Elon Musk

Will Trump’s entire presidency be as damaging as his first month?

Spread the love

Original article by Paul Rogers republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. 

Ater a disastrous press conference, it may be Trump, not Zelenskyy, who needs to watch his back
 | Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

From blowing up at Zelenskyy to fast-tracking Executive Orders, what can we learn from Trump’s recent behaviour?

Donald Trump’s presidency has barely entered its second month, and the change he has brought about has already been so significant and so rapid that it is hard to imagine how his administration will evolve in the long term.

The substantial changes are, in part, due to the extensive planning done in anticipation of his winning a second term. The 900-page Project 2025 put together by the Heritage Foundation has provided a blueprint for Trump’s far-right conservatism that, combined with the decision to act very fast, has allowed him to already issue more than sixty Executive Orders – catching opponents off-guard.

Looking to the future may be better helped by understanding both Trump’s behaviour and his overall outlook on life, with two recent examples pointing the way. Some commentators see the president as an unpredictable figurehead who is hardly able to direct affairs, but that doesn’t face up to his being the locus of power for now and, in any case, he has plenty of determined advisers who have been waiting years for his second presidency.

The first example of Trump’s behaviour was shown by his reaction to a tragedy that happened just after his inauguration, when an American Airlines flight and a US Army helicopter collided and crashed into the Potomac River close to Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC. All 67 people on board the two aircraft were killed.

While the cause of the crash is still under investigation, within hours Trump had blamed the diversity-linked hiring policies of previous Democrat administrations, claiming they had lowered personnel standards in air traffic control. A tragedy became an occasion for immediate political point scoring.

More recently, we have seen Trump use social media to promote the new ‘Trump Gaza’. The president shared a bizarre AI-generated video in which the area had been ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population and transformed into “the Riviera of the Middle East”. Perhaps most telling is the full-colour representation of the main street, which Trump envisages as being dominated by a 60-foot high golden statue of himself.

Together, these instances point to someone who is comprehensively self-obsessed. He might be seen as an egotist or narcissist but certainly has an element of the solipsist in his make-up as well. He is, in other words, beyond egocentric.

But Trump’s impact on the world stage has to reckon with how the world is already changing, especially the rise of the global oligarchy, with vast power concentrated in the hands of a few hundred super-rich individuals. It’s clear that the president views these people as the true exemplars of success – he has formed a singularly powerful group of them around him.

Most notable among Trump’s circle of favoured oligarchs is Elon Musk, who supported his 2024 election campaign to the tune of $277m and has since been given an unofficial role in government and attended Cabinet meetings and Oval Office press conferences.

The wealth of Musk and two other oligarchs close to Trump, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, extends to $905bn, as US Senator Bernie Sanders reminded us last month. Writing in the Guardian, Sanders pointed out that this is “more wealth than the bottom half of American society – 170 million people”, adding that “since Trump’s election their wealth has grown by $217bn”.

This is in line with the findings in Oxfam’s 2025 Davos Report, which last week reported that while the number of people in poverty has remained near stagnant for the past 35 years, extreme wealth is surging. Four more people become billionaires each week, and the world is now on course to have five trillionaires and well over four thousand billionaires within the next decade.

The rising global oligarchy is not easily mapped with precision. Some members of the super-rich stay well out of the public eye, a few become patrons of the arts and philanthropists, but many others are heavily involved in the use of political power.

Though a degree of oligarchic power is evident in many countries worldwide, there are particular concentrations in a handful of nations, particularly Russia, China, India and the US – where Mark Twain’s quip about having “the best government money can buy” still stands.

Between Trump’s personality and his billionaire associates, the best guide to the next four years is to simply assume that ‘self’ and ‘wealth’ will be the president’s constant driving forces. It is not a happy prospect and will require persistent opposition, combined with repeated expressions of more positive ways forward. But is there anything that might limit him as he works to remake the US?

