Trump’s EPA Moves to Give Data Centers a Pass

The Trump administration is proposing a new rule that would basically give data centers the ability to pollute as much as they want.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s rule change, The Guardian reports, would remove the Clean Air Act requirement that data centers publicly disclose their air pollution, making the disclosures voluntary at the discretion of state and some local officials. But since many state and local governments have business agreements with data center companies, this would likely end most pollution disclosures for data centers nationwide.

Now people with data centers in their community won’t know what substances they’re being exposed to, and won’t have evidence to cite in any legal challenges. In effect, the move seems to be aimed at squashing public criticism and oversight of data centers, according to the EPA’s former assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Joe Goffman.

The existing rule is supposed to protect members of the public, giving them “an ironclad promise,” Goffman told The Guardian.

“The administration is basically saying: ‘You all may have thought this was an ironclad promise, but it no longer is,’” said Goffman, who has co-authored comments on the proposed rule. While the rule’s public comment period just ended, it could still face legal challenges if finalized.

Data centers have faced heavy public opposition across the country due to their power consumption, pollution, the lack of jobs many create, and the noise they generate, among other issues. The response from President Trump has been denial and an insistence that data centers benefit communities.

“Frankly, communities that don’t take a data center, they’re making a mistake because there’s plenty of communities that want them. Because it means jobs, and it means tremendous tax revenue coming into the towns and cities that take them. So you know, it’s like the smart ones are saying, ‘I want them so badly,’” Trump said in an interview just last week.

The Supreme Court buoyed one of Donald Trump’s more aggressive voter-suppression efforts Monday, permitting the White House to move forward with a March executive order that effectively transfers control of the mail-in voting process to the U.S. Postal Service’s postmaster general.

The preliminary Supreme Court decision—which came over the dissent of the three liberal justices—did not decide the legality of Trump’s scheme, and will likely not be the last time the court speaks on the matter. Nonetheless, it has steered attention toward the postal service which, thanks to the president’s machinations, is on the verge of being controlled by a cohort of Trumpian sycophants.

The postal service is led by a board of governors, similar to a corporation’s board of directors. Typically, the board hosts nine governors, the deputy postmaster general, and postmaster general, totalling 11 members. At the moment, only six people sit on the board.

Weeks before signing the executive order, Trump filed nominations to fill four of the vacancies. Rather than file nominees in bipartisan pairs—as is tradition—Trump opted to exclusively nominate Republicans. Three of the nominees have openly questioned the results of the 2020 presidential election, and have claimed that America’s voting processes are not secure.

Two of Trump’s nominees are on a fast track for approval, and could enter office as soon as the Senate returns from its August recess. Their appointment to the board would effectively transform it and confirm a majority of Trump loyalists at the highest echelons of the postal service.

“It is clear to me that the president is looking for people who will do exactly what he says and will carry out his order without respect for the U.S. Postal Service,” Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin, who oversees the agency as part of her duties on the Senate Homeland Committee, told The New York Times.

That fear is just as palpable inside the postal service. Jonathan Smith, the head of the American Workers Postal Union, told the Times that postal workers are already concerned they may be forced to implement legally or ethically dubious policies.

“They can direct the people I represent to follow procedures we perceive as possibly not constitutionally sound or legal or even ethical,” Smith told the newspaper. “Because the board of governors were put there for that purpose.”

The U.S. Postal Service is practically as old as the country. It was developed by the Second Continental Congress during the American Revolution, and Benjamin Franklin was appointed as its first postmaster general.

Since then, the Postal Service has reinvented itself again and again, keeping up with the myriad shipping demands of the American public and supporting trillions of dollars in commerce.

It also “generally receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations,” according to USPS’s website.

Still, that hasn’t prevented America’s public mail system from becoming a favorite target of the president. Since the throes of the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump has repeatedly argued that the Postal Service should be dismantled to prevent voting by mail—a practice that he has repeatedly accused of fraud despite his own apparent preference for the absentee process.

Multiple people close to President Trump advised him to moderate his approach to the war on Iran. Six months later, with 18 U.S. service members and 3,000 Iranians dead and his approval rating at an all-time low, it appears he should’ve listened.

A new report from The Wall Street Journal reveals how Trump ignored the warnings of his own administration members in the lead-up to the February attack.

