As Public Citizen pointed out, Trump’s attempt to preempt state laws regulating artificial intelligence is a handout to his Big Tech cronies. Tech companies have spent at least $1.1 billion in campaign contributions and lobby expenditures for Trump’s benefit.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers have been responding to public concerns about AI’s pervasiveness in our daily lives by taking legislative action. (See Public Citizen’s state legislation tracker here.)

Texas was one of the first states to regulate artificial intelligence. Our first legislation was passed in 2019, banning AI deepfakes in elections. A complete list of AI laws passed in Texas is included at the end of this blog.

Trump cannot actually preempt state law through executive order, although the legality or enforceability of his actions has never stopped him before.

Texas leadership, including Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, has been willing to bend the knee to Trump. We don’t know yet whether they will stand up to Trump and enforce Texas’ AI laws, but one of Texas’ most prominent residents has created a perfect test case.

Earlier this month, it was reported that Elon Musk’s Grok AI tool created millions of sexualized images of women. Some reports suggest Grok also generated sexualized images of children. Grok’s owner(s) and/or operator(s) could be civilly or criminally liable under one of Texas newer AI laws (see HB 581 and SB 441 below). Public Citizen recently called for an investigation of Grok for potential violations of state law. Whether state leadership acts on Grok could indicate whether they will allow Trump’s attempted preemption to stand in Texas.

Abbott, Paxton and their allies have been quick to attack teachers, librarians and others for merely providing educational materials they don’t agree with, like on diversity. Here, where the potential target of an investigation is a company owned by the world’s richest man and an ally of the president, Abbot and Paxton have expressed no such outrage.

One thing is clear: there is broad public and bipartisan support for regulating artificial intelligence in Texas. Trump’s executive order tries to do what he could not legally do with the help of Congress. We hope that state lawmakers do not bow to Trump and diligently enforce each of Texas’ AI laws. And we call on Texans to urge their lawmakers to do the same.

Send an email to Texas AG Ken Paxton demanding an investigation into Grok.

Texas Laws Regulating AI

The 89th Legislature (2025):

• HB 149, by Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, adds guardrails and disclosures for the use of AI by businesses. These include establishing the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council; prohibiting manipulation of human behavior; requiring disclosure when someone is interacting with AI in a health care setting; requiring consent for the use of biometric data; ban the use of “social scoring”; prohibiting discrimination by AI tools; and other protections. 
• HB 581 by Rep. Mary González: Creates civil liability for the owner or operator of an Internet website or application used to create deepfakes of sexual material harmful to minors. 
• HB 3512 by Rep. Giovanni Capriglione requires certain government employees to complete an artificial intelligence training program.
• SB 441 by Sen. Chuy Hinojosa: criminalizes the creation of intimate deepfake media without consent; criminalizes threatening to create an intimate deepfake to coerce, extort, harass, or intimidate another person. This bill expanded on SB 1361 (88R) by Se. Joan Huffman (see below).
• SB 815, by Sen. Charles Schwertner, prohibits health insurers from using AI to deny health benefits. 
• SB 1188 by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst regulates the use and disclosure of artificial intelligence by health care practitioners. 
• SB 1964, by Sen. Tan Parker, regulates the use of artificial intelligence by state agencies, particularly for consequential decision-making. 
• SB 2373 by Sen. Nathan Johnson criminalizes the use of AI for financial exploitation, financial abuse, or phishing. 

The 88th Legislature (2023):

• HB 18 (88R) by Rep. Shelby Slawson protects children online by requiring age verification, limiting data collection and targeted advertising for minors, implementing content-filtering strategies, and providing parental-supervision tools.
• HB 2700 (88R) by Rep. Ryan Guillen added AI images to the statutes criminalizing sexually explicit visual material involving children.
• SB 1361 (88R) by Sen. Joan Huffman criminalized the creation of intimate deepfake videos without consent.

The 86th Legislature (2019):

• SB 751 (86R) by Sen. Bryan Hughes, prevented the creation of deepfake videos to influence an election.

Adrian Shelley is the Texas director of Public Citizen

The post Will Abbott and Paxton Enforce the Rules or Bow to Big Tech? appeared first on Public Citizen.

In the United States, government cuts, and skyrocketing costs guarantee that healthcare will be a key political issue in the United States in 2026. Last year, Republicans in Congress enacted a series of major cuts to the Affordable Care Act and to Medicaid, impeding access to care for tens of millions of Americans.  But another, more positive trend entered the media: strong gains for Medicare for All, with six new cosponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R.3069): Shomari Figures (AL-7), Adelita Grijalva (AZ-7), Julie Johnson (TX-32), April McLean Delaney (MD-36), Jared Moskowitz (FL-23), and Sarah Elfreth (MD-03); plus two in the Senate (S.1506): Tina Smith (MN) and Chris Van Hollen (MD).

This growing momentum for a comprehensive solution to our broken health care system comes alongside a series of new public polls that indicate Americans are broadly supportive of single payer health care (Medicare for All) at a national level. This has led to a wave of supportive commentary in the media that hasn’t been seen since 2020. Against the backdrop of a full-out assault on many aspects of our health care system by a Republican-led Congress and the Trump administration, renewed interest in Medicare for All among the public, newspapers and politicians makes perfect sense.

This renewal of Congressional and media support has a solid foundation in the national movement of Medicare for All activists, who have been organizing in their communities across generations to win single-payer health care. Recent victories include two key county-wide resolutions led by activists working with Public Citizen’s Medicare for All Resolutions campaign, in Baltimore County, MD and in Mecklenburg County, NC.

Medicare for All Organizing in Florida

In November, Public Citizen had the privilege of sponsoring and leading workshops (two on bringing Medicare for All into local pro-democracy protests as a key demand and one on passing municipal resolutions) at the first in-person Healthcare Now Medicare for All Strategy Conference since 2020, located on Florida’s Space Coast. The event space was packed to capacity, principally by Floridians themselves.

Conventional political punditry often tells us that when it comes to progressive politics, red states are a lost cause. How could the movement organize for Medicare for All in a state like Florida? Having one of the most vindictive governors in the country at the helm makes the Sunshine State no exception to the often-held theory to avoid conservative strongholds. But the answer to this question is that despite obvious challenges, Florida is already organizing health-focused campaigns and even offers plenty of new lessons on how to organize anywhere.

