EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections
461 comments
·September 14, 2025he0001
staminade
Any new regulation the EPA introduces results in litigation. Some of the previously introduced PFAS regulations weren't done in accordance with how the Safe Drinking Water Act says they should be (regulations were introduced without the necessary public consultation), so they're applying to partially vacate the previous ruling. Notably, they're _not_ applying to vacate the regulation of PFAS chemicals where they say the process was followed correctly.
So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error. I also suspect that being seen to roll back some regulations likely gives Lee Zeldin (the EPA admin) some political room to maneuver. He's historically be associated with anti-PFAS efforts (in Congress he represented a district with contamination problems and he voted for anti-PFAS legislation), but he's also part of an administration with a strong anti-regulation agenda, so he needs to walk a fine line.
bigbadfeline
> So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error.
But they didn't start proper administrative procedures to reestablish the regulations, proving that these regulations are being removed on principle, whatever that is, while the "administrative error" is just an excuse.
nickysielicki
Thanks for this balanced take. This makes more sense.
franktankbank
There's a lot of outrage inducing judicial rulings that boil down to poor rule following. The main question winds up being: do we get to a good end point eventually or do these rulings look like steps backwards?
sedawkgrep
If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus.
Then it can be seen as no longer a disparate collection of seemingly random political, social, and economic moves, but rather as a directed, intentional movement.
DaSHacka
> If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus.
And why would they want to do that?
Bonus challenge: Without relying on antisemetic tropes
sedawkgrep
Take a look at the administration's first term and all the involvement and ties (financial, political, etc.) there are to Russia (and Russian-related objectives like Ukraine). It sounds bonkers, but the more you dig in and see how closely tied the relationships have been, and then see how totally soft Trump has been towards Putin/Russia - including direct actions towards Ukraine like removing the long-term diplomats, stopping weapons sales and aid, and recently killing USAID (whose #1 beneficiary was Ukraine) - it all coalesces into a single coherent view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
sillyfluke
just purely as a thought experiment and devil's advocacy: to create new avenues of growth and control for the oligarchy. The fall of the Soviet Union, for example, turned out to be a boon for them and they were able to replace the politburo with their own fiefdoms. By destroying the US goverment functions they will be able to privatize the profits (for their companies) and socialize the costs (pollution and shitty water) for the rest of the population. The price of clean water will go up and the people that can afford it will buy whatever anti-PFAS tech they're selling (providing growth for their companies), and the poor well...who cares. They will obtain greater leverage with the US government because they will be seen as saviors since the government will have no competent agencies left, including the military. And the government will helplessly cede more and more power over to them.
Teever
I think it's a combination of things.
Some people are genuine psychopaths who derive satisfaction from destroying things or by hurting people who don't want them to destroy things.
Others are driven to destroy because they believe that there's some sort of higher purpose to this destruction, either religious or political in nature.
yaroslavvb
Balancing protection against water bills - https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-it-will-keep-...
sgnelson
Well shit, we can really lower water bills by getting rid of all clean water regulations and simply stop water treatment.
Think of the cost savings!
yaroslavvb
Stricter (but not looser) standards can be imposed on state level. Canada has no binding national drinking water law, they leave it to territories/provinces to decide how to implement guidelines.
stouset
What if instead we could all collectively agree that access to some amounts of fresh, running water is a fundamental human need? We figure a number, and the first N units are free. Additional units cost money, and perhaps you have two or three usage tiers where heavy users are disincentivized through additional cost.
You calculate the figures such that the higher usage tiers subsidize the costs of the basic needs users.
Or would that be socialism?
tyleo
I would guess normal corruption. Companies making a profit here simply fund the politicians in power and are getting their kickbacks.
OutOfHere
Corruption is normally illegal. There is nothing normal about this legalized form of corruption. It is a core structural failure.
Arubis
Most elected representatives are too old for this to affect them personally, and nobody else is a real person.
Workaccount2
The answer is likely that the treatment is expensive, and most people aren't drinking tap water anyway.
My town completed it's pfas filtering system and water bill costs increased about 25% to cover it. I don't know one person in this town though who doesn't drink filtered water.
That being said, I do still support the filtering.
greenhat76
This is the reason. My city is struggling to fix its water supply that was broken over a decade ago (our water supply comes from a temporary system) since FEMA sent our funds to other things under the first trump admin.
