Latest Headlines
Joni Ernst mocked for Hegseth flip because people were being 'nasty' to her on X
Sen. Joni Ernst's decision to throw her support behind embattled Fox News personality Pete Hegseth drew mockery on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Wednesday morning.
Reacting to the decision by the Iowa Republican to throw in her lot with Hegseth despite credible allegations of sexual assault and public drunkenness, co-host Joe Scarborough skewered her for first expressing doubts about Donald Trump's controversial nominee and then rolling over after a far-right pressure campaign was waged against her on X.
"You know Joni Ernst came out and she spoke her mind and was very concerned obviously about women in combat, something that she has fought for in her public life," he told his panel. "Also very concerned about sexual harassment and sexual abuse inside the military. And she made no secret of the fact that she was concerned about Pete Hegseth and that she had a couple of hours of people saying nasty things about her on x and asked somebody reportedly, 'How do I make this stop?'"
ALSO READ: Fox News has blood on its hands as Trump twists the knife
"The people who get voting cards these days, it's crazy," he laughed. "It really is."
With the conversation turning to other possible GOP senators who could balk at voting for the nominee due to his lack of experience and sordid history, Scarborough noted that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was a possible no vote, and used her as an example to again take a jab at Ernst.
"I mean, we will see what happens with Lisa Murkowski, somebody who does not let an hour and a half of tough times on social media move her," he stated before adding, "We'll see what happens with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) we'll see what happens with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) We will see what happens to Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA)."
Watch below or at the link or click the link.
- YouTube youtu.be
'Little Marco!' Protesters use Trump's slur to violently interrupt Rubio hearing
Protesters used a slur created by President-elect Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign while interrupting a nomination hearing for his would-be secretary of state.
During Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-FL) Wednesday confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rubio spoke about the end of the Second World War when the outburst occurred.
"And we've had forever wars ever since!" a protester shouted. "Little Marco, keep your hands off our country!"
ALSO READ: Fox News has blood on its hands as Trump twists the knife
Several protesters were quickly escorted from the hearing room.
Trump first used the "Little Marco" slur while attacking Rubio in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.
Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi refuses to say under oath that Trump lost in 2020
Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi declined to admit that President-elect Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election.
At her Wednesday confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ranking member Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Bondi if she was prepared to state that Trump had lost the 2020 election. But she refused to do so.
"Are you prepared to say today under oath without reservation that Donald Trump lost the presidential contest to Joe Biden in 2020?" Durbin wondered.
"Ranking Member Durbin, President Biden is the President of the United States," Bondi replied. "He was duly sworn in, and he is the President of the United States. There was a peaceful transition of power."
ALSO READ: Fox News has blood on its hands as Trump twists the knife
"Do I agree with what happened?" she continued. "And I saw so much — you know, not no one from either side of the aisle should want there to be any issues with election integrity in our country."
"I think that question deserved a yes or no, and I think the length of your answer is an indication that you weren't prepared to answer yes," Durbin remarked.
Bondi also said she would consider recommending pardons for Jan. 6 rioters.
Trump team said to be 'less than thrilled' after key pick underperforms in interviews
A well-connected Florida journalist rolled his eyes at a recent report that suggested Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) would not last long as Donald Trump's secretary of state, but he did single out one nominee who might not even get confirmed.
Axios reporter Marc Caputo appeared Wednesday morning on CNN, where he discussed a Politico report that quoted foreign policy experts predicting that Rubio would be undercut by MAGA loyalists as the nation's top diplomat.
"My eyes almost rolled into the back of my head," Caputo said. "I can't say how much B.S. that is. Remember, Donald Trump chose Marco Rubio to be secretary of state. He knows who Rubio is and what Rubio believes, and the differences between these two guys on foreign policy is very, very thin. When Marco Rubio was a United States senator and Donald Trump was president, the first time as Trump 45, Rubio was essentially the de facto secretary of state for the western hemisphere. He was a constant Trump adviser. Trump bounced ideas off of him, took his advice, listened to him. In fact, as I've reported previously, at one point Trump was musing and was being urged to invade or have a military action in Venezuela. Who talked him out of it? Marco Rubio did. So whoever this ambassador is, I'm not sure if they're named, they don't know what they're talking about."
