Monsanto and its new owner, Bayer, are hit with a whopping $2 billion lawsuit judgement for health damage from the herbicide Roundup; the City of Montreal launches a campaign to label cigarette butt litterers as "Buttheads"
The European Union has begun scaling back major environmental protections under the Green Deal, sparking concern among campaigners who say the bloc is rapidly losing its climate leadership.
Since late 2023, the EU has delayed or weakened key Green Deal measures, including anti-deforestation rules, pollution standards for automakers, and sustainability reporting requirements for corporations.
The new European Commission, increasingly influenced by center-right and far-right parties, has prioritized cutting red tape for businesses, aligning more closely with industry interests and distancing itself from past climate commitments.
Environmental groups warn the shift reflects a broader political backlash against climate policy, mirroring developments in the U.S. and UK and threatening long-term public health and environmental goals.
Key quote:
“This is highly relevant because it’s the first proposal under the simplification agenda that’s been put forward and … it’s not just weakening it a little bit, it’s slashing it. The heart of the proposal has basically been taken out.”
— Paul de Clerck, campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe
Why this matters:
Europe’s Green Deal was once hailed as a global blueprint for cutting emissions, protecting biodiversity, and making the economy more sustainable. Its current unraveling comes at a time when rising temperatures, pollution-linked diseases, and extreme weather are already straining public health systems and ecosystems. Policies to curb deforestation, regulate corporate polluters, and cut industrial emissions have direct links to reducing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and cancer. Rolling back these rules under the guise of competitiveness risks shifting the burden of pollution from industries onto people, especially children, the elderly, and low-income communities. As the EU softens its stance, its credibility on climate leadership is weakening, just as global cooperation is needed most to limit irreversible environmental harm.
Senate Republicans are backing a proposal that would strip penalties from federal fuel economy standards, a move critics say could drive up gasoline use and tailpipe pollution.
The Senate measure, part of President Trump’s domestic policy bill, would set fines for automakers that violate Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards at $0, effectively making compliance voluntary.
Automakers like GM and Stellantis, which have paid hundreds of millions in penalties, support the change, while companies like Toyota and Tesla — who’ve invested in fuel efficiency — could face competitive disadvantages.
The rollback comes alongside broader Republican efforts to weaken Biden-era rules promoting electric vehicles and clean energy infrastructure, even as China dominates the global EV market.
Key quote:
“If polluters are told that there’s no penalty for polluting, what do you think they’re going to do?”
— Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity
Why this matters:
Fuel economy standards have played a quiet but powerful role in cutting the nation’s oil consumption and tailpipe emissions for nearly half a century. Gutting the enforcement mechanism removes the primary incentive for automakers to invest in cleaner technologies, especially as the electric vehicle market remains costlier and less profitable for manufacturers. Without penalties, companies may scale back innovation and flood the market with bigger, thirstier vehicles, just as global efforts to combat climate change demand the opposite. The result is likely more smog, more carbon emissions, and more money spent at the pump. It also risks locking the U.S. auto industry into a losing position as China races ahead on clean vehicles.
A budget bill moving through Congress could block most U.S. clean energy projects from receiving tax credits if any part of their supply chain includes ties to China.
The Senate version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” includes language that defines “prohibited foreign entities” so broadly that it could disqualify projects over minimal links to Chinese suppliers.
The tax credit restrictions are written in ways that require companies to trace their supply chains multiple steps upstream, often beyond what’s realistically knowable.
Compliance is both costly and difficult, with companies potentially losing tax credits over small components like bolts or subcomponents whose origin they can't verify.
Key quote:
“Practically speaking, as these bills are written, there’s no way to have sufficient confidence that one is compliant because the rules are just so extensive and get at such attenuated factors that the taxpayers themselves won’t have the information they need.”
— Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University School of Law
Why this matters:
Clean energy development in the U.S. depends heavily on tax credits to attract investment and compete with fossil fuels. But new legislative language could turn these financial incentives into a minefield. The bill’s vague and expansive definitions may effectively disqualify many solar, wind, battery, and EV projects that have even remote ties to Chinese suppliers. China dominates the global supply chain for many clean energy technologies, from photovoltaic cells to battery materials, so this could cripple large swaths of the transition. The stakes are high: Delays or rollbacks in clean energy buildout could slow efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce air pollution, especially in communities already burdened by fossil fuel infrastructure.
A coalition of nonprofits, tribes, and local governments is suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after it abruptly canceled $3 billion in environmental justice grants awarded under the Biden administration.
The EPA under Administrator Lee Zeldin terminated grants from the Environmental and Climate Justice program, cutting funds to 350 groups without notice, affecting projects addressing pollution, climate resilience, and public health.
Air Alliance Houston, a small nonprofit that received a $3.1 million grant to expand air pollution permit tracking in Texas, is one of 23 plaintiffs seeking class action status to restore funding and protect similar groups.
The lawsuit, filed with support from EarthJustice and others, argues the funding cuts were unlawful and destabilize community-led environmental efforts, particularly in low-income and heavily polluted areas.