They don't want to put the cost on the consumer, but there is no other choice. If our government was smart (it's not) they would make these rules and fund the changes.
wk_end
Is this a regional thing? AFAIK everywhere I’ve lived most people drink tap water. Certainly they cook or make coffee/tea with it. But I’ve been lucky enough to live in places with pretty good tap water.
Workaccount2
Only about 25% of Americans drink straight tap water.
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2022/05/ewg-f...
p_j_w
I never drink tap water. I cook with it, though, and would still very much like for that to be filtered.
smegger001
Most people low and middle class people I have met my whole life drink unfiltered tap water unless there is a reason not to (safety or particularly foul taste). you might be in a bit of bubble. Not that it matter though as most bottled water is just bottled tap water anyway.
jemmyw
> Not that it matter though as most bottled water is just bottled tap water anyway.
With added microplastics!
whatever1
[flagged]
wood_spirit
The buyer doesn’t know which company is responsible and which company’s suppliers are responsible etc. This is why we need legislation and enforcement.
Imagine another scenario. You are my neighbour. I spill some poison on the ground. Your child gets ill. Am I at fault?
whatever1
The companies who care will fund 3rd party certification orgs that will check whether the standards are met. They do it already for car safety, responsible raw materials sourcing, recycled content etc.
If it is a feature the customers care about they will market it. But frankly customers just want a better price today.
wtfwhateven
How do you suggest this is implemented for mains water supply? Should miles and miles of new water pipe be laid down for every new water supply company on the area and the customer is given a key from Water Corp to turn on their Water Corp supply valve and Water 4 U Corp sends a guy to turn off their valve?
Have you ever even paid a water bill in your life or spent a few seconds thinking about how water is actually supplied?
flufluflufluffy
Are we just not teaching The Jungle, Silent Spring, etc… in school anymore?
Also, please enlighten me on where I can shop around for alternative tap water.
I’m being petty, and understand the linked article is more fear-mongery than what the actual situation is, but simply eliminating all regulation is not the solution, as history has shown.
hobs
The market isn't free, so it cannot decide - even Adam Smith was pretty freaking clear about this. And I don't mean we need less regulation, I mean companies have complete control over laws, whether or not there's an even playing field, and about their transparency to customers - there's no market at all.
rvba
Adam Smith's thought is more about 1 000 000 farmers farming the same commodity pototatoes
In 2025 winner takes all ans monopolizes all
Apreche
[flagged]
da_chicken
Also known as the, "I got mine. F*** you." philosophy. Maximize exploitation in the short run because by the time the long run comes around, they'll already be dead.
It doesn't speak well of their feelings about their own children, but, well, there isn't a lot speaking that well of them in general.
emddudley
Ironically, PFAS levels have been found to be higher in wealthy people. People with money own more furniture and clothing with stain resistant treatments, for example.
supportengineer
Also brand new items versus used items. When you buy a used item, someone else has already absorbed the PFAS, and the depreciation for that matter.
e2le
I'm not convinced that this is the correct answer. These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).
An examination of the individuals in the EPA pushing this change might reveal something. Perhaps it's ideological? I don't know, I'm at a complete loss.
shigawire
>These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).
They get to move to whatever enclave they want and buy expensive RO filters.
Or, they don't believe in science broadly and believe they won't be impacted. If scientists are so smart, why aren't they rich like me and exploiting everyone and everything to the maximum potential profit??
chung8123
This debate style is pretty frustrating to me. Use a talking point for the other side and act like it is why the reason it the decision is made. It really does not lend itself to getting to the root of issues and finding what compromise is.
In my opinion this added nothing to the conversation when in theory the op asked for a real answer.
zug_zug
I understand this may look dismissive or blamey, but sometimes (actually a shocking amount) there aren’t equal merits to both sides…
I’ve looked into this a lot and there isn’t any strong argument I’ve seen that this is good for humanity, and let’s not pretend every political action is a sincere attempt to improve the world for all equally.
If you look into all the abuse heaped upon the man who discovered leaded gasoline was bad it helps give context on just how far some people will go for their own profits.
tensor
Well, the facts are that this administration will always, without fail, without a single exception, do the opposite of what has been shown to be good for the US people. This isn't a property of authoritarianism either, no other authoritarian state is so uniformly across the board against science, medicine, and technology.