ALSO READ: Fox News has blood on its hands as Trump twists the knife
Rubio is not expected to face much opposition from the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee where he previously sat, and Trump's controversial defense nominee Pete Hegseth also appears poised to make it past the Senate Armed Services Committee, but Caputo said the president-elect's inner circle is concerned about one of his picks.
"In Trumpworld, when you ask them, how confident are you about something on a scale of one to 100 percent, they're always going to say 110 percent," Caputo said. "Now, that said, they will acknowledge that of all of the nominees, the one who is encountering and could encounter the most turbulence is [intelligence director nominee] Tulsi Gabbard. She has, in some of these meetings with Republican senators, according to both Punchbowl News and the Wall Street Journal, struggled at times to answer questions about her views on surveillance. She doesn't seem or didn't seem in some of these meetings to be as well prepared for the job of national director of intelligence. Now some Republicans have since come out and said, 'Okay, she's answering our questions, we're more than happy.'"
"In the end, though, the Republican Senate, the Republicans who control the Senate understand that Donald Trump is a Republican and most of them believe, if not all of them believe, that he should get his picks," Caputo added. "The one exception to that was Matt Gaetz. They bounced Matt Gaetz, and in Donald Trump's view, if you got rid of my Matt Gaetz pick, you need to pick everybody else, though, as you said, one of the issues seems to be that there is reporting that it is Republicans who have been less than thrilled with their interactions with Tulsi Gabbard."
Watch below or click the link here.
- YouTube youtu.be
Nebraska follows Texas in raising flags to full staff for Trump inauguration
Gov. Jim Pillen (R-NE) ordered flags at the Nebraska Capitol to be flown at full staff on Inauguration Day even though they were supposed to be at half staff until the end of January due to the death of former President Jimmy Carter.
Pillen issued the order after a complaint from President-elect Donald Trump.
"The official installation of a President is a historic day in the calendar of our nation and should be recognized as such," Pillen said in a statement. "Having the flag at full staff symbolizes the respect to that office and our nation's newly elected leader."
"Flags will fly at full staff from sunrise until sunset on Inauguration Day," the statement added. "The following morning, flags will return to half-staff, resuming the honor to former President Jimmy Carter. Flags are to remain at half-staff in remembrance of the former president through Jan. 28."
In a Truth Social post on Jan. 3, Trump complained about U.S. flags flying at half staff for his swearing-in.
"Nobody wants to see this," Trump wrote. "The Democrats are all 'giddy' about our magnificent American flag potentially being at 'half mast' during my inauguration."
ALSO READ: Fox News has blood on its hands as Trump twists the knife
Pillen became the second Republican governor to lift flags to full staff on Inauguration Day. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) of Texas issued a similar order.
"While we honor the service of a former President, we must also celebrate the service of an incoming President and the bright future ahead for the United States of America," Abbott said.
Research exposes Trump inaugural committee as 'cesspool of special interest financing'
With Inauguration Day less than a week away, a watchdog group on Tuesday published research shining light on the unprecedented level of financial support President-elect Donald Trump's inaugural fund has received from corporations and executives seeking to court favor with the incoming administration.
The new research from Public Citizen includes a tracker that lists known corporate donations or pledged contributions to Trump's inaugural committee, which is tax-exempt and not subject to contribution limits.
Amazon, Apple, Chevron, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Google, Meta, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, the pharmaceutical lobby, Pfizer, Microsoft, and Coinbase are among those that have pumped money into Trump's inaugural fund, which has raked in a record-shattering $150 million since Election Day—and could bring in over $200 million by January 20.
"These million-dollar donors come from a small class of very wealthy industries in Big Tech, cryptocurrency, government contractors, and others with lucrative contracts or business pending before the federal government," Public Citizen found. "Some of the biggest donors had long been critics of Trump, especially following the January 6 Insurrection by Trump supporters, and who are now fearful of retributions by a vengeful president."
Some of the companies that have donated to the inaugural fund are also facing federal investigations, amplifying suspicions that the contributions were made with the goal of receiving favorable treatment from the next administration.
"The record-breaking cesspool of special interest financing for the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee raises serious concerns about the ability of corporations and wealthy special interests to purchase influence over public policy or lucrative government contracts," Craig Holman, a government ethics expert at Public Citizen, said in a statement Tuesday."The record-shattering abuses of the 2025 Trump-Vance Presidential Inaugural Committee, Inc. should signal the immediate need for legislation to prevent this influence peddling."
