EPA faces class action lawsuit over canceled environmental justice grants
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
SpaceX rocket debris lands in Mexico, triggering environmental concerns and legal threats
Debris from a failed SpaceX Starship test in South Texas scattered across northern Mexico, including beaches near Matamoros. Marine die-offs following the explosion hint at toxic impacts, even as the company insists there’s no danger. As launch frequency increases under U.S. approval, border communities in Mexico may find themselves bearing the environmental costs of a billionaire’s race to space.
Simon Romero reports for The New York Times.
In short:
Debris from a failed SpaceX Starship test in South Texas scattered across northern Mexico, including beaches near Matamoros, sparking health and environmental concerns.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said the country is reviewing legal options and investigating whether SpaceX violated international law or safety protocols.
Activists and scientists in Tamaulipas report a die-off of dolphins, fish and sea turtles following the incident, while SpaceX claims the materials pose no chemical or biological risk.
Key quote:
“How much longer will the greed of a few be allowed to marginalize the many and put life and our planet at risk or in peril of destruction?”
— María Elena Álvarez-Buylla Roces, professor of molecular genetics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico
Why this matters:
Rocket launches come with risks beyond the launchpad. When accidents happen near borders or coastlines, the fallout — literal and political — can stretch far. The SpaceX debris now washing up on Mexican shores raises questions about corporate accountability, international regulation, and the environmental cost of rapid aerospace development. Marine die-offs following the explosion hint at toxic impacts, even as the company insists there’s no danger. For communities near SpaceX’s Starbase, the balance between innovation and safety is becoming more urgent. As launch frequency increases under U.S. approval, border communities in Mexico may find themselves bearing the environmental costs of a billionaire’s race to space — with little say in the matter.
Learn more: Trump moves to end federal studies on rocket and satellite pollution, raising concerns over Musk’s influence
Environmental health journal halts new submissions amid funding shift, plans future outside federal support
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has stopped funding Environmental Health Perspectives. NIEHS will no longer provide funding for EHP. EHP will continue to publish peer-reviewed articles, but no new submissions will be accepted. The decision comes at a time of increased concern about the impact of climate change. The move could have a ripple effect on the rest of the scientific community.
Joel D. Kaufman writes for Environmental Health Perspectives.
In short:
Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) and the Journal of Health and Pollution (JHP) have paused new manuscript submissions due to the end of crucial operational funding from the National Institutes of Health.
EHP evolved significantly over the last five years, introducing faster peer review, new article types, and initiatives to engage early-career and international researchers, growing to over 600 submissions per quarter by 2025.
The journal’s future will shift away from NIEHS support but aims to maintain Open Access publication, editorial independence, and service to the environmental health science community.
Key quote:
“Given the uncertainty about our operational ability to continue publishing new papers, in April, both EHP and JHP made the difficult decision to stop accepting new submissions.”
— Joel D. Kaufman, editor-in-chief, Environmental Health Perspectives
Why this matters:
For over five decades, Environmental Health Perspectives has served as a key platform for research linking environmental exposures to human health. Its break from federal backing comes at a time of increasing global concern about environmental pollutants, climate-related health effects, and regulatory decision-making based on peer-reviewed science. The journal’s pause on new submissions reduces visibility for vital research, particularly from scientists in low- and middle-income countries who had recently gained more access to publishing through EHP programs. The shift also marks a broader trend in science publishing: As public funding tightens under the Trump administration, even long-standing, high-impact journals may struggle to sustain their operations, potentially narrowing the flow of independent science into public view and policy debates.
Related: Environmental health journal pauses new submissions amid NIH budget cuts
PFAS pollution in South Carolina river among worst in nation, study finds
Toxic forever chemicals known as PFAS have been detected at the highest levels in the country in South Carolina’s Pocotaligo River. The likely source is industrial wastewater sent to the Sumter treatment plant, which does not remove PFAS, alongside additional contamination from military facilities like Shaw Air Force Base. Residents near the river — many of whom are low-income or people of color — face elevated health risks.
Sammy Fretwell reports for The State.
In short:
A national study by the Waterkeeper Alliance found that a section of the Pocotaligo River downstream from Sumter’s sewage plant contains the highest concentration of PFAS of all rivers tested in 19 states.
The likely source is industrial wastewater sent to the Sumter treatment plant, which does not remove PFAS, alongside additional contamination from military facilities like Shaw Air Force Base.
Residents near the river — many of whom are low-income or people of color — face elevated health risks, particularly subsistence fishers who eat contaminated fish carrying PFAS and mercury.
Key quote:
“All indications are that industrial dischargers in Sumter are dumping toxic PFAS into the Pocotaligo through the town’s wastewater treatment plant, which is not equipped to treat these chemicals.”
— Carl Brzorad, attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center
Why this matters:
Exposure to PFAS chemicals is linked to a range of health issues including cancer, immune suppression, liver and kidney damage, and reproductive harm. In rivers like the Pocotaligo, these chemicals pose special danger to those who eat local fish, many of whom rely on fishing for food. Black and low-income communities often face the brunt of this contamination, and state regulators have so far failed to limit industrial discharges. As PFAS levels spike downstream from wastewater plants, many drinking water providers may think twice about drawing from rivers once considered safe.
Learn more: Just one meal of caught fish per year is a significant dose of PFAS
Soy-based firefighting foam offers PFAS-free option for rural fire departments
PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in traditional firefighting foams are linked to cancer, reproductive issues, and other health problems. Soy-based alternatives aim to reduce these risks. A Kentucky fire department led by a soybean farmer became the first in the nation to fully switch to SoyFoam, a PFAS-free foam.
Frida Garza reports for Grist.
In short:
PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in traditional firefighting foams are linked to cancer, reproductive issues, and other health problems; soy-based alternatives aim to reduce these risks.
A Kentucky fire department led by a soybean farmer became the first in the nation to fully switch to SoyFoam, a PFAS-free foam developed by Cross Plains Solutions with funding from the United Soybean Board.
The Department of Defense, which has historically used PFAS foams extensively, has not yet tested SoyFoam but has encouraged further research and development.
Key quote:
“The product performs just fantastic… there’s nothing in it that could potentially make me or any other firefighter in this country that uses it sick.”
— Jeff King, volunteer firefighter and soybean farmer
Why this matters:
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, have been used for decades in firefighting foams, contaminating groundwater around military bases and airports and entering the food chain. With more departments searching for safer tools, attention is turning to bio-based alternatives like SoyFoam. But even “natural” products need scrutiny — what’s in them, how they break down, and whether they really reduce the toxic burden. Firefighters face high exposure risks, and the chemicals they use often end up in the communities they serve, making transparency and regulation critical.
Related EHN coverage: PFAS-free firefighting foams: Are they safer?
Republicans push to eliminate fines for carmakers that violate fuel economy rules
Senate Republicans are backing a proposal that would strip penalties from federal fuel economy standards. Critics say the move could drive up gasoline use and tailpipe pollution. It also risks locking the U.S. auto industry into a losing position as China races ahead on clean vehicles. 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.
Brad Plumer and Jack Ewing report for The New York Times.
In short:
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.
Learn more: New Trump administration rule weakens efforts to promote cleaner cars