Dallas EPA workers rally against Trump's reduction in workforce
A group of EPA employees rallied in Dallas against the job cuts for federal agencies and the EPA workforce.
Union President, Justin Chen, raised concerns about the elimination of several positions.
Chen says the reductions may hurt the response to disasters.
DALLAS - A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees based in Dallas rallied outside their offices on Tuesday to protest the Trump administration's decision to downsize the EPA.
What we know
EPA workers rallied outside their offices downtown, located in the Renaissance Tower, to fight for the 600-person North Texas workforce made up of biologists, engineers, chemists, lab technicians, scientists, and more who work to ensure that Americans across the country have access to clean air and drinking water.
Dozens of probationary employees have already been fired or placed on administrative leave, according to union leaders.
The eight-city march and rally come as the Trump administration has made moves to dismantle the federal agency and lay off EPA workers nationwide.
What they're saying
"Per the executive order, our agency was required to give a reduction in forces plans. We haven't seen them yet, but our expectation is those kinds of actions are coming soon," said Justin Chen, the president of the local American Federation of Government Employees.
Chen said local environmental justice positions have been eliminated.
"That kind of money is no longer flowing into communities in North Texas and that's a concern." he claims.
Chen states that employees who work in low-income communities like Joppa in South Dallas facilitate federal grants that help to monitor air and water quality.
He references natural disasters such as the Los Angeles wildfires and Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, to support how the EPA also plays a crucial role in responding to climate disasters.
"To help the public make sure they're able to basically able to return back to their homes and start rebuilding again," said Chen.
Why you should care
The union president says people should also be concerned about a reduction in staff in research and development, since those workers monitor the amount of chemicals and contaminants that end up in our bodies.
"We need to have office of research and development in order to determine what is actually safe in exposure to all of us," said Chen.
He says the layoffs also mean that federal inspectors will not be readily available to make sure companies are accountable for the pollution they generate.
The Source
Information of this article comes from the EPA Workers National Day of Action in Dallas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Military News
24 minutes ago
- American Military News
Top Biden official exposed for spending $80 billion on DEI, delaying air traffic control upgrades: Report
A new report claims that former Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg spent $80 billion on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) grants and failed to implement upgrades to the country's air traffic control systems under former President Joe Biden's administration. According to The New York Post, airline industry sources and federal spending records indicate that Buttigieg prioritized the Biden administration's DEI policies while failing to replace the Department of Transportation's outdated air traffic control systems. Sources told the outlet that Buttigieg told airline industry executives during a meeting that upgrading air traffic control systems would allow airlines to fly additional airplanes, 'and so why would that be in his interest?' The New York Post reported that federal spending records show the Department of Transportation spent over $80 billion under the Biden administration on approximately 400 DEI grants. 'He was definitely pushing an agenda,' an industry official told The New York Post. The source claimed that Buttigieg had 'little to no interest' and took 'definitely zero action' toward the modernization of the country's air traffic control systems. Instead, sources told the outlet that Buttigieg repeatedly blamed airlines for traffic delays and denied that the Department of Transportation's DEI policies led to staffing shortages. READ MORE: Video: Pentagon failure exposed by FAA after deadly DC plane crash One source told The New York Post, 'At first, [the Department of Transportation] and he were reluctant to say there was an air traffic controller shortage or that the shortage had anything to do with flight delays or flight cancellations.' In response to The New York Post's report regarding Buttigieg's leadership of the Department of Transportation, Chris Meagher, a Buttigieg spokesperson, said, 'Suggesting that Secretary Buttigieg chose not to pursue air traffic control modernization is absurd.' 'Secretary Buttigieg's focus was always on safety — not just in aviation, but also on roads and bridges, where 40,000 Americans die on our country's roads each year,' Meagher added. 'Fixing issues with air traffic control was a priority.' The Buttigieg spokesperson claimed that the Department of Transportation's DEI grants that were approved under the Biden administration were a 'separate siloed transportation mode' and did not result in delays to the 'work' of the Federal Aviation Administration. 'You can walk and chew gum at the same time,' Meagher said. 'FAA operates completely separately than other modal administrations. So what happens at FHWA doesn't have a meaningful effect on FAA or NHTSA because they operate independently. It's separate staff, separate budgets, separate programs.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
GM's $1.1 billion tariff hit bolsters mounting evidence that Americans are the ones footing the bill for Trump's import taxes
had a more than $1 billion chunk taken out of its profits due to tariff costs, the company reported on Tuesday. GM, as well as other automakers like Stellantis, have contributed to evidence indicating American companies and consumers—not exporters—are the ones paying for tariffs. General Motors is the latest U.S. auto giant to say tariffs have taken a chunk from their earnings. The company beat earnings expectations on Tuesday, but reported a decline in second-quarter profits, including a $1.1 billion hit as a result of hefty import taxes. GM reported a 2% dip in sales to $47 billion, as well as $1.9 billion in quarterly profits, compared to $2.9 billion in the same period last year. Anticipating the impact of President Donald Trump's auto tariff policy—which outlined a 25% levy for many imported vehicles—GM withdrew its annual guidance last quarter, predicting an up to $5 billion pummelling from the levies. The company announced last month plans to invest $4 billion in domestic manufacturing plants in order to offset the cost of imports, as well as increase production capacity. Still, GM's reliance on compact cars made in South Korea has made it vulnerable to the levies. 