A string of deadly tornadoes has devastated parts of Kentucky and Missouri, and more severe storms are on the way, threatening already hard-hit communities with hail, flooding, and extreme heat.
At least 19 people were killed in Kentucky and five more in St. Louis after a powerful tornado tore through homes and tossed vehicles like toys. Thousands of homes were damaged, with officials warning the death toll may rise.
Survivors in places like London, Kentucky, are racing to salvage belongings before the next storm hits. Governor Andy Beshear said survey teams are preparing disaster aid applications as many roads remain closed.
With more tornadoes expected in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, plus triple-digit heat in the South and snow in the Rockies, the central U.S. is facing a week of extreme, conflicting weather threats.
Key quote:
“It was dark and still raining but every lightning flash, it was lighting up your nightmares: Everything was gone.”
— Zach Wilson, Kentucky resident
Why this matters:
As the climate crisis intensifies storm patterns, protecting public health and infrastructure — especially in rural and southern regions — becomes increasingly urgent. Yet federal support for forecasting is eroding: The Trump administration has made massive cuts to National Weather Service offices. Another AP story reported that the Jackson, Kentucky, weather office, which was responsible for the hard-hit area around London, Kentucky, had a March 2025 vacancy rate of 25%. Meanwhile, the Louisville, Kentucky, weather service staff was down 29%, and the St. Louis office was down 16%. The staff reductions raise serious concerns about the agency's ability to provide timely forecasting and emergency alerts in advance of life-threatening storms.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency will shift more responsibility for disaster response and recovery to states ahead of the 2025 hurricane season, according to its acting chief.
Acting FEMA Administrator David Richardson told staff the agency will prioritize state-led disaster response, with the federal government stepping in “when deemed necessary.”
President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have signaled interest in scaling back or eliminating FEMA entirely, with Richardson ordered to align the agency with this vision.
States like Texas and Florida are seen as ready to handle more disaster responsibilities, while others may lose the typical 75% federal cost-share for recovery, forcing them to rely more heavily on state funds.
Key quote:
“It’s unclear what they mean when they say returning primacy to the states. What does that mean when certain states don’t have the resources in their own budgets to respond to and recover from catastrophic events?”
— Jeremy Edwards, FEMA deputy director of public affairs during the Biden administration
Why this matters:
As climate-fueled disasters increase in size and frequency, FEMA’s decision to reduce its role could leave many states unprepared and underfunded during emergencies. In 2024, the U.S. saw 90 major disaster declarations and 27 billion-dollar climate disasters. If states must now finance more of their disaster recovery alone, disparities in outcomes may widen. Critics argue this shift could result in a patchwork of responses across the country, with some regions better protected than others. With hurricane season just weeks away, the consequences of this policy change could become evident very soon.
New research shows that House Republicans’ plan to roll back clean energy tax credits could raise utility costs and cut household incomes nationwide, hitting both red and blue states.
A new analysis by the Clean Energy Buyers Association (Ceba) found that repealing clean energy tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act would raise household utility bills and lower incomes, with at least 19 states affected.
The proposed rollback, introduced by House Republicans, targets credits 48E and 45Y, which support clean energy investments and production; the plan would phase them out after 2031 and impose new restrictions in the meantime.
In New Jersey alone, the repeal could cause utility bills to rise by over 13%, eliminate more than 22,000 jobs, and reduce the state GDP by $3.24 billion.
Key quote:
“Now is the time for Congress to incentivize private investment in more sources of low-cost, reliable energy that fuels economic growth and jobs, helps the United States secure energy dominance and independence, and decreases energy costs nationwide.”
— Rich Powell, CEO of the Clean Energy Buyers Association
Why this matters:
The stakes are high: Without continued federal support for clean energy, states may be forced to lean more heavily on older, dirtier power sources, putting climate goals further out of reach and increasing air pollution, which harms both human health and the environment. The research suggests that even conservative-leaning states would feel the pinch, challenging the partisan framing of climate investments and shifting the debate toward the tangible pocketbook effects of energy policy decisions.
An Arizona congressman faces pressure from both Trump and his voters as clean energy projects flourish in his district thanks to a law the GOP wants to dismantle.
Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) represents a swing district transformed by clean energy investments from the Inflation Reduction Act, including a rapidly growing Lucid Motors plant and a major solar expansion.
Ciscomani has urged party leaders to preserve key tax credits but voted for a budget resolution enabling their potential repeal, as GOP leaders move to eliminate most clean energy incentives to fund a sweeping megabill.
His political future hangs in the balance as Democrats mobilize to hold him accountable, while local officials warn that ending the credits would stall economic growth and job creation.
Key quote:
“As much as there are other aspects of the IRA we [Republicans] can disagree with, these tax credits have had an impact in my district — and on job creation, on investment, also national security, because of energy production and having wanted to bring that more domestically.”