If you have any other suggestion than the reason they do this is something related to money, please be my guest and volunteer. Because otherwise it is the most baffling and self destructive policy making that has ever been documented in the history of humankind.
saghm
It's not out of the realm of possibility that one side of a issue is not acting in good faith. If that's the case, compromise isn't really a viable option; trying to work with someone within a system doesn't work if they literally don't support the system itself. Obviously not everyone agrees that's what's happening here, but not everyone agrees with your premise that there's guaranteed to be some reasonable compromise to every possible issue either.
In some ways, you're kind of arguing the same thing but in reverse by claiming that the comment you're responding to isn't being made in good faith. You're certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but only because of the exact same logic that entitles the parent commenter to hold the opinion that they express in the first place (and for what it's worth, I don't think it's actually being made in bad faith; not everyone will agree about where to draw the line, but at least to me it seems like we're long past the point of giving the benefit of the doubt on policies like the one described in TFA).
spankalee
It's not a debate style, this is the actual explanation.
Do you think you have a better one?
SSchick
Ok, what is your counter argument?
bee_rider
I think it is just venting, rather than debate. Realistically we’re locked in for about a year and a half of full Republican control of every branch of government before literally anything at all can be changed (and even then the main achievable goal for the midterms would be for Democrats to take the House, right? Which gives them at least some ability to do some oversight, but is pretty limited).
beAbU
Thanks for calling this out. I share your frustration.
As a non-american it's becoming more and more difficult to tell the two sides apart with all the shit flinging going on.
lawn
And this is in part why these things are happening.
People will dismiss it as "talking points" or "too ridiculous".
And then they will continue to do it, fully aware that people will just not believe what is happening.
throw0101a
> As for people getting sick and dying, they either don’t care, or they want people to get sick and die.
Healthcare providers and insurance companies are corporations too: you can get rich by treating more people.
throwawaygmbno
An insurance company CEO was famously shot in broad day light just before he went into a meeting to celebrate his accomplishment of denying people healthcare for his company's profits. Nobody felt bad except other CEOs and the people they directly pay because everyone has a story of the insurance company putting profit over people. They did not get rich by treating more people.
yndoendo
USA HealthCare insurance companies are the _Death Panels_, run by CEO, accounts, and investors, that work to maximize profit over keeping people health. They pay _specialist_ to contradict the actual practicing doctors on why some procedure or medicine is needed.
A firm's sole responsibility is to increase profit and a maximize returns for shareholders. [0]
catlifeonmars
Wrt to insurance companies: You can get rich by insuring more people. Treatment is not profitable.
AHatLikeThat
I'd argue the insurance companies prefer to collect premiums and not treat people.
ndsipa_pomu
Also, there's likely to be a few years between the policy being enacted and people having health issues, so the chances are that the people pushing for this won't be around to catch the blame.
2OEH8eoCRo0
I don't get the environmental poison stuff. These rich people and their families breathe the same air and drink the same water as everyone else. Why would they poison themselves and their families with environmental pollution?
avazhi
> If companies can freely poison everyone, profits go up.
I don't support the proliferation of PFAS in the environment, nor am I a Republican, nor do I even live in America.
Having said that, you should consider how asinine this sounds, and you should ponder whether the actual reason for this change in the law is more nuanced and less comically ridiculous than something so simplistic. I'm not saying the actual reason is a good one, but strawmanning every political opinion you disagree with is lazy and suggests an inability to use critical thinking about a world that is often quite complex.
Indeed, you sound like you're just as far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole as 'they' are, just on the other side of the political spectrum.
trehalose
So why did Dupont and 3M cover up their own evidence of PFAS toxicity for decades? (This is a known fact. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever... ) Why did they do that, if not for their own profits?
absurddoctor
I wonder if you misunderstood what the commenter was saying. It isn’t that the goal of the companies is to make people sick as you suggest, it’s that the goal of the companies is to increase profits, and they don’t want concerns over people’s health to be a constraint on that goal.
cluckindan
Do you own shares in companies which are in the chemical manufacturing business? Or are you somehow otherwise invested in having ultra-lax environmental regulations? Genuine question.
The other explanation for not wanting to call a spade a spade is in the category of actually hating other people and wishing them to die a prolonged, painful death.
thrance
What's your reasonable explanation, then? A whole lot of words for saying nothing.
zzzeek
read Orwell's "Animal Farm".
then ask yourself if the pigs had any "nuance" to what they were doing.
vincnetas
Veritasium had video explaining about PFAS and environment protections that were needed to keep people/animals from being sick. Somewhere around minute 23 in video.