Key quote:
“We believe that our contract was illegally terminated. There was nothing in our terms and conditions that allows an administration — Trump or otherwise — to cancel a federal contract because they don’t like what the contract is about.”
— Jennifer Hadayia, executive director of Air Alliance Houston
Why this matters:
Environmental justice grants help communities on the front lines of pollution track emissions, clean up water systems, and prepare for extreme weather. Cutting these funds guts the ability of local groups to monitor and respond to environmental risks that threaten public health. Programs like the one in Houston empower residents to know when polluting industries plan to expand operations nearby. Without that transparency, communities can be blindsided by toxic emissions or contaminated water. The rollback also raises questions about how federal agencies allocate and rescind funding, and whether political shifts can erase legally binding contracts aimed at safeguarding health and the environment.
Vermont is preparing for a drawn-out legal fight after President Trump’s Justice Department joined fossil fuel interests in suing to block the state’s new Climate Superfund law, which seeks to make oil companies pay for decades of greenhouse gas emissions.
Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act, passed in 2024, aims to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for damages caused by their past greenhouse gas emissions from 1995 to 2024.
The Trump administration sued Vermont and New York on May 1, arguing the laws interfere with federal authority and burden domestic energy production, echoing industry opposition.
Despite mounting legal costs and political resistance, Vermont leaders say the law is constitutional and necessary to fund climate adaptation in a state increasingly battered by extreme weather.
Key quote:
“Frankly, the president is using the Department of Justice as a political shield for his allies in the oil industry.”
— Ben Edgerly Walsh, the Climate and Energy Program director at the Vermont Public Interest Group
Why this matters:
As climate disasters grow more destructive and expensive, states like Vermont are trying to make polluters — not taxpayers — foot the bill. The Climate Superfund approach doesn’t regulate future emissions; it retroactively charges fossil fuel companies for past harms based on climate attribution science. That distinction is legally important and politically explosive. The stakes are high: Vermont is a small, rural state with limited resources, but its strategy has inspired similar bills in other states and could set a legal precedent. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry, with support from the federal government under President Trump, is mobilizing hard to kill it. The outcome will shape how the U.S. distributes the financial burden of climate change, and whether frontline communities can secure relief.
A chemical-industry-backed researcher is using artificial intelligence to question links between pollution and health risks, prompting concern among scientists about bias and regulatory delay.
Tony Cox, a risk analyst and former Trump adviser, is developing an AI tool funded by the American Chemistry Council to review epidemiological studies, aiming to distinguish correlation from causation in pollution research.
Critics say the tool may automate longstanding industry tactics that sow doubt about the health risks of pollutants, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and chemicals like PFOA, potentially undermining public health protections.
Emails obtained by the Energy and Policy Institute reveal Cox's close collaboration with industry groups, including Exxon and Chevron, and his repeated efforts to challenge scientific consensus through AI-generated “critical thinking.”
Key quote:
“Science denialism often sounds convincing because it contains some truthiness to it or elements of truth or elements of valid points, but it’s often based on either overemphasis or omission and doesn’t portray a full picture.”
— Chris Frey, associate dean, North Carolina State University College of Engineering
Why this matters:
The use of artificial intelligence to challenge established links between pollution and health risks poses a threat to scientific integrity and public trust. When backed by industry groups with a stake in avoiding regulation, such tools may serve less as neutral evaluators and more as sophisticated vehicles for obfuscation. The tactic mirrors historic efforts by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to delay policy by casting doubt on scientific evidence. At a time when exposure to air pollutants like PM2.5 and synthetic chemicals such as PFAS and PFOA are linked to chronic illness, undermining research through AI could weaken already insufficient public health protections.
State and local emergency management agencies are facing growing uncertainty as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delays major grant programs and President Trump signals plans to dismantle the agency.
FEMA missed a legal deadline to open applications for key preparedness grants that fund basic emergency operations across the country, with no explanation offered.
The Department of Homeland Security recently imposed a new rule requiring all FEMA grants over $100,000 to be personally reviewed by Secretary Kristi Noem, further slowing the process.
States such as Wyoming, North Carolina, and Texas, which rely on FEMA for most of their emergency management funding, are scrambling to make up for the lack of federal support amid widespread leadership turnover at FEMA.
Key quote:
“We’re all having to be like, hey, what have you heard? What do you know? What’s going on? Nobody knows.”
— Robert Wike Graham, deputy director of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Emergency Management
Why this matters:
Federal emergency preparedness grants help states and counties hire staff, run training exercises, and coordinate responses to disasters. In rural and low-income areas, these funds often keep emergency management offices afloat. Without them, even basic disaster response — like 24-hour operations during hurricanes or planning for nuclear plant emergencies — can falter. FEMA's recent delays and cuts come as natural disasters grow more frequent and intense. If federal funding vanishes or slows, local agencies may lack the capacity to protect communities. The pressure is especially high in places still reeling from events like Hurricane Helene, where state agencies already struggled to respond effectively. With FEMA’s role now in political flux, the nation’s ability to prepare for and recover from climate-fueled disasters hangs in the balance.