'In addition to our strong underlying operating performance, we are positioning the business for a profitable, long-term future as we adapt to new trade and tax policies, and a rapidly evolving tech landscape,' CEO Mary Barra wrote in a letter to shareholders on Tuesday. GM's rival Stellantis, which owns Jeep and Ram Trucks among other brands, announced on Monday $2.7 billion in net losses for the first half of the year as North American sales continued to slump. Those struggles were exacerbated by the 'early effects of U.S. tariffs,' according to Stellantis, which had a more than $350 million negative impact on the company. America is eating tariff costs The auto companies' tariff hit reinforced concerns—and emerging evidence—that Americans are the ones footing the bill for Trump's sweeping tariff policy. Despite the U.S. Treasury collecting a record-setting $100 billion in customs duties so far this year, there has not been a meaningful reduction in the price of imported goods indicating exporters absorbing increased costs on their ends, according to a Deutsche Bank analyst note published on Monday. Instead, import prices have remained steady through June. 'The top-down macroevidence seems clear: Americans are mostly paying for the tariffs,' Deutsche Bank analyst George Saravelos said in the note. Saravelos posited that because the Consumer Price Index has so far indicated only modest levels of inflation, 'it follows that American importers are mostly absorbing the tariffs into their profit margins.' The phenomenon is exemplified by Stellantis and GM eating billions in tariff costs. Auto tariffs are no exception Bernstein senior analyst Daniel Roeska said auto companies have started to exhaust their strategy of absorbing tariff costs into their own margins as car prices are poised to skyrocket later this year. 'There are only two people who can pay for [tariffs]: either the shareholders or the consumer,' Roeska told Fortune. 'And in the end, there's going to be some sharing between those two halves. And so our view has been and continues to be that prices for cars are going to push up in the second half.' There's already indications American consumers will be the next to take the tariff punch. Car companies are beginning to roll back discounts and incentives implemented months earlier to boost sales, as evidenced by Ford Motors switching away from its employee discount plan for prospective buyers in favor of a $0 down and 0% interest or financing plan. While GM's plan to move some manufacturing to the U.S. will help the company save on tariff and transport costs, it will also incur steeper labor costs. The strategic move is a good one, according to Roeska, but it illustrates that companies will largely encounter trade offs when it comes to managing the inevitable impacts of tariffs. 'There's not much you can do,' Roeska said. 'If the policy is to put tariffs on cars, then that will increase the cost of cars, and ultimately, that will likely increase the price of cars.' This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump floats eliminating federal capital gains tax on home sales
President Trump on Tuesday floated the possibility of eliminating the federal capital gains tax on home sales, in a move that would change the way real estate profits are taxed for the first time in 30 years. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Mr. Trump suggested he is weighing supporting legislation introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia that would nix the existing capital gains tax on home sales. Greene called the tax "an outdated, unfair burden—especially in today's housing market, where values have skyrocketed." "We're thinking about that," Mr. Trump responded to a reporter, when asked how important it is that the capital gains tax be eliminated in order to "unleash" the housing market. "It would also unleash it just by lowering the interest rates," the president said, adding, "If the fed would lower the rates we wouldn't even have to do that. But we are thinking about no tax on capital gains on houses." Currently, single-tax filers can exclude up to $250,000 in capital gains from sales of their primary homes from their taxable incomes under what's called the Section 121 exclusion. That amount rises to $500,000 for joint filers. Both amounts have remained fixed since 1997. Reached for comment by CBS MoneyWatch, the White House said it had nothing additional to add to Mr. Trump's comments. "Homeowners who have lived in their homes for decades, especially seniors in places where values have surged, shouldn't be forced to stay put because of an IRS penalty," Greene said in a statement announcing the proposed No Tax on Home Sales Act. "My bill unlocks that equity, helps fix the housing shortage, and supports long-term financial security for American families." According to Research from the National Association of Realtors (NAR), the current federal policy on the capital gains tax on home sales is "quietly distorting the housing market" by "locking in older homeowners, and strangling inventory just when America needs it most." "Stay-put penalty" A NAR study found that 34% of homeowners, or 29 million Americans, would exceed the $250,000 threshold were they to sell their homes, while 10%, or eight million Americans, would surpass the $500,000 threshold for joint filers. As a result, older homeowners are disincentivized to sell their homes, in what NAR researchers refer to as a "stay-put penalty." For example, seniors who might otherwise consider moving closer to family, or downsizing, are staying in place — and keeping housing inventory tied up. "This stagnation in housing turnover is rippling through the entire market, driving up costs and limiting opportunity — exactly the opposite of what public policy should be encouraging," Shannon McGahn, NAR executive vice president and chief advocacy officer, said in a statement. "And it grows worse each month." Critics say eliminating the tax would only benefit wealthy Americans who can afford to pay tax on gains from home sales that exceed the limit. Joel Berner, senior economist at told CBS MoneyWatch that a lot of home sellers already benefit from the $250,000 exclusion limit, and that eliminating the capital gains tax altogether would primarily benefit wealthier Americans who own residences that have appreciated by more than $250,000, or $500,000 in the case of joint filers. "It wouldn't really move the needle for a regular family, unless you have a home that's appreciated a lot," Berner told CBS MoneyWatch. "If your home has appreciated by more than $1 million, there would be a benefit to removing the capital gains tax." Inventory release He also suspects abolishing the capital gains tax on home sales would release inventory onto the housing market. "It could be a good thing for the market. In particular where inventory is constrained, it could benefit regular folks," Berner said. By contrast, eliminating the federal tax would also erase revenue paid to the government, and could spark increased interest from investors and speculators, which could also drive up home values. That would contribute to the nation's housing affordability problem, according to Berner. Nearly 27% of all homes sold in the first three months of the year were bought by investors — the highest share in at least five years, according to a report by real estate data provider BatchData. Ozzy Osbourne, heavy metal pioneer, dies at age 76 Deputy attorney general seeks interview with Ghislaine Maxwell New podcast digs into journalist Austin Tice, who went missing in Syria Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