The first answer might just be his very associates. Many incredibly wealthy people are used to getting their own way, which could easily lead to disagreements sufficient to unbalance the administration. That will be much to the dislike and anger of Trump, who may well end up causing great disruption as he finds and disposes of the scapegoats who can keep the blame well away from him.

Then there is internal opposition stemming from numerous legal challenges that are already being mounted, many of them in recognition of the mass use of executive orders, which may undermine the authority of Article II of the US constitution.

Trump is also likely to run into problems due to the huge and vast array of experience and knowledge that will have been lost as a result of his administration’s decision to fire many thousands of federal employees from the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Forestry Service, National Parks, US AID and elsewhere. This is eventually likely to lead to numerous mistakes and delays right across government.

Then there is the matter of US foreign policy, where the ‘Trump Gaza’ fiasco is the clearest possible indicator that Trump just does not have a clue how many people feel. Beyond that, though, is the question of Trump’s view of Vladimir Putin. It is becoming uncomfortably clear that either the Russian president has some kind of hold over Trump or else Trump really does see him as simply another very powerful and hugely rich person just like himself – a kindred spirit in a new oligarchic world of disorder.

This leads to one other question: how long will Trump even be in the White House? A clue may come from Friday’s notorious press conference with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. People across the world will have seen clips of Zelenskyy being hung out to dry by Trump and his vice-president, JD Vance, but watching the entire 45-minute video, not just the blow-up, reveals a rather different element.

The conference was largely good-natured for the first 35 minutes, with Zelenskyy comfortably holding his own and Trump even praising Ukraine while doing his usual trick of claiming to be the greatest American since George Washington. It is only at the end that Vance moves in aggressively on Zelensky in a manner seemingly designed to get Trump to lose his cool.

Perhaps it is Trump, not Zelensky, who should be worried when reflecting on the experience – and who should watch his back. It may have been on the last day of February but Vance’s behaviour was not too far from the Ides of March.

Original article by Paul Rogers republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. 

Continue ReadingWill Trump’s entire presidency be as damaging as his first month?

‘This Guy Is a Leech on the Public’: AOC Rips Musk Over Attack on Social Security

Spread the love

Original article by Jake Johnson republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Elon Musk attends a Cabinet meeting at the White House on February 26, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

“No matter how many billions he gets in tax cuts and government contracts, it will never be enough for him,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. “Now he’s going after the elderly, the disabled, and orphaned children.”

Progressive lawmakers and advocates hit back on Sunday after Elon Musk parroted the long-debunked right-wing claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, the billionaire’s latest false attack on the nation’s most effective anti-poverty program.

Musk made the comments during an appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast over the weekend, and the episode has already racked up nearly 8 million views as of this writing.

“Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time,” Musk said. “If you look at the future obligations of Social Security, it far exceeds the tax revenue.”

The advocacy group Social Security Works noted in response that Social Security—which is 90% funded for the next quarter-century—”hasn’t missed a payment in 89 years” and accused Musk of “defaming” the program as part of an effort to “cut benefits and otherwise destroy Social Security.”

Musk’s comments came as the Trump administration, with the assistance of the billionaire Tesla CEO’s lieutenants, is working to gut the already-understaffed Social Security Administration, an effort that could result in benefit delays and disruptions.

“This guy is a leech on the public,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote on social media after a clip of Musk’s remarks on Rogan’s podcast circulated. “No matter how many billions he gets in tax cuts and government contracts, it will never be enough for him.”

“Now he’s going after the elderly, the disabled, and orphaned children so he can pocket it in tax cuts for himself,” Ocasio-Cortez added. “It’s disgusting.”

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote that “a guy who makes $8 million a day off the government thinks seniors getting $65 a day they worked their whole lives to earn is a ‘Ponzi scheme.'”

“Protect Social Security,” Casar wrote. “Fire Elon Musk.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also weighed in on Musk’s comments during an appearance on NBC‘s “Meet the Press” Sunday morning, calling the billionaire’s attack on Social Security “totally outrageous.”

