
Sierra Club: The Trump Admin's Toxic MAHA Contradiction
It also exposes the toxic hypocrisy of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda—a cornerstone of President Donald Trump's reelection platform championed by Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. While this administration claims to prioritize the health of everyday Americans, its environmental and industrial policies reveal a stark contradiction that would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
Pollution from a power plant is pictured.
Pollution from a power plant is pictured.
Getty Images
Residents living near the aging and polluting U.S. steel plants in Indiana and Pennsylvania have been raising alarms for decades about the environmental and health harms, and medical associations and industry experts have echoed their calls. The American Lung Association's recent State of the Air report found that 156 million Americans breathe unhealthy air, with coal-fired steel plants as a major culprit. A recent Industrious Labs report on 17 coal-based steel plants found that they are linked to cancer rates up to 26 percent higher than the national average. In some areas, residents in communities neighboring toxic steel plants rely on flimsy barriers like tarps to shield themselves from harmful toxins. I've seen it firsthand in my work with communities and people on the frontlines of industrial decarbonization at the Sierra Club. People routinely wake up in the morning to a haze over the sky resembling snow. Mothers fretting over their children's respiratory illness, wondering why their elected leaders aren't fighting for stronger protections and cleaner manufacturing now.
Callously, rather than addressing the rampant pollution caused by coal-fired steel manufacturing, the administration is doing the opposite—shielding polluters by carving out exemptions and distracting the public with pseudoscience. One of the most bizarre examples is MAHA's misguided "wellness" agenda—including a proposal from RFK Jr. to create government-run "wellness farms" as a cure for chronic illness through a simple fresh air detox. The idea went viral this spring and drew widespread criticism across the political spectrum for its impracticality and for overlooking the root causes of the health problems it claimed to solve. But RFK's musings about "curing" chronic illness with a summer in the countryside aren't just silly pseudoscience—they're a smokescreen. They're a deliberate distraction from the policies that could actually make people healthier, like reducing pollution in the air we breathe.
The EPA's decision to weaken air quality standards for coal-fired steel plants directly threatens communities already disproportionately burdened by air pollution. These plants emit toxic pollutants linked to asthma, heart disease, and other chronic illnesses—a connection backed by proven medical research and reflected in decades of devastating health outcomes for communities.
Rolling back these regulations prioritizes industry inertia over human lives and lays bare the emptiness of MAHA's "health and wellness" rhetoric. As a result, millions more children and vulnerable people will be forced to choke on toxic fumes while manufacturing executives pour more money into dying steel plants.
To really make America healthy, the administration should strengthen, not weaken, air quality protections—and that starts with supporting clean manufacturing. Rather than dismantling EPA regulations, the MAHA agenda and those behind it should focus on protecting, enforcing, and expanding existing air quality standards across the board, especially in high-pollution industries like steel manufacturing. That means urging companies to transition from coal-fired steel plants to clean, modern production technologies that reduce emissions and could improve health outcomes for millions. It should also include urging Congress to pass federal investments in clean steel manufacturing that would help incentivize the industry to modernize and create thousands of new blue-collar jobs.
It's the kind of real solution that the Sierra Club and our local partners have been calling for, and that puts community well-being over short-sighted corporate interests.
Rather than protecting the working-class communities they claim to champion, this administration is trading science for stunts. They are rolling back the very protections that keep people safe and hoping no one notices. The resulting media circus of their incompetence distracts us from their behind-the-scenes actions that are fueling a growing health crisis impacting the very working-class communities that helped deliver Trump his second term.
As long as this administration enacts policies that make it easier for companies to poison the air we breathe, the MAHA agenda's rhetoric of health and wellness is hollow at best and dangerously deceptive at worst. Americans and their families deserve far better, and it's time to hold this administration accountable and demand policies that truly prioritize public health for this generation and the next.
