Turning Regulators into the Anti-DEI Police

Trump has made social justice a crime 

By Philip Mattera, director of the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First for the Dirt Diggers Digest 

During the first year of Trump 2.0, most federal regulatory agencies have experienced savage budget cuts, deep staffing reductions, and abandonment of their core mission. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, teetering on the edge of extinction, was subjected to the indignity of having its investigators ordered to abide by a “humility pledge” requiring them to take a less aggressive stance toward corporate miscreants.

One of the few exceptions to this disempowerment has been seen at the portion of the Justice Department charged with enforcing the False Claims Act, the federal law most commonly used in prosecuting fraud by government contractors. While the volume of enforcement activity at most federal agencies has plummeted,  there has been a steady stream of announcements of resolved FCA cases. As shown in Violation Tracker, the DOJ has imposed $1.8 billion in penalties since Inauguration Day in about 200 actions, many involving fraud by healthcare providers.

Now, however, it appears that DOJ is moving in a different direction. There have been recent press reports saying that Justice is beginning to apply the FCA in an unusual and troubling manner.

Investigations are said to be underway in which major contractors which adopted diversity initiatives in their hiring and promotion are considered to have cheated the federal government. This is based on Trump’s dubious claim that DEI is illegal and his obsession with stamping out all remnants of it in both the public and the private sectors.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Google and Verizon are among the companies that have received DOJ demands for documents and information about their workplace programs. Other targeted companies were said to be industries ranging from automotive and pharmaceuticals to defense and utilities.

Rhode Island's climate efforts rocked by Trump attacks

‘We Will Not Have Climate Progress Without a Functional Democracy’

By Christian Roselund / Climate Action RI

The Dec. 22 orders from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to halt all activities on offshore wind projects on the East Coast for 90 days sent shock waves of fear through the wind industry, climate advocates, and workers.

The threat posed by these orders spoke to our fears in the climate movement: that federal orders could be unstoppable; that all of our work could be for nothing; that we would lose our chance to decarbonize the East Coast for a decade or more; and that the climate crisis will spin out of control.

There’s a real basis for these concerns. While our region’s growing solar fleet is substantially eating into gas use in power plants in the spring and summer, output is less in the fall and winter. Without offshore wind, there is simply no credible near-term plan to replace or even significantly reduce our outsized dependence on gas and petroleum in the winter, and to get off the roller coaster of high power prices caused by this dependence.

The impact on workers is much more immediate: thousands in the construction industry got put out of work three days before Christmas, and face an uncertain future.

Once the immediate fear subsides, there are the facts. All of these offshore wind projects were fully vetted by the U.S. military during multi-year federal review processes that were necessary for them to proceed to construction.

And there is no legal basis for the Trump administration to revoke leases on a whim. This was demonstrated by how quickly the courts shot down this summer’s stop work order on Revolution Wind. The judge went so far as to characterize the administration’s actions as “the height of arbitrary and capricious.”

Show us your papers

Trump posts more crazy images

This is a doctored photo of a meeting Trump held with European leaders. The map has been colored in to show Canada, Greenland and Venezuela as US possessions.

Then there's this:

Protest Citizens Bank's funding of ICE contractors

Do not obey unlawful orders, no matter what Trump says

‘The Cigarette Surfboard’ documentary draws attention to dangers of beach litter

The film will make its Rhode Island premiere at URI on Jan. 28

Neil Nachbar 

One of the cigarette surfboards that was designed and
 made by Taylor Lane. (Photos courtesy of Ben Judkins)

During the International Coastal Cleanup in Rhode Island from September to November 2025, cigarette butts made up 17.8% of all trash collected. 

In all, 20,908 cigarette butts were picked up from Rhode Island’s beaches—making up the largest single category of trash items collected. 

The documentary “The Cigarette Surfboard,” which will make its Rhode Island premiere at URI’s Graduate School of Oceanography on Wednesday, Jan. 28 at 6:30 p.m. in Corless Auditorium on the Narragansett Bay Campus, draws attention to this environmental hazard.