“That’s a hell of a Ponzi scheme when for the last 80 years, Social Security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible American. Quite a Ponzi scheme,” said Sanders, who called on lawmakers to support his proposal to expand Social Security benefits by lifting the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.

“You lift that cap, we can extend the solvency of Social Security for 75 years,” the Vermont senator said. “And you can raise benefits.”

Last week, as Common Dreams reported, Sanders attempted to pass his Social Security expansion bill through the Senate via unanimous consent, but Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) objected, blocking the legislation.

A previous version of this story improperly identified “Meet the Press” as an MSNBC show.

Original article by Jake Johnson republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.

Continue Reading‘This Guy Is a Leech on the Public’: AOC Rips Musk Over Attack on Social Security

Capitalism’s Free Speech Trap: Bezos Shows How Billionaires Set the Boundaries of Debate

Spread the love

Original article by Peter Bloom republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos delivers remarks during the opening ceremony of the media company’s new location January 28, 2016 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Washington Post’s shift toward free-market advocacy is not simply an editorial decision; it is a strategic move to reinforce the dominant ideological framework that benefits the billionaire class.

The recent directive by Jeff Bezos that The Washington Post editorial section should promote “personal liberties and free markets” is a stark reminder of how freedom under capitalism often boils down to the freedom of economic elites to dictate the parameters of public discourse. While Bezos has suggested that social media provides alternative perspectives, thus absolving his newspaper of the responsibility to represent diverse viewpoints, his decision is part of a broader trend of billionaire media ownership shaping acceptable discourse.

This phenomenon is visible across digital platforms as well. Elon Musk’s control over X (formerly Twitter) has demonstrated how ownership can shape public debate—both through direct interventions, such as the alleged suppression of progressive perspectives, and through more subtle changes to platform algorithms. Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has faced repeated allegations of privileging certain political narratives while suppressing others, including ending its “fact checking” policy that could challenge far-right viewpoints.

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction in Bezos’ advocacy for free markets is the extent to which he, and other billionaires like him, have benefited from state intervention as part of an intentional strategy of “corporate welfare.”

In each case, the rhetoric of “free speech” is selectively applied. While these platforms and newspapers claim to support open debate, their policies ultimately reflect the ideological preferences of their owners. This demonstrates a fundamental truth: In capitalist societies, freedom of expression is often contingent on the interests of those who control the means of communication. The Washington Post’s shift toward free-market advocacy is not simply an editorial decision; it is a strategic move to reinforce the dominant ideological framework that benefits the billionaire class.

The Myth of Meritocracy and the Far-Right’s War on DEI

Bezos’ framing of free markets as inherently linked to personal liberties exposes a deeper ideological assumption—namely, that economic success is the result of individual talent and merit rather than systemic privilege. This assumption is not unique to Bezos but is foundational to the way many economic elites understand their own wealth and influence.

The logic behind Bezos’ editorial direction is similar to the arguments used by the contemporary far-right to attack Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The opposition to DEI is rooted in a desire to preserve the myth that success is determined purely by hard work and ability, rather than by racial, gender, or class privilege. By rejecting policies that acknowledge structural inequalities, The far-right seeks to uphold a narrative that justifies existing economic and social hierarchies.

This worldview is deeply intertwined with the ideology of neoliberalism, which insists that markets are neutral mechanisms that reward the most capable individuals. However, history shows that markets are anything but neutral. The barriers faced by marginalized groups are not simply the result of individual shortcomings; they are the product of centuries of systemic exclusion. The far-right’s attack on DEI serves to obscure these realities, just as Bezos’ insistence on free markets seeks to erase the role of privilege and power in determining economic outcomes.

By positioning The Washington Post as a champion of free markets, Bezos is promoting the idea that capitalism functions as a pure meritocracy. This serves not only to legitimize his own position but also to delegitimize calls for policies that challenge structural inequality, whether in the form of DEI programs, labor protections, or wealth redistribution measures.