Public Citizen has been working with Medicare for All Florida ever since the organization was created back in 2021. Before that, some of our earliest victories in passing municipal resolutions in support of Medicare for All took place in Florida, led by Progressive Democrats of America activists in St. Petersburg and Tampa.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, working with Medicare for All Florida, we co-organized statewide virtual Medicare for All town halls, using these events as an opportunity to bring  a wide array of organizational allies into our mutual coalition building work. More successful resolutions followed: in Key West, Gainesville, Alachua County and Lake Worth Beach.

The November strategy conference featured speakers active in immigrant rights organizing, state single-payer initiatives, and state politicians. In this space, I began to reminisce about Mitchell Stollberg, a Florida resident and Progressive Democrats of America leader who sadly passed away in 2020. Mitch was a life-long activist who developed cancer in his early 60s. He was too young to qualify for Medicare at the time. Struggling to meet his high health care costs, he became a dogged advocate for Medicare for All. Despite his health challenges, every time former Representative Ted Deutch (FL-22) made a public appearance, Mitch was there to ask him when he’d sign onto Medicare for All. After Mitch’s death, Rep. Deutch signed on to the Medicare for All bill to honor his memory.

A few days after the conference concluded, Jared Moskowitz, who now holds Deutch’s seat in Congress, signed on to Medicare for All. In January, the city of North Miami Beach, led by Mayor Michael Joseph, passed a resolution in support of Medicare for All. These victories represent both the reverberations of the Medicare for All Strategy conference in Florida, as well as a culmination of multiple generations of organizing work.

Medicare for All Organizing in 2026

The Floridians I met during the November event looked at our political situation in their own unique way that was very uplifting as many D.C. advocates have become jaded. Accustomed to a hard-right state government, they’ve had to develop their own resolve to organize their communities in spite of tough political conditions.

Floridians also understand the urgency of Medicare for All, even people like Mitch, who fought so relentlessly for a change that he probably knew he might not live to see.  Florida activists are focused on the long-term task of building a successful movement to win progressive change. Medicare for All Florida has also invested energy in state legislative battles, over bills like a statewide cap on insulin costs and pressuring state lawmakers to introduce a state-based single payer bill.

I left Florida with both an awe at the strength of the long-term networks that grassroots activists have built, as well as a realization that there is a renewed energy behind the demand for Medicare for All in 2026. These lessons I took away will definitely be used in the broader fight, and we hope you will get us engaged with us in this work this year.

Coming up, we’re working with activists in Chicago to pass a resolution with the City Council. We’re also working with activists in target states and Congressional  districts to win even more new cosponsors of the federal Medicare for All bill. And we’re working with activists across the country to help them to bring Medicare for All as a core demand to mass protests in their communities.

Whether you’re getting involved for the first time, coming back into the fight after a long break, or a seasoned activist looking for new strategy opportunities, now’s the time to elevate Medicare for All as our collective vision for guaranteed healthcare. Check out our toolkit for ways, both large and small, to participate in this work.

The post Florida Activists Lead Grassroots Organizing on Medicare for All appeared first on Public Citizen.

According to Peters, crypto miners’ energy usage corresponds to about 3% of all electricity produced on the state’s power grid in 2024.

Those energy usage numbers are indefensible. Let’s call it a Texas-sized power grab that could be costing you when you pay your monthly electric bill. 

Every time crypto mining floods the grid with demand, it strains an already fragile system. That strain drives up everyone else’s electric bills. When power is scarce — during heat waves or winter storms — crypto companies can even get paid to shut down, an additional revenue stream of your tax dollars from a state program intended to get industrial operations to pause in times of crisis.

Crypto boosters claim their industry supports renewable energy. Still, in reality, the industry’s massive new demand often keeps fossil fuel plants running longer and justifies the construction of new power plants fueled by methane gas. That means more pollution, more climate damage, and more health risks.

But costs aside, this is the same Texas that went dark during 2021’s Winter Storm Uri, when the electricity supply couldn’t keep up with demand. In the years since Uri, the Texas grid has had several close calls. Consider that demand keeps going up and the proliferation of another energy-hogging industry – AI data centers – and you have to ask why the Texas Legislature has done little to address the crypto industry’s energy usage.

Texas can do better. We should demand strict transparency, limits on grid abuse, and policies that put people before profits. Electricity is a public necessity, not a subsidy for an industry that drains our grid, our wallets, and our future while creating imaginary money.

Texas doesn’t owe crypto miners anything, and your utility bills shouldn’t subsidize them. We’ve heard enough of “trust me, bro” from the tech bros.

José Medina is the press officer for the Texas office of Public Citizen

The post The Texas Crypto Industry’s Power Grab appeared first on Public Citizen.

With yet another budgetary shutdown looming at the close of January 2026, and given Trump’s strident desire to slash government services in exchange for tax breaks for billionaires, more reckless cuts to SAMHSA must be anticipated and resisted for the good of the nation’s overall well-being.

Here’s what is at stake.

SAMHSA is a 33-year-old agency under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This subagency’s mission is to lead public health efforts that advance the nation’s behavioral health, especially the oversight and evolution of systems that address addiction and other serious disorders such as generalized anxiety; post-traumatic stress; and social, emotional and learning disability experienced by children (school-based violence prevention programs, for example, are the purview of SAMHSA).

The programs targeted for defunding reportedly included those that aim to help people recover from psychiatric breakdowns and overdoses, among other serious and often recurring illness episodes. Important subpopulations of interest in these projects are vulnerable groups such as racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, young children or transition-age adults, low-income people, rural residents and people who have been arrested or incarcerated. Reportedly, the administration aimed to eliminate these grants because they do not comport with President Trump’s and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s health priorities. At least one report noted the irony of the health secretary’s destructive approach given his personal challenges with addiction.

Had these latest SAMHSA budget cuts been implemented, they would have exacerbated the ones instigated in 2025 that slashed $1.7 billion dollars from that agency. Prior to the 2025 cuts, SAMHSA’s total budget was $7.5 billion. For comparison, consider that this year’s budget for the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is nearly $10 billion, and under legislation recently signed by President Trump, the ICE budget will swell to over $30 billion per year through 2029. The 2025 SAMHSA cuts began the evisceration of the nation’s mental health and substance use prevention and treatment effort. Here are of some of the program and staff reductions that occurred in 2025:

• 500 of 900 total employees left or were terminated, turning the headquarters of SAMHSA into what some referred to as a “ghost town” and further hobbling its expert independence.
  • Departures of at least 12 of 17 senior leaders
  • Cutting 130 staff from the Center for Mental Health Services, including all but one individual responsible for youth programs
  • Losing other key leadership such as Yngvild Olsen, M.D., M.P.H., who in 2024 led the effort to advance the nation’s antiquated and stigmatizing approach to delivering methadone treatment to people with opioid use disorders
  • “Temporary reassignment” of senior staff from SAMHSA’s Washington, D.C., headquarters to remote locations in the west, including the reassignment (to an Indian Health Service facility in Montana) of the respected biostatistics researcher and the Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Captain Christopher M. Jones, Pharm.D., Dr.P.H., M.P.H.
  • Laying off numerous personnel involved in convening a new workgroup studying the use of psychedelics as potential therapies for psychiatric illnesses, including addiction
  • Laying off personnel involved in developing “involuntary commitment” as a strategy to address the most severe manifestations of psychiatric illness
• $350 million in reductions specifically regarding addiction and overdose prevention
• Halting a crisis hotline in Wisconsin
• Dropping clients at a Pennsylvania recovery organization
• Laying off state employees at an organization in Nevada that supports children with “severe emotional disturbances”
• Laying off local personnel focused on reducing the scourge of homelessness

Had the January 2026 SAMHSA cuts been implemented, the following types of local programs would have been damaged or completely eliminated:

• Programs delivering “comprehensive treatment” of opioid addiction, including adolescent and young-adult addiction-prevention efforts, harm-reduction strategies including naloxone rescue and referral-to-treatment strategies, and buprenorphine induction and maintenance programs
• The $15-million-per-year Opioid Response Network, a program that specifically offers training to local authorities
• The $6 million Building Communities of Recovery Program, which provides resources enabling recovery for people with substance use disorders, illnesses that typically are long term and cycling
• Programs delivering tailored services to people with behavioral health challenges who also face the common comorbidities of serious infectious diseases such as HIV or hepatitis
• Mental health and substance abuse “first-responder” programs, which are designed to address in-community crises where law enforcement is ill equipped
• The American Psychiatric Association Foundation’s (APAF’s) behavioral health Workforce Development Initiative, which encourages high school and college students to consider a career in psychiatry
• The APAF’s Notice. Talk. Act. At School Program, which provides free mental health training for K-12 staff
• Chicago’s Haymarket Center, the largest nonprofit center in that city, which treats individuals with all types of addiction. Haymarket also faced the immediate loss of $1.8 million to offer employment training to individuals suffering from homelessness.
• Programs specifically designed to treat pregnant women suffering from addiction
• Programs aimed at reducing the occurrence of suicide
• A $5.2 million program to train staff to appropriately use overdose-reversal medications such as naloxone (NARCAN)
• $20 million to the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry’s programs that educate 500,000 doctors, social workers and nurses about screening and treating individuals addicted to opioids and further addresses the prevention of such disorders as well as the stigma that is persistently tied to them
• Programs to reduce underage drinking and cannabis use

Accordingly, as SAMHSA shrinks under the cruel, ideologic weight of President Trump’s second term in office, the behavioral health of the U.S. population worsens. Moreover, as SAMHSA faces additional unwarranted budgetary assaults, damage mounts because of the uncertainty and stigma such threats bring to the already challenging endeavor of coping with behavioral health issues, which are distinctively exacerbated by such machinations and undeniably connected to our overall wellbeing. The only hope one can take from Trump and Kennedy’s latest attempt to eviscerate SAMHSA is that their brazen effort was thwarted by advocates, including families, patients and experts on the frontline of service implementation.

As a public health researcher for more than 30 years, I have often relied on SAMHSA as a quintessential source of trustworthy data and practical solutions related to the ongoing challenges posed by illnesses impacting brain health. The Trump administration seems both foolish and wicked regarding their management of SAMHA; indeed, Trump and Kennedy seem bent on near-complete destruction of that effort. Evidence-based resistance against these harmful Trump/Kennedy tendencies is more important than ever. Our collective wellbeing is at stake.

References

Boderick RO, Facher L. Trump cuts have decimated the federal addiction and mental health agency. STAT. October 30, 2026.

Czachor EM. Trump admin. reverses sudden cuts in mental health, addiction programs. CBS News. January 15, 2026. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/trump-admin-reverses-sudden-cuts-in-mental-health-addiction-programs/ar-AA1Ue78X?ocid=BingNewsSerp. Accessed January 19, 2026.

Hoffman J. H.H.S. reverses decision to cut $2 billion for mental health and addiction services. New York Times. January 14, 2026.

Facher L. Trump administration reverses course on $1.9 billion in cuts to addiction and mental health grant. STAT. January 14, 2026.

Feng J and Cole B. ICE budget now bigger than most of the world’s militaries. Newsweek. July 2, 2026.

Mann B. Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants. National Public Radio. January 14, 2026.

Mann B. 24 hours of chaos as mental health grants are slashed then restored. National Public Radio. January 15, 2026.

Miscaro L. Trump’s ICE force is sweeping America. Billions in his tax and spending cuts bills are paying for it. Associate Press. January 20 2026.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Last updated 9/30/2025. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/data-we-collect/nsduh-national-survey-drug-use-and-health. Accessed January 1, 2026.

The post Chaos Reigns as Trump Administration Cancels then Reinstates $2 Billion Worth of Federal Grants Supporting Addiction and Mental Health Services appeared first on Public Citizen.

If you follow how state governments around the country are responding to the insurance crisis like I do, the one phrase you’ll hear more than any other is “tort reform.” Sounds nice, right? But the reality is that tort law is the only real leverage policyholders have when insurers stall or shortchange them.

A “tort” is the legal term for when a person or a company harms or injures someone. Tort law simply is the legal framework people can use to sue when that happens. So-called tort “reform” includes capping damages, shortening filing deadlines, restricting who can sue, and denying people’s right to sue a company altogether.

Public Citizen has been fighting corporate-backed “tort reform” for decades across industries. Without fail, tort reform efforts are an attempt to shield corporations from justice and pad their profits.

A real climate crisis and a manufactured legal one

Our current insurance crisis is a product of climate-driven extreme weather that is more frequent, more destructive, and more expensive—not lawsuits. Wildfires fueled by heat and drought plague the West. Hailstorms batter the Midwest. Hurricanes grow stronger and reach farther inland, while catastrophic flooding now affects places from Texas to Vermont to New York City. Many communities are still recovering from one disaster when the next one hits.

Instead of strengthening protections for policyholders, insurers are raising rates, cutting coverage, abandoning communities, and denying claims. Renters feel the effects through higher rents. Homeowners often learn only after disaster strikes that coverage was quietly reduced.

This is a real insurance crisis for working Americans. According to Insurify’s 2026 survey, more than half of homeowners (57%) have made sacrifices to afford home insurance, including taking on debt (15%), borrowing from friends/family (12%), and skipping meals (10%). 