The film screening is free and open to the public, but reservations are required.

Day of Action protest in Providence draws hundreds

Hardy Rhode Island protesters stand against ICE

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current

“Donald Trump, let’s be clear, immigrants are welcome here.”

That was the chant of the hundreds who gathered at the 195 District Park near downtown Providence Tuesday as part of a nationwide protest on the one-year anniversary of President Donald Trump’s second term.

Organizers estimated upward of 400 demonstrators came out for Providence’s portion of the “Day of Action” against Trump’s policies, even amid frigid temperatures that saw a high of 18 degrees. Wind conditions made it feel like 10 degrees.

Who pays the most to block Rhode Island environmental legislation?

New report identifies the main obstructionists

By Frank Carini / ecoRI News columnist

The first sentence of the 34-page report grabbed my attention. “After stunning successes in 2021 and 2022, climate action has slowed in Rhode Island.” I recognized the part after the comma, but, being the cynical pessimist that I am, I searched for some clarification about the rest.

The Brown University authors of “Who’s Obstructing Climate Action in the Rhode Island Legislature?” point largely to the 2021 Act on Climate, calling it a “groundbreaking initiative.” The law mandates the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions produced in Rhode Island to net zero by 2050.

“One of the most notable reasons for its success was the collaboration between environmentalists and the labor movement,” according to the report released last week. “This was a sharp departure from the divide between environmental groups and labor unions over the proposed Burrillville gas plant. As past research shows, labor-environment coalitions signal to legislators that key compromises have been worked out and that a bill will be broadly popular.”

The act’s language was drafted by lead sponsors Sen. Dawn Euer, D-Newport, and Rep. Lauren Carson, D-Newport, in consultation with staff at the Conservation Law Foundation. The AFL-CIO and Climate Action Rhode Island were also involved.

The 5-year-old law is certainly a major upgrade over the toothless Resilient Rhode Island Act of 2014 that was so fraudulently touted by lawmakers. But don’t sleep on Rhode Island’s uncanny ability to ignore environmental law. It’s the state’s superpower.

The team of faculty and students at the Climate and Development Lab at Brown University researched the lobbying and testimony on priority bills from the Environment Council of Rhode Island and Climate Action Rhode Island over the past several legislative sessions.

The main goal of their work was to answer a few key questions: Why do so many climate and renewable energy bills die in the General Assembly? What are the barriers to climate legislation in Rhode Island? Who is obstructing state climate legislation, and what strategies are they using?

Renee Good's murder shows no one is safe from Trump terrorism

You could be next

Robert Reich

If agents of the federal government can murder a 37-year-old woman in broad daylight who, as videotapes show, was merely trying to get out of their way, they can murder you.

Even if Trump and his vice president and his secretary of homeland security all claim, contrary to the videotapes, that Renee Nicole Good was trying to kill an agent who acted in self-defense, they could make up the same about you.

Even if Trump describes her as a “professional agitator” and his goons call her a “domestic terrorist,” they could say the same about you regardless of your political views or activism. If you have left-wing political views and are an activist, you’re in greater danger.

How can we believe what the FBI turns up in its investigation, when the FBI is working for Trump and is headed by one of his goons, and is investigating possible connections between Renee Good and groups that have been protesting Trump’s immigration enforcement?

What credence can we give federal officials who are blocking local and state investigators from reviewing evidence they’re collecting?

You could be murdered because Trump’s attorney general has defined “domestic terrorism” to include impeding law enforcement officers. What if you’re merely standing in the way — in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or maybe you’re engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience?

In October, Marimar Martinez, a U.S. citizen in Chicago, was in her car trying to warn people about ICE when she collided with a Border Patrol vehicle. Federal officials say she “rammed” the car. Her lawyers say she was sideswiped by it.

The agent then got out of his car and shot her five times. She survived. The Justice Department then charged her with assaulting a federal officer.