The Illusion of the Free Market and Its Political Implications

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction in Bezos’ advocacy for free markets is the extent to which he, and other billionaires like him, have benefited from state intervention as part of an intentional strategy of “corporate welfare.” The notion of a truly free market, where economic actors compete on equal footing without government interference, is a fantasy. In reality, corporations like Amazon have thrived not because of unregulated competition, but because of significant government support.

From tax incentives to government contracts, Amazon has received billions in subsidies that have allowed it to dominate the retail and logistics industries. Moreover, the U.S. government plays a critical role in enforcing corporate-friendly trade policies, suppressing labor movements, and protecting the interests of multinational corporations abroad. These interventions are rarely acknowledged in discussions of free markets, yet they are crucial to understanding the power dynamics of contemporary capitalism.

If freedom under capitalism ultimately means the freedom of the wealthy to dictate the terms of discourse, then the very concept of free speech is in jeopardy.

Politically, Bezos’ editorial directive at The Washington Post serves to strengthen a broader ideological alignment between neoliberal economics and far-right nationalism. By framing free-market capitalism as an essential component of personal liberty, Bezos is laying the groundwork for a political agenda that fuses economic libertarianism with nationalist conservatism. This is significant because it provides an ideological foundation for challenging emerging economic policies that deviate from neoliberal orthodoxy—such as the rise of protectionism in response to globalization.

This alignment between free-market ideology and far-right nationalism is not new. Historically, neoliberalism has often coexisted with reactionary politics, as seen in the economic policies of figures like former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Today, this synthesis is being revived as right-wing populists seek to defend corporate interests while simultaneously appealing to nationalist sentiments. Bezos’ intervention in The Washington Post should be understood within this broader context: It is not just about shaping editorial policy but about consolidating an ideological framework that benefits economic elites while limiting the scope of acceptable political debate.

The Dangers of Billionaire-Controlled Media

Bezos’ decision to impose a free-market ideology on The Washington Post is not an isolated event; it is part of a larger trend in which media ownership is used to shape public discourse in ways that serve elite interests. This phenomenon extends beyond traditional journalism to social media platforms, where billionaires like Musk and Zuckerberg wield immense power over the flow of information.

At its core, this issue is about more than just media bias—it is about the fundamental tension between democracy and concentrated economic power. A truly free and open society requires a diversity of perspectives, yet the dominance of billionaire-controlled media threatens to constrain the range of acceptable debate. If freedom under capitalism ultimately means the freedom of the wealthy to dictate the terms of discourse, then the very concept of free speech is in jeopardy.

The consolidation of media power in the hands of a few ultra-wealthy individuals raises urgent questions about the future of democratic debate. If we are to challenge the ideological hegemony of economic elites, we must first recognize the mechanisms through which they shape public discourse. Bezos’ editorial mandate is not just about The Washington Post—it is a reflection of the broader struggle over who gets to define the boundaries of political and economic debate in the 21st century.

Original article by Peter Bloom republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingCapitalism’s Free Speech Trap: Bezos Shows How Billionaires Set the Boundaries of Debate

Critics Warn Trump ‘Flatly Illegal’ Firings at NOAA Will ‘Cost Lives’

Spread the love

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) speaks at Ritchie Coliseum on the campus of the University of Maryland on June 24, 2024 in College Park, Maryland. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

“Today’s mass layoffs of NOAA staff signals a grim new reality: one where career federal scientists will be recklessly discarded,” said one campaigner.

Critics on Thursday decried the Trump administration’s firing of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration staffers, part of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency’s plan to eviscerate the federal government.

Following the playbook of Project 2025, a blueprint for gutting the federal government, the Commerce Department this week fired hundreds of NOAA staffers, many of them specialized climate scientists and weather forecasters.

In addition to issuing weather watches and warnings, NOAA monitors and studies the planet’s climate.

We’re mobilizing scientists to protect NOAA and we need you too. Get involved:

— Union of Concerned Scientists (@ucsusa.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T21:02:13.322Z

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s (D-Md.) office said in a statement that the senator stressed that the firings “would be plainly unlawful and pointed to the Merit Service Protection Board’s decision yesterday that stayed the terminations of multiple federal employees on probationary status.”