“Social inflation”: insurance industry’s fabricated scapegoat

In order to justify rate hikes and strip us of our right to due process, insurers blame “social inflation” for rising costs. “Social inflation” is an industry-coined term used to pin rising costs on lawsuits, juries, and trial lawyers. According to their narrative, out-of-control lawsuits and runaway verdicts force them to raise rates.

The idea that judges and juries nationwide are being routinely duped by plaintiffs’ attorneys who somehow outmatch the trillion-dollar insurance industry and its legal teams strains credulity. A far more plausible explanation is the simplest: insurers frequently deny, delay, or underpay valid claims, and reasonable people turn to the courts. This isn’t legal system abuse, it’s a policyholder’s last line of defense against a racket.

Denying claims and blaming the courts

When I dug into the insurance industry I found startling statistics. While insurers complain about litigation, they are increasingly refusing to pay claims at all. 

• Weiss Ratings found that in 2024, 14 of the largest U.S. property insurers closed between 40% and 51% of homeowner claims with no payment whatsoever. 
• More than one-in-three weather-related claims go unpaid on average. 
• In Florida, claims denials grew by 17% from 2022 to 2024 to a record high of 46.7%.

In his landmark book, Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It, Professor Jay Fiemann details how the industry prioritizes profits over policyholders’ needs, often using tactics like delaying or denying legitimate claims to bolster financial performance. It’s no wonder, then, that insurance companies want to take away our legal right to contest them.

The industry is pushing “tort reform” throughout the country

Louisiana recently passed sweeping “tort reform” laws, and Florida went as far as to deny people who use the industry-run “insurer of last resort” the right to sue entirely. Instead they have to go through a mandatory arbitration system staffed by “judges” paid by the insurance companies themselves. 

Unsurprisingly in Florida the insurance company wins in arbitration 90% of the time, and in Louisiana people’s rates continue to climb as insurers pay out fewer claims.

Even independent ratings agencies suggest the industry’s greed has undone these attempts to reduce lawsuits. Dr. Martin Weiss, founder of Weiss Ratings, reports that in Florida “the data indicates that many insurers, perhaps assuming that tort reform would help them get away with abusive practices, denied claims more aggressively, causing more, rather than fewer, lawsuits overall.” 

These “tort reform” efforts are promoted by the insurance industry in virtually every state capitol. 

Giant insurance corporations and industry groups put tort reform at the head of their lobbying agendas. The industry’s association for insurance agents tries to get its members to use this “legal abuse” toolkit to lobby for the same. These efforts are backed by a “tort reform bootcamp” for legislators from the powerful right-wing Koch-funded legislative clearing house called ALEC.

Even the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), the industry-funded organizing body of all our state insurance regulators, promotes these so-called “reforms,” including them in their “Affordability and Availability Playbook” for legislators looking to combat rising housing costs. 

If successful, the insurance industry will have stripped Americans of a fundamental right to access our judicial system and taken a key protection of many Americans’ most important financial asset and turned it into a racket.

The numbers don’t support the industry’s claims

Despite their clamor for special protections against our right to sue, these corporations are enjoying historic profitability.

In its 2025 report on U.S. homeowners insurance markets, the Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office (FIO) examined paid loss ratios—claims paid relative to premiums collected—across 25,593 zip codes from 2018 to 2022. In more than 90% of zip codes, insurers collected more in premiums than they paid out in claims every year. Underwriting has been profitable in most of the country, and across the states insurers made 3.7 times their underwriting income in their investments. In Louisiana that ratio climbs to $55 in gains on their investments for every one dollar lost in claims.

The industry’s broader financial performance proves the business insanely lucrative. According to the NAIC, the P&C industry posted $169 billion in profits in 2024, a 90% increase from 2023 and a 333% jump from 2022—marking its 23rd consecutive profitable year. Even the NAIC acknowledges these extreme profits were “made possible largely due to sizeable rate increases.” Insurance CEO pay likewise continues to climb year over year.

Insurers make most of their money by investing the premiums we pay in stocks, bonds, and real estate, including around $582 billion in coal, oil, and gas. They also insure the coal mines and methane export terminals driving the climate crisis. In short, they make unfathomable sums propping up the very industries creating the disasters that threaten our homes.

Not reform but a racket

Nearly 1 in 3 homeowners (28%) say they would drop their mandatory home insurance entirely if possible. Instead, they’re paying more for less. Premiums are up 24% nationwide, and when someone does make a claim, which just as likely will pay out as won’t, their premiums increase even more.

So-called tort reform takes away Americans’ fundamental rights, supposedly in exchange for lower premiums. But those savings never arrive. It turns a required product into a racket: pay more, get less, and lose the ability to fight back.

At a time when climate change makes accountability more urgent than ever, the answer isn’t closing courthouse doors. Real solutions strengthen consumer protections, increase transparency, and hold insurers accountable for their role in fueling risk—not strip rights from the very people insurance is supposed to protect.

Between January and June of 2026, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners is holding a data call for insurance information across the country about premiums, nonrenewal rates, claims, and more. Whenever they run these data calls, the insurance commissioners concede to the industry to keep this vital information hidden from the public. Click here to tell to your insurance commissioner: this data is too important to hide from the public!

The post The “Tort Reform” Racket appeared first on Public Citizen.

Dear Senators:

On behalf of more than one million members and supporters of Public Citizen, we urge the members of the Senate Committees on Banking and Agriculture to oppose the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act as currently drafted.

We recognize the efforts underway to develop a regulatory framework for digital assets. However, any such legislation must be grounded in important principles that many senators support,  such as consumer protection, financial stability, and market integrity principles. These include: preserving state oversight and enforcement authority; preventing the “tokenization” of traditional securities in ways that evade registration and disclosure requirements; preventing illicit finance and abuse of the financial system; and ensuring that federal policy does not enable conflicts of interest, corruption, or self-dealing.

We further believe that any crypto legislation must close loopholes that would effectively allow stablecoins to pay interest or rewards, undermining existing banking and securities regulations.

Without these protections, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act risks weakening regulatory safeguards, exposing consumers and investors to harm, and entrenching regulatory arbitrage rather than promoting responsible innovation. We therefore urge the Committees to reject this legislation.

Preemption: The bill fails to protect state oversight of cryptocurrency. (VIII Sec. 802) We urge Congress to ensure that any bill includes a provision specifying that the legislation does not preempt state consumer protection laws. States have long been charged with primary responsibility for protecting their citizens from fraud and misconduct. Today, every state maintains securities laws that operate in tandem with federal law to protect consumers from fraud and other unfair practices in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of securities. This dual system of federal and state regulation has protected investors for nearly a century. Such a provision (savings clause) will allow investors to enjoy the full protection of both state and federal law. We attach a letter signed by organizations calling for strong protection for state oversight authority.