"The possibility for corruption exists any time an officeholder accepts large donations from those who have business pending before the official."
Trump's inaugural fund has easily surpassed the then-record-setting $107 million he raised for his inauguration in 2017, The New York Times reported earlier this month. On Monday, the Times reported that "Harold G. Hamm, the billionaire oil and gas executive who helped bankroll Donald J. Trump's campaign and stands to profit from his energy policies, is hosting an exclusive fossil fuel industry celebration on Inauguration Day."
"Among the invited guests to Mr. Hamm's celebration is Doug Burgum, Mr. Trump's pick to run the Interior Department," according to the newspaper.
The president-elect has openly boasted that prominent figures in corporate America—from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg—have lined up to show support for his second administration, which is set to be packed with billionaires and others with close business ties. Trump is reportedly keeping close track of major companies that have yet to donate to his inaugural fund.
Public Citizen noted Tuesday that "while the self-serving motivations of inaugural donors has a long and troubling precedent, the scope of donations and, in many cases, the fear of retribution driving the donations to the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee represents a worrying shift."
"Buying access to the president and the president's inner circle is the name of the game," the group says in its new research brief. "For corporations and wealthy special interests attempting to influence public policy or secure lucrative government contracts, writing big checks to Trump's inaugural committee—or any presidential inaugural committee—provides a bonanza of access to leading government officials and influence over public policy. This is a level of influence peddling only available to those who can afford to pay the price and is denied to those who are not wealthy."
To "ensure that undue influence-peddling through Inaugural donations is mitigated," Public Citizen called on lawmakers to pass legislation banning corporate and lobbyist donations to inaugural funds, implementing contribution limits, and strengthening disclosure requirements, among other reforms.
"The possibility for corruption exists any time an officeholder accepts large donations from those who have business pending before the official," Public Citizen said. "Congress should end the double standard for presidential inauguration fundraising. The celebration of an election victory should be viewed as part and parcel of the process of selecting our president."
'Orwellian tactics': Senate chair Grassley smears Jack Smith to open Bondi hearing
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IO) used his opening statements during Pam Bondi's attorney general confirmation hearing, to air his grievances against the Biden Justice Department in general, and Special Counsel Jack Smith in particular.
Grassley introduced Bondi and spoke of her accomplishments as Florida's attorney general before launching into his attack.
"I know, as other people on this committee and in and out of Congress know, what government weaponization is. And then we get to Special Counsel Jack Smith and his 'lawfare' operation. It involved an unprecedented FBI raid on Trump's house, including agents that even searched the former first lady's clothing drawers. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden certainly did not receive the same treatment by government regarding their records."
ALSO READ: Fox News has blood on its hands as Trump twists the knife
"Indeed, as my oversight exposed, the FBI amazingly agreed to destroy laptop records associated with Clinton's staff. This Orwellian conduct should have no quarter. On top of it all, the FBI Special Agent Thibault, the anti-Trump agent that violated the Hatch Act for political activities on the job, started one of Jack Smith's cases.
Grassley then blamed the Biden DOJ for trying to influence the 2024 presidential election.
"But Jack Smith wasn't the only department official who tried to influence this past election. The Washington Post reported just last August about a previously undisclosed Mueller investigation into Trump that was closed for lack of evidence and it being, quote, unquote, a 'fishing expedition.' That news reporting was based on sealed court records, government records, and potentially classified information roughly 90 days before the last presidential election. The Justice Department leaked that information to the press to impact the election against President Trump. And they did it while stiff-arming congressional requests for information that would prove embarrassing to the Biden-Harris administration. So, let us not forget some of the more and other flagrant abuses of power that we've seen from the DOJ."
Bondi became President-elect Donald Trump's choice for AG after former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) withdrew due to backlash over ethical concerns that included drug use and paying for sex as a U.S. congressman.
Toyota exposed as major funder of climate change deniers: Watchdog
Nearly three decades after its introduction, the hybrid Toyota Prius is still associated with environmental action and the scientific consensus that fossil fuel emissions, including those from vehicles, must be reduced to avoid the worst effects of planetary heating.