JumpCrisscross
Minute Earth has one that’s more concise: https://youtu.be/H3aFzQdWQTg
contrarian1234
What a muddled video
For the first half he seems to constantly mix up C8 and Teflon. After a long section explaining that C8 is some carrier molecule used to make Teflon - he then explain C8 is used in factories and kills cows. But it's not clear C8 is anywhere other than the factory and the town around it
They then extrapolate from two chemical (C8 and C6) to just anything that remotely similar (PFAS)
Later they walk it back and say it's only a few chemicals. Actually your Teflon pan is safe. But then say thing "Blah blah was used to make waterproof..." is it in the final product? or is it part of the chemical procedure to make the product?
Is the problem the final consumer goods? Or is the problem the chemical manufacturing? (and subsequent dumping in the environment) Is this residue from after making the Teflon-like material?
The last parts I couldn't follow at all b/c it was a acronym soup of a ton of chemicals that aren't really explained. At this point I'd lost all faith in the presenters impartiality. Seems like he's just trying to stoke outrage for engagement
(the central point may still be right!)
ganyu
PFAS is short for 'Per- and poly- FluoroAlkyl Substances'. The Teflon that's used on your pans, which are 'poly-' materials, comes in extra long chains (hundreds of thousands of molecules). Most of its chemical bonds are hidden behind the extremely reactive Fluoride atoms (so if Fluoride is bonded onto that position, it's hard to take it off) and are extremely inert, so they don't interfere with typical biological reactions, thus are perfectly safe.
C8 is known as PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). Per for its chained molecule shape (no carbon side chains), 'fluoro' for the F part, 'octanoic' for the 8 carbon atoms, and 'acid' for its chemical property. Unlike Teflon:
- C8 has a really small molecular mass, making it easier to flow around your body participating in all kinds of biological operations;
- It is an acid (having the carboxylic '-COOH' group) and can pretend to be all kinds of acids and actively take part in reactions. Once they start to get inside, the consequences can be unpredictable and devastating.
- All other atoms on C8 except for the last -COOH group are covered by fluoride atoms. This means that C8 is not biodegradable (no enzyme can break apart the C-F covalent bond since it's bond energy is really too high), and when it gets into the environment, it stays that way.
ganyu
So TL;DR,
1. Any substance that has most atoms covered by Fluoride are 'PFAS'. 2. C8 is strictly speaking PFOA (by-definition). 3. C6, and all other acids that has similar chemical properties to C8, can all be generically classified as PFOA-like materials. But for ease of communication people also call them PFOAs or just short for PFOA.
4. PFOAs are crucial for manufacturing Teflon. 5. The problem is manufacturers just dump waste water from PFAS production plants (containing PFOA) without post-processing into natural water bodies and let these toxic substances participate in the food chain and eventually land in our own bodies.
jackmottatx
[dead]
Ozarkian
The State of California is moving in the exact opposite direction: banning these things completely.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/california-lawmakers-propos...
softwaredoug
We’re going to end with a strong red/blue state divide on regulatory frameworks. I wonder if the vaccine guideline coalitions point to emerging regulatory consistency among blue states on this as well.
Nifty3929
I like this actually - let different states try different things, and see how they work out. As the results become more certain, states will feel pressure to adopt the policies that are working well. And there's still room for different states to retain different policies that are better suited to them individually.
UmGuys
Going to? We do. Virtually all red states are poor, uneducated and unhealthy compared to blue states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
Regarding vaccines, if you live in a red state you probably won't be able to get one unless your a senior citizen, travel to another state, or possibly with a doctor's prescription.
ndsipa_pomu
That could lend itself well to studies about the effects of some of these regulations. Maybe not the most ethical way to approach this, though.
BryanBigs
Well pre COVID, Silicon Valley had one of the highest non-vaccination rates amount kids in day-care. So at least then it wasn't a red/blue thing at all.
supportengineer
I am suddenly quite bullish on California real estate. The “good people” will flock from all around the world so that they can be in one place with the other “good people”. It’s about shared values. California will be the last refuge for people around the world who have these shared values.
DaSHacka
> California will be the last refuge for people around the world who have these shared values.
You'll be glad to hear it already is!
Now please stick to your containment zone, and NEVER leave. We have enough of your ilk that have fled to neighboring states already.
wiether
> for people around the world who have these shared values
The US of A are not "the World".