Tokenization: For decades, bad actors have attempted to raise capital from the public while evading federal registration and disclosure requirements designed to protect investors. The bill’s imprecise language fails to clearly distinguish cryptocurrency assets from traditional securities representing ownership in established enterprises. For conventional operating firms, the bill allows parallel derivatives that can transact outside securities registration and disclosure. This could pave the way for more fraud. Beyond the principles this bill fails to honor, proposed legislation dangerously expands and interlocks banking into cryptocurrency as well as traditional commerce. American law has long separated banking from commerce. Lenders should not seek the default of their borrowers in hopes of taking over the business. This bill would allow banks to use cryptocurrency to buy oil, real estate and other real property.(V Sec. 505 h(2)) It effectively overrides the Volcker Rule prohibition on bank proprietary trading. So far, cryptocurrency’s frequent price volatilities, bankruptcies and criminal fraud cases did not unsettle the broader financial markets. This bill would channel cryptocurrency tremors directly into the mainstream banking sector.

Interest/Rewards and Illicit Finance:  The GENIUS Act claimed to bar stablecoin issuers from paying interest. (The law also correctly states that stablecoins do not enjoy FDIC insurance.) But stablecoins are nevertheless paying de-facto interest via exchanges. The current draft appears to eliminate some rewards but falls short in curtailing circumvention for a sector with a record of rules-evasion. (IV Sec. 404) We attach commentary about how cryptocurrency and stablecoins enable illicit finance. Payment of interest/rewards through exchanges for stablecoin transactions further enables illicit arms, drugs, and human trafficking.  The bill also provides inadequate enforcement of anti-money laundering laws.

Presidential corruption: Trump’s cryptocurrency enterprises represent the greatest corruption in presidential history, as the attached letter signed by the nation’s leading ethics experts affirm. The current bill fails to terminate or even curtail this massive grift.

We respect that cryptocurrency requires strong consumer, investor and systemic prudential regulation. But this bill will only further expand the opportunities for abuse, fraud and systemic peril.

Again, we appreciate the hours of negotiations, and the attention of many senate offices to our concerns. We do object to a mark-up scheduled for a mere two days following release of a draft (Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2 AM); and we support the call by Sens. Jack Reed, Chris Van Hollen, and Tina Smith for a hearing on the bill ahead of any committee vote.

For questions, please contact Martha Perez Pedemonti (at mperezpedemonti@citizen.org) and/or Bartlett Naylor (at bnaylor@citizen.org).

Sincerely,

Public Citizen

—————————————————————————————————————————–

December 10, 2025

Honorable John Thune                          Honorable Mike Johnson

Majority Leader                                        Majority Leader

US Senate                                                   U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510                         Washington D.C. 20510

Honorable Chuck Schumer                Honorable Hakeem Jeffries
Minority Leader                                        Minority Leader
US Senate                                                   U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510                         Washington, DC 20510

RE: Preserve Critical State-Level Investor-Protection Resources in Digital Asset Market Structure Legislation

We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our concerns with recent federal legislative proposals to establish a new market structure for digital assets, including electronic trading and complex derivatives involving cryptocurrency, that would fail to preserve existing state laws and the means for consumers to enforce them. We urge Congress to ensure the continued viability of state laws and regulations in any federal market structure legislation by making it clear in the legislative text that the bill does not preempt state law and does not hamper the ability of states to adopt stronger protections for investors and consumers.

In our federalist system, states have long been charged with primary responsibility for protecting their citizens from wrongdoing such as fraud and misconduct. In recent years, state regulators, utilizing state law, have brought dozens of enforcement actions against bad actors in the digital asset industry, helping to ensure that harmed consumers are adequately remedied and protecting against future wrongdoing by putting bad actors on notice that illegal practices will be prosecuted.

Today, every state has securities laws that work in tandem with federal law to protect consumers from fraud and other unfair practices in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of securities. This dual system of federal and state regulation has protected investors for nearly a century. Investors and consumers of cryptocurrency warrant this same level of dual protection.

Past legislative proposals concerning digital asset regulation, such as the CLARITY Act and FIT 21, would create federal frameworks for the digital asset and digital commodity industries. Those proposals, however, did not contain provisions to ensure that state laws and regulations in this area are not deemed preempted by the federal legislation. The absence of explicit language in the legislative text does not eliminate concerns regarding federal preemption. To provide this assurance, future bills should include a provision specifying that state consumer protection laws are not preempted by the legislation. Such a provision will allow investors to receive the full protection of both state and federal law.

In a rapidly evolving industry, such as the digital asset industry, the best protection for investors and the marketplace is for state and federal laws to work simultaneously. We urge Congress to include a savings clause for critical state consumer protection laws in any future legislation seeking to create a federal framework for digital assets.

Sincerely,

Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.
American Association for Justice
Americans for Financial Reform
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR)
Center for Justice & Democracy
Demand Progress
Friends of the Earth US
JustLeadershipUSA
National Association of Consumer Advocates
National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients
Next 100 Coalition
Oregon Consumer Justice
Oregon Consumer League
Our Revolution
People’s Action Institute
Public Citizen
Public Good Law Center
Public Justice
Texas Watch
The Academy of Financial Education
The Value Alliance
UltraViolet Action
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council

cc: United States Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs;
United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

————————————————————————————————————————–

Letter from Ethics Leaders on Trump’s Cryptocurrency Corruption

Dear Member of Congress

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals committed to honest government, believe President Donald J. Trump’s sprawling personal cryptocurrency ventures may constitute flagrant violations of anti-conflict statutes. As such, we urge you to accord special scrutiny as you consider legislation involving cryptocurrency. Voting to approve these bills will serve to ratify what may be perhaps the most conspicuous corruption in presidential history.

Trump once dismissed bitcoin, the most popular cryptocurrency, as  “based on thin air.” It is a “scam.” It can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity.” Now, he’s the self-proclaimed cryptocurrency president.

This year, the Trump family announced an agreement with a fund backed by Abu Dhabi that “would be making a $2 billion business deal using the Trump firm’s digital coins,” according to the New York Times. The Constitution (Article 1, Section 9) forbids accepting money (specifically a “present” or “emolument”) or anything of value from any “king, prince, or foreign state.”