“I take this opportunity to remind the department of its legal obligation to notify the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations regarding the large-scale termination of employees,” the senator added. Specifically, Section 505 of Title V, Division C of Public Law 118–42—a provision of the American Relief Act, 2025 (Public Law 118–158)—states, in part:

None of the funds provided under this act, or provided under previous appropriations acts to the agencies funded by this act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2024… shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that… reduces by 10% funding for any program, project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10%; or…results from any general savings, including savings from a reduction in personnel, which would result in a change in existing programs, projects, or activities as approved by Congress; unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.

“Other agencies in my subcommittee’s jurisdiction have cited ‘ poor performance‘ to move forward with drastic layoffs,” Van Hollen added. “This has been exposed as a lie. Many terminated probationary employees have already come forward with evidence of recent glowing performance reviews, laying bare the flimsy pretext of these firings as gross misrepresentations of fact. The department must not become a purveyor of such lies and must comply with its legal obligations.”

Juan Declet-Barreto, senior social scientist for climate vulnerability in the Climate and Energy Program at Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that “today’s mass layoffs of NOAA staff signals a grim new reality: one where career federal scientists will be recklessly discarded, and the lifesaving science they do will be significantly undermined.”

“When testifying under oath, Howard Lutnick assured congressional members that if confirmed as commerce secretary, NOAA wouldn’t be dismantled under his watch—a promise that was broken today,” Declet-Barreto added. “It seems either Lutnick willingly lied to Congress and the American people or that he has caved in record-breaking time to the destructive agenda of the Trump-Musk regime.”

Oceana U.S. vice president Beth Lowell said that “our oceans have become political carnage, but the real victims are hardworking Americans—the people you care about—and our future generations.”

“These are American jobs that warn us about severe weather, protect our most vulnerable marine life like whales and turtles, ensure abundant fisheries, and maintain a healthy ocean for those whose livelihoods depend on it,” Lowell added. “We’re calling on Congress to save NOAA from these disastrous cuts, while also protecting American jobs, communities, and the oceans.”

More than 2,000 scientists have signed a letter to members of Congress and the Commerce Secretary urging protection of NOAA.

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.

Continue ReadingCritics Warn Trump ‘Flatly Illegal’ Firings at NOAA Will ‘Cost Lives’

Ignoring ‘Science and the Law,’ Trump EPA Readies Chainsaw for Key Climate Finding

Spread the love

Original article by Julia Conley republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, talks with reporters in Washington, D.C. on February 18, 2025.
 (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

“Lee Zeldin is willing to go so far as to break established law to pay back the corporate executives and polluters who spent millions to get Donald Trump elected,” said one climate leader.

Climate advocates said Wednesday that the Trump administration will be abdicating its “clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution” if it moves forward with repealing the 16-year-old scientific finding that has underpinned the federal government’s actions to protect people and the planet from fossil fuel emissions.

As The Washington Post reported, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin is pushing the White House to repeal the endangerment finding, an official determination announced in 2009 that affirmed what the fossil fuel industry had known for decades: that emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane cause planetary heating and threaten public health.

The finding gave the government the authority to regulate such pollution.

For several days, the White House and EPA refused to release the results of a 30-day review of the endangerment finding, which President Donald Trump called for under an executive order he issued on his first day in office.

Three people with knowledge of the issue, who remained anonymous, told the Post that former EPA Chief of Staff Mandy Gunasekara—who wrote the chapter on the agency in the right-wing policy agenda Project 2025—has been advising the administration on the potential repeal of the endangerment finding.

Another former official from Trump’s first term, attorney Jonathan Brightbill, is also providing legal advice on repealing the scientific finding, which has provided the basis for federal regulations on automobile, aircraft, and power plant emissions.