But a Tuesday report from watchdog group Public Citizen reveals how Toyota has spent recent years becoming the largest funder of U.S. lawmakers who deny the existence of the climate emergency, and a major opponent to the expansion of electric vehicles.
In the report, titled Driving Denial, senior clean vehicles campaigner Adam Zuckerman wrote how Toyota has emerged over the last three election cycles as the auto industry's top financial backer of climate deniers in Congress—donating to 207 of their campaigners.
Top climate-denying beneficiaries of Toyota include U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who received $10,000 from Toyota in during the 2024 cycle—the maximum amount allowed—and Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), who received $7,000 after he called for the end of EV tax credits and demanded the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) be eliminated.
Between 2020-24, Toyota's political action committee (PAC) has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to right-wing lawmakers including Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)—giving a total of "$808,500 to the campaigns of congressional candidates that deny or question the existence of climate change," according to Public Citizen.
Despite Toyota's reputation as a hybrid car innovator, said Zuckerman, "the world's largest automaker has quietly spent the past several years building a powerful U.S. influence operation in an effort to delay the transition to electric vehicles."
"Funding a small army of climate-denying lawmakers, while lobbying aggressively against stronger emissions and fuel economy standards, is a volatile combination intended to roll back policies that protect our communities and planet," he said.
In addition to financing the campaigns of lawmakers who deny that fossil fuel emissions are heating the planet and contributing to more extreme wildfires, hurricanes, and other disasters, Toyota has also directly pushed back against climate regulations.
Three days after President-elect Donald Trump won the November election, Toyota Motor North America executive Jack Hollis falsely called tailpipe emissions standards introduced by California and the EPA "EV mandates" and claimed they will "remove consumer choice."
"Funding a small army of climate-denying lawmakers, while lobbying aggressively against stronger emissions and fuel economy standards, is a volatile combination intended to roll back policies that protect our communities and planet."
Hollis also wrote a Wall Street Journalop-ed called on the incoming Trump administration to dismantle Biden-era policies that push automakers to reduce emissions, and in December, Toyota announced it was donating $1 million to Trump's inauguration
"Instead of embracing a green energy future, Toyota has aggressively lobbied to delay and weaken climate action," Public Citizen's report reads.
Toyota's advocacy "has borne results," notes the report. "During the Biden administration, lobbying from Toyota and others forced the EPA to weaken an ambitious EPA plan to limit vehicle emissions. The changes slow the adoption of more stringent vehicle pollution limits, making it easier for EV laggards like Toyota to meet regulations without building electric vehicles."
While billing itself as a global climate leader in recent decades, Toyota was named by InfluenceMap as the third-worst company in the world for anti-climate lobbying, after only fossil fuel giants Chevron and ExxonMobil.
InfluenceMap's 2024 scorecard "highlights Toyota's lobbying efforts against emissions standards in the U.S. and Australia and against EV mandates in Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as Toyota's success in weakening emissions stands in the U.S. and fuel efficiency standards in Australia," reads the Public Citizen report.
While ramping up its lobbying efforts Toyota has invested in carbon-intensive hydrogen-powered vehicles such as the Mirai, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (HFCV) introduced in 2014. The Mirai has sold fewer than 25,000 units and has failed to provide consumers with the infrastructure needed for HFCVs, with just 60 hydrogen refueling stations in the U.S. and Canada—leading to a class action lawsuit against the automaker.
The company has pursued "a risky strategy that has left Toyota vulnerable to an influx of competitors who have leapfrogged the auto giant to build the next generation of vehicles," reads the report. "Instead of innovating, Toyota has bankrolled lobbyists and climate-hostile lawmakers to help it defeat EVs."
According to the report, the automaker's abandonment of EV innovation and embrace of climate denial begs the question: "In 20 years, how will the world think of Toyota?"
EVs, said Zuckerman, "are the future of the automotive industry, and if it fails to evolve, Toyota risks becoming the next Kodak or Blockbuster, corporate giants that fought innovation and paid the price for it."
Early votes targeted as GOP judge trailing Dem seeks to toss 60K North Carolina ballots
When and how North Carolina voters cast their ballots last year is a key to distinguishing which votes in the race for a state Supreme Court seat are in danger of being thrown out.
Republican Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin is seeking to toss out more than 60,000 votes in the race. He trails Democratic incumbent Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes.