Before this, Trump promised a presidential dinner to the largest new buyers of his cryptocurrency “meme,” called  “Trump.”  He restated this “gala” opportunity May 5. Federal law strictly regulates payments to government officials, including gifts. Although the president may receive gifts, he may not “solicit” gifts. These prohibitions begin with the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause and are reiterated in the anti-bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, and federal regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 2635. Although section 2635.205 lists several exemptions from the prohibition, none exempts soliciting purchases for personal gain.

As to why the public might be interested in sending money, the website explains: “This Trump Meme celebrates a leader who doesn’t back down, no matter the odds.” Under the Trump meme website’s question, “What is a meme?” the website explains: “Merriam-Webster’s meme noun: 1: an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture.”

The website states that “Trump Memes . . . are not intended to be, or to be the subject of, an investment opportunity, investment contract, or security of any type.”  Trump’s Securities and Exchange Commission also stated that meme coins have “no use.” Other cryptocurrency observers deride memes generally as without value. Former aide Anthony Scaramucci said Trump’s effort demeans broader cryptocurrency efforts, calling it “Idi Amin level corruption.”  Another commenter said that the Trump meme “is effectively a ‘for sale’ sign on the White House.” Some, including an author in the Washington Post, characterized this token as a “sh—coin.”

In short, it appears Trump is not soliciting money in exchange for an investment or tangible product (such as a Bible, sports shoes, or a guitar), but soliciting money in exchange for nothing—that is, asking for a gift that will benefit him personally.

Already, Trump has profited millions from the meme and other ventures. His initial sale generated nearly $100 million. The salvo in April brought in roughly $100 million more. Some new buyers come through the Binance exchange, once legally barred for US investors, meaning that Trump may well be violating the emoluments clause with this venture as well.

The dangers inherent in the Trump meme portend ominously. Should the president be allowed to enrich himself in this way, other politician might follow this path, rendering the prohibition on solicitation in 18 U.S.C. § 201 and the prohibitions on receipt of gifts by officials other than the president meaningless.

Paradoxically, while this Trump meme is worthless (by his own estimation) Trump managed to create an earlier cryptocurrency that is worth less. In October, 2024, he became the “chief cryptocurrency advocate” for World Liberty Financial, a nascent cryptocurrency firm. The World Liberty Trump cryptocurrency is worse because it cannot be resold. This Trump cryptocurrency buys only “governance,” but only a minority share. Trump controls the majority of the governance tokens.

Now, the Senate considers bills to deal with the market structure for cryptocurrency trading.

At the very least, Congress must bar the president along with all elected officials and their families from owning, buying or otherwise trafficking in cryptocurrency. Americans must be assured that policy won’t be fashioned by those profiting from the shape of the legislation.

Further, Congress should approve an amendment that restates conflict laws that already apply to the president. Namely, he may not solicit gifts; he may not accept gifts from a foreign sovereign; he may not sell political favors.

Sincerely,

Accountable.US/Accountable.NOW
Virginia Canter
Center for Biological Diversity
Consumer Federation of America
Ambassador Norman Eisen (RET),  former White House Ethics Czar
End Citizens United
Free Speech for People
Prof. Richard W. Painter
Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
Public Citizen
State Democracy Defenders Action
Prof. James A. Thurber
20/20 Vision

————————————————————————————————————————–

Stop the Next Epstein; Stop Stablecoin “Rewards”

Congress’ new cryptocurrency law transfers wealth from community banks and may open the door to the next Jeffrey Epstein.

 By Bartlett Naylor

A loophole in a cryptocurrency law Congress approved last summer may help finance the next Jeffrey Epstein.  This overlooked snafu may permit Interest payments on stablecoins., potentially financing sex traffickers, cartels and sanctioned regimes.

Stablecoins are cryptocurrency where one dollar buys one token. The new law claims interest payments on stablecoins are banned, making the product less attractive than a traditional, FDIC-insured bank account. But major stablecoin issuers are sidestepping the ban by offering “rewards” to purchasers — some of which exceed bank deposit rates.

This is not conjecture and where there is smoke there is fire. The Monster Jeffrey Epstein flirted with cryptocurrency to finance his human trafficking operation, as revealed by the trove of 20,000 documents released by the House Oversight Committee. He also lived near Howard Lutnick, who led Cantor Fitzgerald, as it held the underlying assets for the Tether stablecoin cryptocurrency, which is the largest. Where is Lutnick now? He is now Trump’s Commerce Secretary.

Epstein ultimately remained with traditional finance, using JP Morgan Chase as they failed to ask any questions

The next Epstein may, and the current human traffickers do, favor stablecoins.

Human traffickers already prefer stablecoins because they offer fast, cross-border, semi-anonymous transfers — perfect for hiding illicit proceeds.

The trend is unmistakable:

• The State Department’s  2021 Trafficking in Persons reportnoted that human trafficking networks increasingly use cryptocurrency to launder the proceeds of their crimes.
• The Wall Street Journal reported that Russian oligarch networks, Iranian financial networks, the terrorist group Hamas, the Maduro regime in Venezuela, and international drug cartels evaded sanctions by using stablecoins to conduct cross-border transactions that would be much more difficult, if not impossible, through conventional banking channels.
• The New York Times reported that at least $28 billion linked to criminal activity has flowed through cryptocurrency exchanges in just the last two years.
• Georgetown researchers reported that in 2024, illicit transactions with one form of cryptocurrency, namely stablecoins, passed $51 billion, up from $46 billion in 2023.

In crime generally, cryptocurrency makes for fast, cross-border, largely anonymous transactions. “At least $28 billion tied to illicit activity has flowed into cryptocurrency exchanges over the last two years,” the New York Times reported Nov. 17.

Worse, the loophole risks fueling criminal networks, including human traffickers who already use cryptocurrency, while drawing money away from consumers and the community banks that support local economies. Some of that money going into stablecoins is money not going into community banks, which can be recycled into home and small business loans.  Treasury analysts warn that if stablecoins begin offering yields comparable to bank accounts, as much as $6.6 trillion—about 36% of all U.S. deposits—could move out of insured institutions and into payment stablecoins.

Honest consumers who simply want a good interest payment for their savings may unwittingly abet the crooks if they buy stablecoins. That’s because a money laundering operation requires legitimate money to hide. An honest dollar goes into the stablecoin fund and might come out to redeem a trafficker.

Congress will shortly consider another cryptocurrency bills. While Public Citizen opposes this bill on many grounds, it is critical that any final bill close this stablecoin “rewards” loophole. Community banking should thrive, not the next Epstein.

The post Senate: Oppose Trump Crypto Grift Enabling Bill appeared first on Public Citizen.