By repealing the endangerment finding in place, the administration would throw out thousands of scientific studies showing how fossil fuel emissions heat the planet and are linked to heart disease, lung cancer, asthma, and other life-threatening health problems—and clear the way to overturn climate policies introduced by former President Joe Biden.

Denying the science underpinning the finding, said Green New Deal co-sponsor Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), makes the administration “a danger to our country.”

Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate and Energy Program, said that any attempt by the Trump administration to gut the endangerment finding would be “fully challenged in court.”

“Eliminating the endangerment finding would be a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry, which has spent decades lying to the public about the harms of their product,” said Cleetus. “The science backing the EPA’s finding is rigorous and unequivocal—heat-trapping emissions pose serious threats to public health and well-being. EPA has the authority and legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate sources of these pollutants, including vehicles, power plants, and oil and gas operations.”

Ben Jealous, executive director of the Sierra Club, also warned that the organization “will meet [the EPA] in court” if it moves forward with the repeal.

“Lee Zeldin is willing to go so far as to break established law to pay back the corporate executives and polluters who spent millions to get Donald Trump elected,” said Jealous. “This breathtakingly illegal power grab defies both the Supreme Court and Congress, and if Trump agrees to this plan, the Sierra Club will meet them in court. We will never allow any administration to sell out the climate, our health, our clean air, and our future.”

Zeldin is reportedly recommending that the finding be repealed weeks after wildfires destroyed more than 12,000 homes and other buildings in the Los Angeles area and after meteorologists reported a record 143 days last year of 100°F heat or higher last year. More than 100 people were killed last year by Hurricane Helene, which damaged about 74,000 homes.

“If the Trump EPA proceeds down this path and jettisons the obvious finding that climate change is a threat to our health and welfare, it will mean more polluted air and more catastrophic extreme weather for Americans.”

Experts found that the fires that devastated Los Angeles were made 35% more likely by dry, hot weather conditions and that planetary heating made Helene more dangerous and destructive.

“Any recommendation to strike the finding would be a bad-faith attempt to circumvent the law and best available science with the sole aim of boosting fossil fuel use and the profits of polluting companies,” said Cleetus. “Meanwhile, people around the nation, especially in communities acutely exposed to climate impacts or pollution, will pay the price.”

Dominique Browning, director and co-founder of Moms Clean Air Force, said the new reporting revealed that Zeldin “is contaminating EPA with a virulent strain of climate denial that has seized hold of many of the Trump administration’s Cabinet members.”

Browning noted that the EPA issued its determination in 2009 in response to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, which established that the agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

“EPA’s action respected the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Browning. “It respected the bedrock science and respected what we all know to be true: Families across the country are experiencing the extreme weather fueled by climate emissions. With every new supercharged wildfire, hurricane, flood, and heatwave, the danger takes on a terrifying intimacy: Think of the summers that have become too hot for children to play outside, of the lifetime trauma of losing a home in a flood or fire.”

“Administrator Zeldin’s recommendation to strike down the endangerment finding will only bolster the billions of dollars of profit being made by the oil and gas industry—while ransacking our children’s safety,” Browning said.

David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Zeldin’s reported plan “only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.”

The fossil fuel industry poured nearly $450 million into Trump’s campaign, and the president promised to roll back climate regulations if oil and gas companies donated heavily to him in what critics called a quid pro quo.

“This decision ignores science and the law,” said Doniger. “Fifteen years ago, the EPA determined that climate pollution endangers our health and well-being. The Denali-sized mountain of scientific evidence behind that decision has only grown to Mount Everest–size since then. The courts have repeatedly upheld the EPA’s legal authority and its scientific conclusions.”

“This is the clearest example of the Trump administration putting polluters over people, and that’s saying a lot,” Doniger added. “If the Trump EPA proceeds down this path and jettisons the obvious finding that climate change is a threat to our health and welfare, it will mean more polluted air and more catastrophic extreme weather for Americans. We will see them in court.”

Original article by Julia Conley republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Continue ReadingIgnoring ‘Science and the Law,’ Trump EPA Readies Chainsaw for Key Climate Finding