elections while hiding the facts from the public," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "Americans deserve evidence, not rhetoric. The government is asserting unprecedented and unconstitutional authority over election administration while refusing to disclose the policies, data, and communications behind those actions. In a democracy, public confidence in our elections depends on transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. Our team is honored to bring this suit to uncover for the American people what the administration is hiding."
FOIA requires agencies to promptly respond to requests for records, particularly where there is an urgent need to inform the public about government activity. Despite that obligation, USCIS failed to make timely determinations on Democracy Forward's requests and denied expedited processing, even as the administration continues to publicly promote its election citizenship verification efforts.
The lawsuit asks the court to order USCIS to process the requests on an expedited basis and produce the requested records so the public can understand the federal government's actions before the 2026 elections.
The case is Democracy Forward Foundation v. USCIS, and the legal team in this case includes Amy Vickery, Daniel McGrath, Ronald Fein, and Robin F. Thurston.
Read the complaint here (https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/1.-USCIS-Complaint_FILED.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/democracy-forward-sues-uscis-for-withholding-records-on-the-use-of-immigration-databases-in-elections/
[Category: Political]