Most of the votes Griffin wants tossed were cast by people he argues were not legally registered because, he claims, they did not provide required ID numbers on their registration applications. Both the state Supreme Court and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals are hearing the case at this point.
All the voters Griffin is challenging cast ballots during the early voting period or voted absentee. Those ballots can be traced to individual voters. A Griffin court brief says he believes he can win if the votes he is contesting are erased.
In addition to the voters whose registration he questions, he also wants to delete the votes of overseas voters who did not provide photo ID with their ballots, and those of overseas voters who have never lived in North Carolina but whose parents lived in the state.
None of the voters he’s challenged voted in person on Election Day. Ballots cast by people who vote on Election Day cannot be tracked back to individuals.
The League of Women Voters of North Carolina put a focus on how Griffin treats voters differently depending on when they voted in a “friend of the court” brief it filed while U.S. District Judge Richard Myers II had the case and before he sent it back to state court.
The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires “that when making determinations about the validity of its citizens’ ballots, the government cannot apply one set of rules to, say early in-person and absentee voters and a different set of rules to similarly situated voters who cast their ballots on election day,” the brief said.
Anne Tindall, one of the lawyers with Protect Democracy who represented the League and individual voters, said in an interview that if government treats people differently, it has to have a reason.
“The Equal Protection clause, when it comes to something like voting, holds the government to a higher standard than what the requested relief would require,” she said.
In his order sending the case back to state court, Myers said he considered the League’s brief, but he did not address the equal protection issue.
The North Carolina constitution also has an Equal Protection clause, said Jeff Loperfido, chief counsel for voting rights at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.
Protections under the state Equal Protection clause are stronger, he said.
“Under our Equal Protection clause, the constitutional protections for individuals should be more protective and more expansive.”
Craig Schauer, a lawyer representing Griffin, did not reply to a Jan. 3 email or Jan. 6 phone call. He did, however, respond to a question about equal protection when the State Board of Elections debated Griffin’s voter protests on Dec. 11.
Board member Siobhan Millen, a Democrat, asked Schauer about counting the votes of some people with missing information, but not others.
“Wouldn’t the people whose votes are thrown out have an equal protection claim based on different treatment depending on which method of voting they chose?” she asked.
Schauer responded: “Equal protection requires that the two groups be similarly situated. So, I believe there could be a basis of distinguishing the two groups on the fact that some elected to vote provisionally or by absentee ballot and others elected to vote in person. I will say that is a question I haven’t contemplated before and it is a good question for the board to consider.”
In a brief filed Tuesday in the state Supreme Court case, Griffin’s lawyers seem to deemphasize his protest of early, in-person voters.
Griffin’s lawyers suggest the Supreme Court consider the protests in phases, starting with overseas absentee ballots that arrived without photo ID. A state Board of Elections rule exempts overseas voters from the photo ID requirement, but Griffin says the Board was wrong to adopt such a rule.
If Griffin is ahead of Riggs after those overseas votes are erased, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have to make a decision on to the other categories, the brief says.
'Utter nonsense': Expert blows up Trump world's reason for acquiring Greenland
President-elect Donald Trump has long mused about bringing Greenland into the United States and recently he and his allies have claimed that America needs the territory due to its rich mineral deposits.
However, Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas examined the potential for significant deposits of precious minerals in Greenland and concluded that this justification for seizing the territory is "utter nonsense."
Among other things, Blas focused on the fact that Greenland's frigid climate makes whatever minerals can be extracted from the territory much more expensive than minerals extracted from countries with warmer climates.
"A 2023 Danish geological survey identified at least 50 locations with mineral potential," he writes. "Of them, more than half are north of the Arctic Circle, making their exploitation very hard and expensive, if not impossible. A handful, however, are in the ice-free southern tip of Greenland, opening the door to development. But most of them are small. Of the potentially large, perhaps the most interesting one is the Tanbreez rare earths deposit.Yet the geological report warns that Greenland has very little chance of developing its commodity deposits due to high production costs."
ALSO READ: 'Major problem': CNN legal expert pinpoints potential answer that could derail Pam Bondi
Blas then knocks down claims that taking over Greenland could help the United States at the very least help America break China's current stranglehold on the rare earths market.