There are countless places around the World that make California look like a conservatism heaven.
aaronblohowiak
What about EU
Havoc
I assure you there are places in the world with good people and shared values outside of one state in one particular country. Pretty wild comment frankly...
amluto
> The Cookware Sustainability Alliance, an industry group formed by major cookware companies, urged lawmakers to oppose the bill. “The proposal risks taking safe, affordable, and reliable kitchen essentials off the shelves, leaving customers with fewer options for the products they use every day,” the group said in a statement.
> The alliance says PFAS is a category that includes some chemicals—such as fluoropolymers used to coat nonstick cookware—that have been deemed safe for uses in food preparation by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority.
> “They are non-toxic and inert, they do not bioaccumulate, and importantly, they are not water soluble,” the alliance stated.
Wow, what a lie-by-outrageous-omission. I would believe that the fluoropolymers in nonstick cookware are, in their intact state, inert and rather harmless (if quite persistent). I would even believe that most of the definitely-not-safe stuff that’s used in manufacturing them don’t end up in the pan.
But these things are in cookware, where they are regularly heated to high temperatures, and a lot of fluoropolymers start to degrade at temperatures that are well within the reach of the average stove. Have any of these people ever contemplated the state of an omelette pan at a restaurant? Or basically any Teflon pan that has gotten any sort of regular use without extreme care taken not to overheat it? Heck, overheated PTFE is so non-inert that it rather imfamously kills birds.
I will he delighted to see Teflon pans phased out at California restaurants. You can buy perfectly fine PFAS-free “ceramic”-coated pans these days at reasonable prices. (You can also buy non-PFAS-free “ceramic” pans these days — read labels carefullly, consider looking up the listed patents, and keep in mind that if it doesn’t see its PFAS-free then it probably isn’t. PFOS/PFOA-free does not mean free if other PFAS.)
archagon
Do restaurants even use Teflon? I get the sense that most restaurants use stainless steel, carbon steel, or cast iron for practically everything, because nonstick pans will last all of a week under heavy use.
(And if you’re a good cook, you definitely don’t need nonstick for an omlette.)
amluto
I’ve seen Teflon-looking omelette pans at diners and hotels quite frequently.
wood_spirit
In Sweden a local village near an airbase has been struggling with the long term effects of the PFAS from the fire fighting foam used in exercises. Although the connection to the awful health outcomes seems established I don’t think they are getting compensation.
The28thDuck
The equivalent in the US is Vint Hill Farms, Virginia. Cold War CIA base used as a listening post primarily, but also to test things like fire suppression and rumored to be a home of Agent Orange. It was an EPA Superfund site (aka so horribly polluted that they needed to do something about it) decided to do nothing and then build a ton of home on and around the heavily contaminated area. I don’t have data but anecdotally cancers here are insanely high in prevalence.
lelandfe
From the UK, the island of Jersey: https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/news/focus-government-legal...
3M lied about the effects of PFAS and firefighting foam polluted their drinking supply. But the terms of the agreement forces the government to defend 3M.
untrimmed
So the Environmental Protection Agency is now asking the courts to help them... not protect us?
lelandfe
Zeldin in March[0], announcing climate change rule rollbacks:
> "We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more"
Does any of that list look like the goals of an Environmental Protection Agency?
[0] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregu...
cryptonector
No. EPA merely concedes that the process used to establish the new rules was not lawful. TFA implies that EPA means to restart the rulemaking process and -presumably- make roughly the same rules as before.
giantg2
At this point we should just create programs to promote RO filtration at home. If it's not lead then it's PFAS or some other thing. Then we have the issues with the chlorine and chloramine byproducts inhernet even in properly treated water - stuff that we already know as possible, probable, or known carcinogens.
BoredPositron
Sounds like a band-aid solution for bad governance.
NewJazz
No, it is not a band aid, it is the gold standard for water filtration. And not all water issues stem from bad governance. Sometimes there is just unwanted minerals in the water for natural reasons.
dylan604
Like all of those yummy chemicals introduced to your well water after your neighbors allowed gas wells to be drilled on their property.
mitthrowaway2
The gold standard for air filtration might be a military grade gas mask or a compressed oxygen tank, but if everyone had to wear those to breathe the air outside, I'd consider it a band aid solution.
Tadpole9181
Until you remember that now nobody is going to be able to drink water from restaurants or their workplace or the tap at the park. And that you can't filter the vegetables you eat that have been watered with contaminated water.