You could be next. All of us need to realize this. The people who are being assaulted and murdered are abiding the law.

The regime has also been grabbing people from their homes who are legally in the United States with permanent status — not just visas permitting them to work or study here but green cards — and whisking them away to prison because they’ve engaged in constitutionally protected speech the regime doesn’t like.

This is what happened to Mahmoud Khalil — who graduated from Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, who has a green card, and whose wife is an American citizen.

Plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents appeared at his apartment building on March 8 and then detained him without charges in a Louisiana ICE detention facility for three and a half months. (He missed his graduation and the birth of his first child.)

The Trump regime continues to try to deport him. A federal court heard arguments on October 22 in the regime’s ongoing deportation case against him but has not issued a verdict.

Khalil did nothing illegal. He was in the United States legally. He has never been charged with a crime. He expressed his political point of view — peacefully, nonviolently, non-threateningly. That’s supposed to be permitted — dare I say even encouraged? — in a democracy.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump conceded Khalil was snatched up and sent off because of his politics. “This is the first arrest of many to come,” wrote Trump. “We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it.”

Trump could just as well arrest and expel permanent residents who voice support for, say, transgender people or DEI or “woke” or anything else the regime finds “anti-American” and offensive.

What’s to stop the Trump regime from arresting you for, say, advocating the replacement of Republicans in Congress in 2026 and electing a Democrat to the presidency in 2028?

Renee Nicole Good was murdered. Marimar Martinez was shot but survived. Mahmoud Khalil was arrested and jailed and is still fighting deportation. There are many others. The next could be you or someone you love.

What’s at stake isn’t just American democracy. It’s also your safety and security and that of your friends and loved ones. This is personal — to every one of us.

A dictatorship knows no bounds.

We must commit to peacefully fighting this regime, to ending Republican control of Congress in 2026, and to sending this dangerous gang packing in 2028 — assuming we’re still free and alive by then.

One less thing to worry about

You are not alone

 

In his own words, Trump explains why American consumers will pay 10% to buy goods from countries that oppose his aggression against Greenland

"Thank you for your attention to this matter." Yes, please do pay attention.

As the Trump Administration Withdraws from Climate Treaties, Legal Scholars Debate Whether—and How—It Can Do So

Can Trump walk away from treaties ratified by Congress?

By Georgina Gustin

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

After the Trump administration announced on January 7 that it would withdraw from the foundational agreement underpinning the international effort to slow the climate crisis, global leaders and climate advocates expressed extreme frustration and anger. Few were shocked.

“We’re appalled,” said Michael Gerrard, an environmental lawyer who founded the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “But not surprised.”

Whether—and how—the U.S. can actually exit the agreement, though, is still up for debate.

“It’s an open legal question whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty that has been ratified by the Senate. That issue has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Gerrard said. “Another open legal question is whether the next president could rejoin without new ratification. Both of those are unsettled.”

Taking acetaminophen during pregnancy does not increase risk of autism, ADHD or intellectual disabilities

Trump and Bobby Jr. are WRONG AGAIN

By City St George's, University of London

Edited by Sadie Harley, reviewed by Robert Egan

Taking acetaminophen during pregnancy does not increase the risk of autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or intellectual disability among children. That is according to the most rigorous analysis of the evidence to date, published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health, and led by researchers from City St George's, University of London.

Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 existing studies to determine whether acetaminophen was safe to use in pregnancy or not. This was in response to public concerns following claims back in September 2025 that suggested taking acetaminophen during pregnancy might impact the neurodevelopment of those children and increase their risk of autism.

The claims were based on earlier studies that reported small associations between acetaminophen in pregnancy and increased risks of autism. However, these were often based on studies prone to biases, including being limited by the type of data collected and not exploring comparisons between siblings to account for family history, which is vital information.

The team looked at 43 studies with the highest quality and most rigorous research methods and compared pregnancies where the mother had taken acetaminophen to pregnancies where they had not taken the drug.