"Are the Greenlandic reserves of rare earths large? Not as far as we know," he argues. "According to the US Geological Survey, considered an authority in the field, the island contains 1.5 million tons. That puts Greenland in the world’s top 10, but well behind the US itself, as well as China, Brazil, Vietnam, India and Australia. Very likely, mining for rare earths in all of those countries would be easier and cheaper than in Greenland."
In fact, Blas identifies nations including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile, Peru, Brazil, and Mongolia as nations with the potential for real mineral extraction in a way that Greenland can never reach.
"Sadly, none of them is for sale," he concludes. "But neither is Greenland."
Air in 12 Texas counties exceeded federal soot standards. Only four may face consequences
"The air in 12 Texas counties exceeded federal soot standards. Only four may face consequences." was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Twelve Texas counties have recently exceeded federal air quality standards for particulate matter, commonly known as soot. But Texas environmental regulators are proposing that only four of them be required to take action to improve their air quality.
In its proposal to exclude eight counties from stricter federal pollution rules, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality cited either bad air monitoring data or "exceptional events” — unusual or naturally-occurring events that can temporarily affect air quality such as wildfires, dust storms or emissions from outside the state.
The agency looked at air quality data from 2021-23 and proposed that four counties — Dallas, Harris (which includes Houston), Tarrant (Fort Worth), and Bowie (Texarkana) — be declared out of attainment with new federal air standards. But it’s recommending that eight other counties — Travis (which includes Austin), Montgomery (Conroe), Kleberg (Kingsville), Harrison (Marshall), Ellis (Waxahachie), Webb (Laredo), Hidalgo (McAllen) and Cameron (Harlingen and Brownsville) — be allowed to avoid the tougher standards.
Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency slashed the level of particulate matter permitted in the air from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter annually, marking the first update to the standard since 2012. It was one of the most ambitious parts of the Biden administration’s environmental agenda.
Particulate matter comes from diesel engines, wildfires, construction site dust, coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources. Some researchers have labeled particulate matter the deadliest form of air pollution.
The new standards came in response to growing evidence of the severe health impacts associated with particulate matter, which can penetrate deep into the lungs, aggravating respiratory issues and increasing the risk of premature death.
State agencies are responsible for enforcing the federal standards. The TCEQ initially determined that all 12 counties exceeded the new standards, then dropped the number to four in a new assessment released in November.
“I was surprised when TCEQ claimed so many exceptional event days,” said Neil Carman, a former TCEQ investigator who is now clean air director for the Sierra Club in Texas. “I thought more counties would fall under nonattainment.”
Harris County, home to much of the state’s massive petrochemical industry, has the highest particulate matter levels in the state at 12.5 per cubic meter on average over three years, followed by Cameron, Bowie and Dallas counties.
Cameron County, on the Texas-Mexico border, was removed from the nonattainment list because TCEQ determined its air quality levels were heavily influenced by international emissions, including wildfires and agricultural burns in Mexico and Central America. Similarly, Kleberg County, which includes Kingsville, was excluded due to particulate matter from Saharan dust and smoke.
TCEQ also ruled out Harrison, Travis, Hidalgo and Webb counties using the exceptional events rule. For Ellis and Montgomery the agency cited bad air quality data.
Nonattainment designations trigger stricter controls on pollution sources, including technologies that clean and filter out particulate matter. It also requires states to develop plans for achieving compliance. Adopting measures to reduce soot can be costly for industries and local governments.
Industry groups have argued that wildfires and other events out of their control are major soot generators that have elevated levels in many areas. They also said the new EPA soot rules would make it difficult to obtain permits for new projects and hinder economic growth.
TCEQ’s three commissioners must approve the recommendations, then the agency must submit its proposal to the EPA by Feb. 7. The EPA can reject or modify the state’s proposal and may designate additional counties as out of attainment.
Texas regulators are taking input from the public on its recommendations until Jan. 21.
Is agency properly using exceptions?
Experts and advocates argue that TCEQ often improperly uses “exceptional events” to let counties avoid stricter regulations, making it harder to hold them accountable for improving air quality.
“If you take exceptional events out, how do you 100% know where the spike came from? What if it happened to be the same day a polluter was polluting?” said Jennifer Hadayia, executive director of the environmental nonprofit Air Alliance Houston.