— Juan Ciscomani, U.S. representative from Arizona
Why this matters:
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in 2022, has funneled billions into clean energy development, especially in economically struggling areas. In Arizona’s 6th District, those investments are reshaping the region. Across rural areas, solar projects are helping control rising utility costs and stabilizing grids amid extreme heat. Many of these projects hinge on tax credits the House GOP now aims to repeal, threatening jobs, local tax bases, and energy resilience. Constituents, many of them veterans or working-class residents, risk losing new opportunities if clean energy incentives vanish. While some Republican lawmakers recognize the benefits and seek a middle ground, party pressure to dismantle the IRA — branded a “Green New Scam” by Trump — puts them in a bind.
For nearly 20 years, federal tax credits have helped homeowners afford rooftop solar panels, but a new House proposal would end those incentives at the close of 2025, potentially stalling solar growth and driving up energy costs for families.
House Republicans proposed ending the 25D solar tax credit — a key incentive that offers homeowners a 30% break on solar installation costs — by the end of this year, instead of the planned 2034 timeline.
The move would also limit the 48E credit used by businesses for third-party solar installations by tightening sourcing requirements on solar components, many of which currently come from China.
Industry analysts expect a short-term rush to install systems before the credit expires, followed by a steep decline in installations and job losses across the sector.
Key quote:
“It’s going to be devastating for companies, their employees, and their customers. It’ll kill an industry that supports hundreds of thousands of workers and tens of billions of dollars in investment every year.”
— Sean Gallagher, senior vice president of policy at the Solar Energy Industries Association
Why this matters:
Federal tax incentives have helped scale residential solar across the U.S., cutting household energy bills, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, and reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Removing these credits could reverse years of clean energy gains, especially in lower-income communities that rely on subsidies to afford solar installations. The uncertainty is already cooling investor confidence and forcing solar companies to lay off workers.
The White House is considering executive orders that would reshape nuclear oversight by curbing the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and expanding control through the Department of Energy.
Four draft executive orders under review by the Trump administration would shift nuclear safety oversight from the NRC to the Department of Energy, placing final authority over advanced reactors under the president.
The proposed overhaul would subject NRC rules to case-by-case review by the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, potentially slowing licensing decisions and undermining regulatory transparency.
Critics from across the political spectrum argue the move could compromise safety, delay reactor deployment, and violate legal frameworks like the Atomic Energy Act and the Sunshine Act.
Key quote:
“NRC’s reputation as a trusted regulator is important to the public, to industry, and to potential customers of U.S. nuclear technology both here and abroad. We don’t want changing political winds in either direction to undermine NRC’s credibility.”
— Judi Greenwald, executive director of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance
Why this matters:
Nuclear energy provides roughly one-fifth of U.S. electricity and serves as a key player in decarbonization strategies. But the technology’s inherent risks demand vigilant, science-based oversight. Weakening the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s independence could politicize safety decisions and sideline technical expertise, increasing the chance of errors with lasting environmental and health consequences. Low-level radiation exposure, for instance, has been linked to cardiovascular damage and other long-term effects — risks that may not fully emerge until years after exposure. At a time when public trust in science and government is already strained, any move that makes safety oversight appear less impartial could erode confidence in the country’s energy infrastructure.
An insurance giant has stopped backing a liquefied natural gas terminal in southwest Louisiana that has drawn sustained criticism from residents and environmental advocates over its health and climate impacts.
Chubb, a major global insurer, is no longer providing property insurance to Venture Global’s Calcasieu Pass LNG terminal, a move revealed through public records and confirmed by the company, though the specific reason remains unclear.
Residents of Cameron Parish, Louisiana, have long opposed the facility, citing thousands of permit violations and a growing body of evidence linking pollution from LNG operations to serious health risks including asthma and cancer.
Chubb’s decision follows years of activist pressure and coincides with broader shifts in the insurance industry, which is beginning to distance itself from high-emissions fossil fuel projects amid worsening climate-related disasters.
Key quote:
“We have been pressuring Chubb for several years now to not insure these dangerous, polluting projects, because insuring those projects is ensuring environmental racism in communities that are overburdened by pollution.”
— Roishetta Ozane, founder of the Vessel Project of Louisiana
Why this matters:
Liquefied natural gas, often marketed as a “cleaner” fossil fuel, emits significant amounts of methane — a potent greenhouse gas — throughout its production and export cycle. Along Louisiana’s Gulf Coast, a rapid buildout of LNG terminals is transforming low-income communities, many of them majority Black, into industrial hubs. These areas already suffer from some of the nation’s worst toxic emissions and are highly vulnerable to climate disasters like hurricanes and floods, which are intensifying with rising global temperatures. Insurance companies, facing ballooning costs from extreme weather, are increasingly exiting high-risk regions while continuing to support the very projects contributing to those risks.