BoredPositron
I still don't understand why you would opt for individual home filter systems. Doesn't make sense if you are not off the grid.
BoredPositron
I can't follow why would you opt for filtration in individual homes?
SketchySeaBeast
It sounds like a great way to reduce the standard further with the justification that RO will solve the problems, leaving an even wider class divide having clean drinking water, creating haves and have nots in something so basic it's part of the table stakes to be considered a civilized country.
I say this knowing that many developed nations still struggle with this in specific circumstances, but it shouldn't be an issue nation wide.
giantg2
Hence the part about programs to help facilitate it. I'd rather see RO systems being handed out in Flint, MI vs cases of bottled water for months.
giantg2
And how do you treat water that needs to travel through questionably maintained pipes without chlorine etc? Seems a much cheaper and efficient fix to utilize point of use filtration.
BoredPositron
The pipes are also bad governance. If they are your own pipes you certainly can opt for filtration instead of replacing them but as I said sounds like a band-aid.
softwaredoug
True but doesn’t PFAS impact ecosystems and agriculture as well?
giantg2
Reducing pollution in the environment is good, but this discussion is about water quality mandates for drinking water. These are more at the water treatment facility level whereas reducing the environmental levels would happen upstream of this process.
iamtedd
That's such a good idea. Why didn't the people of Flint, Michigan just do that in their homes? /s
vjvjvjvjghv
This is what I find so interesting about the MAHA "movement". Kennedy is making some good (and many bad) points about food and nutrition. But then he is part of an administration that promotes pollution and wants to remove safeguards against chemicals that harm people. I have no idea how this is supposed to fit together but in today's political climate it's not necessary for things to make sense.
BlackjackCF
It’s hard to take Kennedy and the MAHA movement seriously about food and nutrition when they attack vaccines, which are basically as close to a home run you can get with medicine for saving lives.
sunsetSamurai
Elections have consequences, many people say both sides are the same, but there's one side that constantly does things like this, on top of giving tax cuts to rich people that need it the least. Please go vote on 2028 if you don't want more of this.
mandeepj
Let’s set our eyes on 2026 first, so that we can end this madness sooner.
scarface_74
Where we set our eyes don’t matter. The US electorate has shown we care more about “owning the libs”, “anti-woke” and what bathroom people use than our own health and welfare.
Absolutely no one who voted for this mess went in blind.
tomrod
They absolutely did, because many listen to the absokutely rank propaganda the right puts out and seek no real sources of information.
DrewADesign
> Absolutely no one who voted for this mess went in blind.
I think it depends. I suspect that political messaging has become so tailored that the Mercola/Natural News crowd that voted primarily because of RFK’s anti-vaxxing platform could have been getting so heavily hammered with the “this is the ’chemicals are bad’ administration” messaging that the anti-regulatory stuff seemed pretty quiet in comparison. And I’m pretty sure they also had things they disagreed with Harris about constantly rammed down their throats. I also think that democrat voters had negative things about Trump shoved down their throat, and that messaging difference is probably the main reason many on the right wing are absolutely mystified that people can hate Trump so much, even in spite of the ‘own the libs’ culture war garbage.
I have a list of news sources I hit weekly from Dissent and Jacobin to mainstream TV news and newspapers, to Hot Air and Town Hall. Most are pretty politically homogenous, but discuss all sorts of topics. Then I see how laser-focused a relative’s Facebook feed is on topics that are important to her… not just the political platform on a whole, but those specific things. It’s forgivable that she’d think her primary concerns were representative of most people’s primary concerns, and why she’s thinks people that are heavily focused on other topics are kind of weird.
daveguy
Only ~60% of people eligible to vote in 2024 did vote with ~30% of eligible voters voting for the idiotscape we currently have.
So, I think OP message was for the folks who didn't vote. Especially given the people against going backwards on environmental protection is a large majority of the population.
If everyone voted, we wouldn't be dealing with this. Excluding future success of social media propaganda campaigns.
We all need to fucking vote. Otherwise you get folks like Stephen Miller, Elon Musk, Laura Loomer puppetting an orange shell.
GenerocUsername
Well then maybe it's time to cut some dead weight from the left platform... Many centrists want clean water and sane society and bathrooms and woke ideology maybe needs to take a back seat in discourse for a while
nozzlegear
Harris lost the popular vote by less than 2%. I know that popular vote is not what gets a president elected, but you make it sound like nobody voted for Harris and the entire American electorate liked Trump's views and voted for him.
cultofmetatron
> but there's one side that constantly does things like this, on top of giving tax cuts to rich people that need it the least.