CeCe Grant is a national campaign director at the Sierra Club.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Senate has passed a significant expansion to the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), more than tripling the cap from $10,000 to $40,000 starting in 2025. Senators voted 50-50 on President Donald Trump's broad tax and spending bill on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The increased SALT deduction cap would phase out for those earning above $500,000 and increase 1 percent annually until 2029, then revert to the current $10,000 limit in 2030. Why It Matters The move marks a dramatic reversal in policy on SALT deductions, one of the most contentious features of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and has implications for millions of taxpayers, especially those living in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California where property and income taxes often far exceed the old $10,000 cap. Analysts have said the provision will most likely benefit wealthier Americans who have high property taxes, as taxes paid on income and property ownership are typically the largest for those who itemize their taxes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald... Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald Trump's signature bill of big tax breaks and spending cuts, at the Capitol in Washington on July 1, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP What To Know Prior to 2017, taxpayers who itemized deductions could fully subtract the amount paid in state and local income, property and sales taxes from their federal taxable income. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a $10,000 cap on these deductions, a limit that mostly affected residents of states with higher tax rates. Along with raising the cap to $40,000 until 2029, the Senate bill also increases a tax break for pass-through businesses to 23 percent while clamping down on a frequently used tax loophole for certain pass-through businesses. The House bill had proposed the same higher limit and $500,000 income phaseout but for a longer period of time, rising 1 percent each year from 2026 to 2033. The House also blocked certain white-collar professionals from being able to use a popular SALT deduction workaround. While the Senate version appears to be cheaper for the federal government, given its shorter time frame, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said that "it's actually far more generous." The CRFB said the Senate's direct SALT relief is "roughly 10 percent larger than the House," adding that it estimated the Senate changes would cost $325 billion while the House bill would cost roughly $200 billion. Affluent homeowners and high-income individuals stand to benefit the most from the expanded cap, according to the Tax Foundation's May analysis. The Tax Foundation also warned that the Senate's provisions would cost about $320 billion more than an extension of the existing cap, and cost $150 billion more than a $30,000 cap. "The bill is already suffering from a math problem," Tax Foundation analysts wrote. "This is a recipe for worsening deficits at a time when Congress needs to be more concerned about the country's fiscal outlook." What People Are Saying Owen Zidar, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, told Newsweek: "The broader bill and the SALT cap increase are a boon for high-income taxpayers, especially high-income private business owners who got a special loophole that lets them avoid the SALT caps. Millions are estimated to lose health insurance coverage. The bill is very irresponsible fiscally. It's mortgaging our future for our children. "The increase in the deficits will put pressure on interest rates and crowd out productive investment, hurting economic growth." What Happens Next After being passed by the Senate, the GOP tax bill will now head to the Joint Conference Committee for reconciliation of differences between the Senate and House.


CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
Fact check: Trump lies again about gas prices, falsely claiming five states are at $1.99
The president's imaginary list keeps getting longer. In April, President Donald Trump claimed gas prices in 'a couple' unspecified states had just fallen to $1.98 per gallon. That wasn't even close to true. But the next day he said it was 'three states' that had just hit $1.98 per gallon, which also wasn't remotely accurate. Trump used the 'three' figure on multiple occasions in subsequent weeks, again with no factual basis. Then, during an immigration-focused visit to Florida on Tuesday, Trump made it five states with supposed sub-$2 gas. 'Gasoline just hit $1.99 today in five states – $1.99, isn't that a nice sound?' he said, adding moments later, 'We just hit, in five states, $1.99, $1.98.' Once more, this was a lie. The lowest state average price on Tuesday for a gallon of regular gas was about $2.71 in Mississippi, according to data published by AAA. The state with the fifth-cheapest Tuesday average, Louisiana, was at about $2.79 per gallon, per the AAA data. And the national average was about $3.18 per gallon, AAA reported. GasBuddy, a firm that tracks prices at tens of thousands of stations around the country, did not find a single station selling regular gas for below $2.26 per gallon on Tuesday. (There are sometimes individual drivers who get special discounts.) And GasBuddy's head of petroleum analysis, Patrick De Haan, told CNN that the last time his data showed any state average below $2 per gallon was more than four years ago, in January 2021, when demand was unusually weak because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The White House did not respond to CNN's Tuesday request to explain Trump's claim. The president has a long history of using inaccurate statistics even when he could make a similar point using accurate statistics. His false Tuesday boast was especially needless given that he could have correctly said that – as CNN reported in an article earlier in the day – gas prices for this Fourth of July weekend are expected to be the lowest for the holiday since at least 2021, according to GasBuddy.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Medicaid cuts for immigrants in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
(NewsNation) — The White House has posted a 'mythbuster' fact sheet defending its proposed Medicaid changes in President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — but is it accurate? The nearly 1,000-page megabill outlines the removal of 'at least 1.4 million' immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully from Medicaid, the administration said. According to the White House, doing so would strengthen Medicaid for 'the American citizens for whom the program was designed — pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families.' That's not entirely true. No, immigrants who have entered and remained in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for Medicaid. Although they might benefit from some of its services — including emergency care — they aren't eligible for federally funded Medicaid coverage. The Congressional Budget Office and research organizations such as the Kaiser Family Foundation and Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy corroborate these restrictions. Trump-Musk feud reignites over the 'big, beautiful bill' The White House's 1.4 million estimate appears to refer to those with questionable immigration status who will lose coverage due to reductions in state health care programs currently providing them with assistance. These programs are funded by the states, not through federal Medicaid dollars. Some emergency services provided by hospitals are available to people lacking a Medicaid-eligible immigration status. Services include 'those requiring immediate attention to prevent death, serious harm or disability, although states have some discretion to determine reimbursable services,' according to the KFF. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House The foundation estimated emergency care for undocumented patients accounted for less than 1% of Medicaid spending from 2017 to 2023. Trump and most congressional Republicans claim the reductions aren't true cuts, arguing that no one who should be on Medicaid will lose benefits. 'We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it,' Trump said at the White House last week. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House But experts and health advocates say a recent CBO analysis confirms that despite Trump's repeated pledges to only cut waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. 'This bill isn't being crafted to improve health care in America, or to improve the Medicaid program, or to improve the [ACA]. The purpose of these cuts in the bill is to try to find savings to pay for tax cuts,' said Andrea Ducas, vice president of health policy at the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress. NewsNation partner The Hill contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.