Former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard warned Trump in February that assassinating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would only bring a more hardline government into power, which in turn would lead Iran to tighten their grip on the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices skyrocketing and crippling the global energy market.

There were other warnings too. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine told Trump that an all-out campaign would result in an overexerted fighting force and a depleted weapons stockpile. Even Vice President JD Vance warned against escalation at one point.

The Trump administration has gone to great lengths to make Americans believe that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, that its military really is decimated, and that this feckless war is in their best interest.

“He will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” a spokesperson for the White House said, also claiming that Iran’s military was virtually useless. “It would be wise for Iran to reach a deal. Otherwise, they know what could happen.”

Now, as the economy remains in freefall, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and as Trump turns to a flimsy “economic D-Day” solution, it is clear that the president should have heeded the advice he was given. The fact that he’s pivoting back to sanctions now signals what has been obvious for months—that his strongman military approach was a failure.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that Trump was privately very upset and even confused as to why his all out bombing assault on Iran didn’t yield a surrender, displaying an alarming lack of foreign policy tact, even for him.

“This was all predictable and predicted,” Nuclear Threat Initiative deputy vice president Eric Brewer told The Wall Street Journal. “You can draw a straight line from the fact that the war was launched without any clear political objective to the mishandled diplomacy in trying to end it.”

President Trump is taking out his frustrations on Canada by threatening to rename Lake Ontario.

“The United States is giving serious consideration to changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America in that we don’t expect to doing much business with Ontario any longer. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP,” Trump posted early Tuesday morning on Truth Social.

Trump was responding to Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who responded to Trump’s tariff threat against cars and trucks produced in Canada Monday by saying that the U.S. president “can kiss my ass as far as I’m concerned.

“We’re going to go at him full steam, and we buy 400 percent more cars than anyone in the world,” Ford said in a radio interview.

Trump also denied reports that Canada pulled out of trade negotiations over the weekend over crazy last-minute demands from Trump administration officials such as changing Quebec’s French-language protections.

“I would never interfere with Canadians speaking French! In fact, I have never even thought of doing such a stupid thing. This lie was made up by a weak and ineffective Prime Minister in an attempt to gain political support, which he has totally lost, from the people of Quebec. I love French Canadians! President DONALD J. TRUMP,” Trump posted less than 45 minutes after his threat to rename Lake Ontario.

Trump’s feud with Canada could have far-reaching economic effects. Canadian officials will announce their own retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. on Tuesday. These could target any number of goods and services that Canada provides to its southern neighbor, including electricity, oil and gas, uranium, aluminum, and rare earth materials.

The price of gas and other goods in the U.S. is already high thanks to the Iran war and Trump’s mismanagement of the economy. A trade war with Canada will only hurt the American economy further and punish consumers just in time for November’s midterm elections.

This story has been updated.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson slammed the Supreme Court’s Monday shadow-docket decision to greenlight Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of this year’s midterm elections. While the decision does not necessarily mean mail-in voting will be overhauled, it nevertheless removes a block that the judiciary had placed in the administration’s way.

In an unsigned order Monday, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court stay on an executive order requiring the U.S. Postal Service to bar any person not included on a massive federal voter list from receiving a mail-in or absentee ballot.

All three of the high court’s liberal justices dissented from the unsigned order.

“This ruling violates well-established precedents concerning this Court’s equitable discretion and needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” wrote Jackson. “It also lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.”

After the executive order was signed in March, Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued to block the order. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani blocked the plan in Massachusetts, and later issued a nationwide injunction. Last month, Trump’s Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue, calling the challenge “premature” and “hypothetical” because the order had not been implemented by the Department of Homeland Security or the U.S. Postal Service.

It’s unclear how this order might be implemented in the time that remains between now and the fast-approaching midterm elections. The high court’s decision is also far from the final judicial challenge the administration faces in its efforts to juke the upcoming elections. Today’s ruling left open the possibility for future legal challenges.

Trump’s order has been described by Democratic leaders as a “desperate, illegal power grab” and “laughably unconstitutional.”

Despite the obvious chaos Trump’s order would cause, the U.S. Postal Service has moved ahead with issuing new requirements for mail-in ballots. If implemented, Trump’s executive order could potentially disenfranchise thousands of Americans who vote by mail ahead of the high-stakes midterm elections.