“We know twice a year there are going to be fireworks. That's a given. We know generally a couple times a year Saharan dust will exist. That's a given,” she added. “So … if the intent is to accurately represent air quality, and then take steps to truly improve air quality, then we have to consider that those things are going to happen.”
Richard Richter, a TCEQ spokesperson, said the agency’s use of exceptional events is consistent with federal regulations and guidance.
For example, TCEQ identified 25 days between 2021 and 2023 when Harrison and Travis counties experienced particulate matter spikes from prescribed fires, Saharan dust (which regularly drifts across the Atlantic Ocean to North America), fires from Mexico and Central America, high winds and fireworks.
Daniel Cohan, an associate professor at Rice University, said that with Donald Trump returning to the White House, the EPA might be less likely to push back on the TCEQ’s recommendations.
“TCEQ may be hoping that the Trump administration will be more lenient in letting counties off the hook for their high pollution,” Cohan said.
Once designations are finalized, Texas will have two to three years to develop a compliance plan, which will also require EPA approval.
Inadequate air monitoring
While Texas has one of the largest air monitoring networks in the U.S., with 215 sites, only 54 of them measure particulate matter. Hadayia and other environmental advocates said this leaves many counties, including those with significant pollution sources, without air quality monitoring.
For example, Fort Bend County lacks a monitor to measure particulate matter despite being home to W.A. Parish Generating Station — the largest coal-fired power plant in Texas. A Rice University study in 2019 estimated that the plant emitted enough pollution to cause 178 premature deaths annually.
Yet the county was ruled as “unclassifiable” by the TCEQ because it does not have an air monitor and there’s no data to determine whether the area meets the new particulate matter standard — so industries in the county won’t have to implement any new restrictions to meet the standard.
Hadayia and others argue that more monitoring by TCEQ is essential to protecting public health.
“If we’re not putting protections in place, how will we ever bring air quality to healthy levels?” she said.
Williamson County, north of Austin, has the state’s largest number of quarries — open-pit mines for stone, sand, and gravel that release particulate matter — but has no particulate matter monitors, said Christina Schwerdtfeger, chief technical officer for the Coalition for Responsible Environmental Aggregate Mining. According to the TCEQ’s air monitoring database, the three air monitors in Williamson County measure pollutants other than particulate matter.
“[TCEQ] can’t just act like an ostrich with your head in the sand and say, well, we don’t have any data. We don’t know,” Schwerdtfeger said.
TCEQ said the agency determines the locations of air monitors based on population trends, the number of emission sources in a region, and air quality complaints by residents. The agency added that its statewide air monitoring network exceeds the number of monitors required by federal regulations.
Disclosure: Air Alliance Houston and Rice University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/15/texas-particulate-matter-air-pollution-rule-epa/.
The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
Regulator accuses drug middlemen of wild price hikes, possibly steering business to selves
The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday released an interim report saying that powerful drug middlemen marked up drugs for cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other serious maladies far over the going rate — as much as a thousand percent over the going rate in 22% of instances.
The upcharges provided $7.3 billion in additional revenue between 2017 and 2022 to pharmacies owned by the same companies, the report said. Meanwhile, the middlemen usually paid competitor pharmacies less for dispensing the same drugs, it added.
Over that period, costs to commercial plans for the same class of drugs grew by 21%. For Medicare Part D plans, they grew between 14% and 15%, the report said.
The findings are part of an investigation into pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, that was undertaken by the FTC in 2022. Tuesday’s was the second interim report issued in the probe. One issued last July said PBM practices appeared to be raising prices and hurting patients.
The latest interim report looked at the prices of “generic specialty drugs.” The middlemen decide how to categorize drugs, but typically, those are drugs used to treat complex conditions such as cancer, but are not under patent. Specialty drugs of all types tend to be a lot more expensive than other medications.
“FTC staff have found that the big-three PBMs are charging enormous markups on dozens of lifesaving drugs,” Hannah Garden-Monheit, the director of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning, said in a statement. “We also found that this problem is growing at an alarming rate, which means there is an urgent need for policymakers to address it.”
The report was made public just as the FTC met on Tuesday. During the public comment section of the meeting, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a PBM industry group, said he was concerned about how it was done.