These two financial commodity trading powerhouses, which trade billions of financial contracts on global markets and control physical assets as well, have troubling track records of misconduct and wrongdoing, with each company paying more than $100 million in criminal and civil settlements and penalties.

Trafigura is a privately held global commodity trader with primary operations in Geneva, Switzerland. Trafigura owns and controls physical energy infrastructure, which it utilizes to maximize returns for its financial energy trading operations. In the United States, Trafigura has an “indirect interest” Wolverine Fuels which operates coal mines in Utah and Colorado, and Impala Terminals’ Burnside Terminal located on the Mississippi River in Darrow, Louisiana. The Burnside Terminal is a major coal exporting facility. In November 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorized Trafigura to acquire a fleet of fossil fuel power plants, including

• A 520 MW gas-fueled facility in Bridgeport, CT.
• 179 MW of gas-fired facilities in and around West Springfield, MA that are scheduled to retire by June 1, 2025.
• The Newington 606 MW gas facility in Portsmouth, NH.
• Essential Power OPP, a 383 MW gas power plant in Lakewood, NJ.
• Rock Springs, a 773 MW natural gas-fired facility in Rising Sun, MD.
• Hamilton Liberty, an 870 MW gas-fired power plant in Bradford County, PA.
• Hamilton Patriot, an 870 MW gas facility in Montgomery, PA.
• Lakewood, a 237 MW gas power plant in Lakewood, NJ.
• Rumford, a 275 MW natural gas generation facility in Rumford, ME.
• A 273 MW gas-fired power plant in Tiverton, RI.

In 2024, Trafigura pled guilty to criminal violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for its decade-long “scheme to pay bribes to Brazilian government officials to secure business with Brazil’s” Petrobras. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Trafigura paid a criminal fine of $80,488,040 and additional forfeiture of $46,510,257.

Separately, in June 2024, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ordered Trafigura to pay a $55 million civil penalty to settle charges that it unlawfully traded gasoline futures while in possession of material nonpublic information it knew had been misappropriated; for manipulating U.S. fuel oil benchmarks; and unlawfully exploiting forced non-disclosure agreements with current and former employees that dissuaded cooperation with federal investigators.

Vitol is a privately held financial commodity trading company with its primary incorporation in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and is one of the largest traders of electricity, natural gas, oil and gasoline in the United States. Vitol has investments in more than 850,000 barrels a day of refining capacity worldwide.

In addition: 

• Vitol was forced to pay $135 million under a 2020 Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice for its role in bribing Brazilian officials at the state-owned oil company Petrobras to secure lucrative contracts. 
• Vitol paid an additional $95.7 million penalty in 2020 to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission for corruption and market manipulation.
• In 2024, Vitol was forced to pay $50 million for manipulating gasoline prices in California.
• In 2024, Vitol paid $2.3 million to settle allegations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that it engaged in anticompetitive behavior in California’s power market.
• Vitol paid a $500,000 penalty in 2024 to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission for violating position limits.
• Vitol was one of the largest traders of refined petroleum from the Russian Federation in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine, contributing to its “reputational risk.”

Further reading: 

• Public Citizen Report: Congress Must Stop Trump’s Venezuelan Oil Takeover
• Statement: Big Oil’s White House Meeting 

The post Reporter’s Memo On the Misconduct and Wrongdoing of the Companies Trump Just Handed Licenses to Trade Venezuelan Oil appeared first on Public Citizen.

A community group, Protect Hood County, in Granbury, Texas, has been fighting for over a year against the proposed expansion of the existing Wolf Hollow 2 gas plant. Over the last three years, this community has been hit with gas power plants, bitcoin mining operations, and data centers, all of which have been fought tooth and nail by community members simply asking these companies to be good neighbors.

In December, against the popular will of the people of Hood County and Granbury, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) granted Constellation Energy the air permit needed to start construction and, eventually, begin operation. This will be the third gas plant in the Mitchell Bend area, an unincorporated community just south of Granbury, with two others proposed nearby.

The pushback against this expansion began almost immediately after it was announced. At a TCEQ public meeting in September 2023, regarding this permit, residents gave public comments opposing this plant. While there, they also requested a contested case hearing, which is essentially an administrative court proceeding in which an independent judge evaluates the merits of the proposed air permit.

Since that first hearing, residents of Granbury continued to fight. In a first for the Texas Energy Fund – created by the Texas Legislature and favoring methane gas-fired power generation – last February, the TCEQ granted these residents a contested case hearing, a months-long process during which residents can present their case against a proposed permit. After that, they got down to business. They began organizing themselves and their community to wage a campaign against the Constellation proposal.

Not only did they prepare for their administrative hearing by gathering hundreds of pages of documents, handling depositions, strategizing, and participating in the hearing, but they also worked to activate community members through town halls, media appearances, and door-knocking. They even employed a novel way to challenge the plant—incorporating their community. Mitchell Bend, their neighborhood, is in an unincorporated area outside of Granbury’s city limits. If they were successful in incorporating their neighborhood, along with the industrial area housing Wolf Hollow, they could impose noise limits and fines without needing Wolf Hollow to come to the table and negotiate.

This process didn’t go without hiccups, though. After submitting the legally required number of signatures to place incorporation on the November 2025 ballot, the county judge initially approved the list. However, three months later, and a week after the owners of the neighboring bitcoin mine sent a letter to the county judge, he turned around and rejected the petition for the ballot question, arguing that the county attorney had not reviewed the initial petition, prompting the residents to start over and resubmit even more names to the petition. This was subsequently approved.

During this fiasco with the county judge, mysterious mailers began appearing in the mailboxes of residents of Mitchell Bend, purportedly from the National Landowners Federation Action Fund, a 501(c)4. These mailers encouraged residents to vote no on incorporation.

Before the November election, the Granbury residents received the administrative law judge’s decision. She argued that the plant’s air permit should be granted and that “the draft permit complies with all applicable legal and technical requirements” under state and federal law. This decision ended the contested case hearing, and the final decision on whether the air permit will be granted was made by the TCEQ executive directors on Dec. 17.

With that battle all but decided, the last shot these folks had to at least slow down the plant, enact some public health restrictions, and put pressure on the bitcoin mine was with the election. Despite their door-knocking and community rousing, they fell short and lost the incorporation referendum by only 21 votes. It was always a long shot, especially against an organization that spent over $100,000 to make the proposition fail.

This plant will release an additional 250 tons of nitrogen oxides and 395 tons of carbon monoxide—both of which pose serious health effects for youth, the elderly, and people with preexisting health conditions. These emissions, into this community already dealing with existing industrial emissions, are the side of the “Texas Miracle” that state politicians don’t want the people to see.

Even though this gas plant is moving forward, the folks in Granbury aren’t done. They have teamed up with other community groups to mobilize their neighbors to slow down and stop all the buildout that’s happening. Even if Wolf Hollow III is built, the lessons they learned from their fight will be put to use in all the other battles that are happening across their community.

Cook is a Climate and Clean Energy Associate in Public Citizen’s Texas Office

The post Granbury Residents Push Back as Texas Approves Another Gas Plant appeared first on Public Citizen.

While some USPS employees are actual heroes, their everyday work is absolutely essential throughout the whole year. They deliver medicines to veterans, goods to people who can’t get out of the house, benefit checks, and other critical items.

The USPS also plays a key role in our democratic process, so much that the Postal Service was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution so that people can be educated about candidates and their positions. And vote-by-mail ensures people can have their vote counted even if they’re not able to make it to the polls. In fact, the USPS processed nearly 100 million ballots during the 2024 general election.

Another important aspect of the USPS is that it has a universal service obligation, ensuring that Americans are able to send and receive mail, no matter where they live. This model is under threat as the Trump administration is reportedly focused on privatizing the Postal Service’s functions. If private companies were to take on some or all of the work of the USPS, profitability would become a prevailing concern rather than the needs of our citizenry.

The Trump administration is also threatening to end vote-by-mail, which would jeopardize the ability for some voters to cast their ballots. Public Citizen is deeply involved with the USPS’s handling of election mail since we won an important victory in the 2020 election season and have since been working hand-in-hand with the USPS to ensure that ballots are treated with the care and attention they deserve.

While the USPS is already providing critical services to Americans, Public Citizen has long argued that the tens of thousands of brick and mortar postal locations across the country offer a unique opportunity for a win-win by increasing revenues for the USPS while delivering much-needed services, for example through expanded financial services. The unbanked and underbanked in our country currently turn to predatory services when traditional banking services are not available to them. The USPS Office of the Inspector General estimated that expanded postal financial services like check cashing, money transfers and low-fee or free ATMs could garner billions in additional annual revenue. Further, full postal banking like checking and savings accounts, along with electric car charging stations, broadband access, fresh food delivery, and more could all be possible with an expanded view of this vital public institution.

In November, during a USPS Board of Governors public comment opportunity, Public Citizen put our stamp on the proceedings by offering verbal comments and our members and supporters submitted more than 3,000 written comments that were read into the record urging Board members to resist efforts to privatize the Postal Service, protect vote-by-mail, and expand services such as providing additional postal financial services. In response, as the meeting closed, the Chair of the Board of Governors, Amber McReynolds said “I just wanted to kind of finally say, given how many comments there were, that there are no proposals or plans to privatize the Postal Service. The new Postmaster General has talked at length about that in his public comments and the Board certainly has shared that sentiment as well.”

Neither snow nor rain will keep Public Citizen from holding the Board of Governors and former corporate CEO and previous FedEx board member, Postmaster General David Steiner, to that promise. We will also vigorously defend vote-by-mail both at the federal and state levels. At the same time, we’ll work with the USPS and Congress to increase the offerings available at post offices to better serve the needs of the American public.

As our country celebrates our 250^th year in 2026, it is a top priority to protect the Postal Service that has been bringing Americans closer together since before our nation was founded, one letter at a time.

The post More Than Holiday Packages: Why We Need to Protect the USPS appeared first on Public Citizen.

The agency said that 193 violations from its air, water and waste programs qualify for an Expedited Compliance Order, but did not make the list of violations available. TCEQ staff told attendees that the agency would make the list of qualifying violations public ahead of the January 28 Commissioners Agenda meeting, when they plan to seek approval of the program. Here is how the agency would divide the as-of-yet unspecified list of 193 violations:  

• 102 are in the drinking water program
• 75 from the petroleum storage tank program
• 1 from the municipal solid waste program
• 11 from the water quality program
• 4 from the air quality program

In preparation for the proposed change, the TCEQ held informal briefings in Houston, Austin and Fort Worth. Fewer than 10 people attended the 30-minute meeting in Fort Worth. When asked whether the agency felt it had engaged enough to inform both communities and regulated entities of the change, staff answered that it believed it had. Unlike formal rulemakings, the agency won’t accept formal comments from the public before implementing the program. The agency cited its legal authority to change the enforcement program, subject to the approval of its commissioners. 

Expedited Enforcement Process

The TCEQ’s current enforcement process takes an average of 351 days, according to the agency’s latest report to the Texas Legislature. The TCEQ recently ended a historical enforcement policy of sitting on cases for several years and grouping them into a single enforcement action, creating an extensive backlog of complex cases for agency staff to work through. According to the TCEQ, it has a current backlog of 1,400 enforcement cases. 

Staff says the new expedited program would take 90 days. The agency would take 30 days to draft an agreed order once it finds a violation, and the regulated entity would have 60 days to remedy it. The TCEQ would post the proposed Agreed Order in the Texas Register for a 30-day comment period, as it does for regular enforcement cases, but would not appear on the Commissioners’ Agenda for approval and public comment. Instead, these cases would be sent to the Executive Director for approval, unless the agency received comments from the Texas Register 30-day comment period. The agency will also not provide a penalty calculation worksheet, a reduction in transparency about how it arrived at the fee amounts assessed.

If the regulated entity does not correct the violation within the 60 days, the case would be routed through the normal enforcement process, without the 50% penalty reduction. There are no caps on the number of violations that can be included in a single expedited order, so long as each violation is among the 193 qualifying violations. There are also no upper limits to the penalty value that the TCEQ could assess against a polluter, which could ultimately be reduced by 50%.

Participants in the program will still be eligible for the Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) program. The facility cannot qualify for expedited enforcement if it currently has active or pending matters with the Office of the Attorney General, a pending or active default or shutdown order, or a revocation pending at any facility, or outstanding or delinquent fines. It cannot have been offered expedited enforcement for the same violation or be a repeat violator or unsatisfactory performer.

Ultimately, we welcome the agency’s efforts to implement a program that will achieve compliance with environmental laws sooner and reduce the significant backlog of enforcement cases caused by the agency’s outdated enforcement policies. We oppose reducing transparency or public participation in the enforcement process and strongly encourage the agency to maintain and enhance opportunities for public participation across all of its enforcement processes.

The post Faster Fixes, Fewer Questions are Part of TCEQ’s Proposed Expedited Enforcement Program appeared first on Public Citizen.