“It is rare for the FTC to release an interim… report, and it is unheard of for the FTC to release a second interim report,” the spokesman, Austin Ownbey, said. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association “is concerned that the second interim report will suffer from the same shortcomings as the first interim report. PCMA has significant concerns that a second interim report regarding specialty drugs is unlikely to be anything other than a piece of advocacy without substantiating evidence.”
The biggest middlemen — CVS Caremark, OptumRx and Express Scripts — are part of huge health conglomerates that also own insurers, pharmacies and providers such as doctors offices.
Their PBMs facilitate drug transactions by negotiating prices with drugmakers, creating pharmacy networks, determining reimbursements and reconciling claims. They work on behalf of insurers — including ones owned by the same corporations — and together, the big-three PBMs control access to nearly 80% of insured patients.
The PBMs say they use that clout to achieve savings for insurers and clients.
“PBMs are the only entities in the supply chain dedicated to lowering the cost of prescription drugs,” Ownbey said.
However, industry critics say the big PBMs use their size and a lack of transparency to extract huge, cost-increasing rebates and fees from drugmakers, and to force pharmacies into contracts on such bad terms that droves are fleeing the business.
In its latest report, the FTC said the PBMs’ parent companies are using the fact that they play a big role in multiple phases of drug transactions to advantage themselves.
The PBMs decide which drugs are covered and which will have the smallest copayments, so patients have a great incentive to buy whichever medicines the PBMs prefer, wherever PBMs want people to buy them.
As part of their “vertical integration,” the big PBMs each own a mail-order specialty pharmacy. The big PBMs often require patients to get expensive specialty drugs at their affiliated mail-order pharmacies if they want to get the lowest copayment. Ownbey said such pharmacies provide better service.
“High-cost medications are often misused or under-utilized without PBM and specialty pharmacy management programs, support systems and monitoring tools,” he said.
But many oncologists and pharmacists say mail-order pharmacies are too unwieldy and error-prone to be a good alternative — especially for complex conditions such as cancer.
For example, Elvin Weir in 2018 told The Columbus Dispatch of weeks-long waits to get his cancer drugs from the mail-order specialty pharmacy he was forced to use. He later died.
“Nobody’s really asking for mandatory mail-order pharmacy,” Chris Hobart, a independent pharmacist in Texas, said during the public comment part of Tuesday’s FTC hearing.
Regardless of whether PBMs’ affiliated mail-order pharmacies provide better or worse care, the FTC’s interim report found that when it came to generic specialty drugs, they’re bringing home big bucks for their parent companies.
Among the findings:
Between 2020 and 2022, the big PBMs’ affiliated pharmacies marked up 63% of the specialty generics they dispensed 100% or more over National Average Drug Acquisition Cost. Twenty two percent were marked up 1,000% or more.The big PBMs “almost always” reimbursed their affiliated pharmacies at higher rates than their competitors, the report said. The disparity was greater in cases where commercial insurance was involved than when Medicare Part D was the payer.Between 2020 and 2022, PBM-affiliated pharmacies dispensed 72% of all drugs marked up by $1,000 or more, while they dispensed just 44% of all generic specialty drugs during that period. “Dispensing patterns suggest that the Big 3 PBMs may be steering highly profitable prescriptions to their own affiliated pharmacies (and away from unaffiliated pharmacies),” the report said.The big three PBMs generated an additional $1.4 billion by charging more for drugs than they paid the pharmacies that dispensed them. Such “spread” pricing ignited a furor in Ohio in 2018, when it was revealed that CVS Caremark and OptumRx billed the state Medicaid system $224 million more for drugs than it paid pharmacies the previous year.Dispensing marked-up drugs from affiliated pharmacies is a key business for their parent companies: UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health and Cigna-Express Scripts. Each of those companies are among the 20 largest in the country and sales from their mail-order pharmacies account for a whopping 12% of their operating profit, the FTC report said.
Douglas Hoey of the National Community Pharmacists Association said employers especially should take note of the FTC’s findings.
“This exploitative behavior is bad for taxpayers who subsidize Medicare prescription coverage, but the FTC report found that commercial employers are getting hosed even worse,” he said in a statement. “It’s no wonder employees are questioning why their employers are listening to insurance brokers who often recommend one of the giant PBMs.”
Copyright © 2026 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.