That side is consistently good at pushing uneducated voters to care about nothingburger issues like transgender bathrooms and mass immigration.
the reality is that the average american is an uninformed moron made complacent through excess and enteratinment but thats not something that can be easily fixed.
crawfordcomeaux
Kindly stop supporting a nation built on genocide and enslavement. The ethical path to engineering a system that's not intended to kill people is to stop it when it does and dismantle it, evolving the foundational principles used to design it in the first place. And to do all that without sacrificing more lives. Electoral reform is impossible because there's no way to say no to the entire system.
sunsetSamurai
I live in the USA so I don't have the choice to just leave, at least not now. So I must do what I can to make this country better.
crawfordcomeaux
I live in the USA. You can put all your skills to work on designing systems of collective liberation to replace the existing systems of oppression this country was founded on & requires to persist. A collapse is coming, so now is the time to prepare so we have something liberatory to fill the predictable power vacuum with. The wealthy are already doing this.
hedora
The right managed to succeed with their electoral reforms. Gerrymandering is legal, and the president is now above the law.
The left should use the same tactics: Focus on state and local elections then use those positions to fix elections so that the national majority of voters decide who runs the federal government (instead of the current 25-30% of voters).
Doing this is completely legal now that the Supreme Court has gutted the rule of law.
For starters, all states should aggressively gerrymand. That’ll basically guarantee the house goes democrat in 2026:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/democrats-can-win-the-redistric...
If the democrats fail to do this, it’s not mere incompetence. It’s probably because their financial backers actually support the changes being made by Trump.
shigawire
As a democratic voter I don't like this either. I vote because I want rule of law. It's not as clear cut to me that discarding rule of law to beat the GOP is the best option. There is a chance they can be defeated without undermining having a functional electoral system
jjani
> If the democrats fail to do this, it’s not mere incompetence. It’s probably because their financial backers actually support the changes being made by Trump.
This has been clear for very long. Hence why they're still not doing it, and have for the last 9 years been and still[1] continue to push for Clinton-like candidates rather than whatever candidate has the biggest chance of winning elections. It isn't incompetence, and it hasn't been for ages. They're nearly just as captured. It's true that they're slightly less captured than R overall, but not to an extent that is actually meaningful.
Stating it as an "if" is copium. They have failed to, are failing to, and will continue to fail to do this, and it's intentional. What you're saying is so blindingly obvious that there is no other explanation - no Hanlon's razor for this one, the incompetence angle is not realistic.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/17/politics/2028-presidentia...
p3rls
[dead]
dralley
The most frustrating thing about leftists is their focus on tearing down and self-flagellation over actually doing anything meaningful to make the world a better place.
There is a whole archetype of person that would rather verbally jerk off to thoughts of defeatism and disgust and criticizing everyone else than do anything useful themselves.
apercu
You could change left to right and that would be an honest statement.
crawfordcomeaux
Maybe it's not as dualistic as you portray things. I'm literally designing and building a system for collective liberation and meeting needs to replace systems of oppression.
Why people argue against that is beyond me
ReptileMan
>Please go vote on 2028 if you don't want more of this.
Or if you want more of this also go vote.
hedora
If you want more of this, please vote in 2027 and 2029 instead.
jackmottatx
[dead]
aaviator42
Countless lives over the next decades are going to be lost due to decisions being made by this administration. Deaths and illnesses that otherwise would have prevented using existing frameworks and systems had they not been destroyed.
the__alchemist
I don't understand why the left puts up with it. They are too easily distracted by hot-button issues. These are some of the most important issues facing the present and future of our civilization and biosphere. I wish I had a solution, or knew the step to take. I suspect one of the root causes is the narrative, e.g. from news agencies, is being controlled by the propagators of the problem.
spankalee
Our system is not set up to be able to resist things like this. Once one party has control over all three branches of the federal government, all we can do at the federal level is wait for elections.
States can try to do some things in some cases, but the Supreme Court will get in the way and now the National Guard and Marines.
clscott
The last time you voted in The United States of America may be the last time you get a vote in The United States of America.
All three branches of The United States of America has been captured by a tyrannical government. Rights are being eroded for inhabitants of The United States of America, including its citizens.
You have no right to: safe medicine, safe food, safe water, vote.
The sooner the people recognize this and take action, the shorter it will be to reverse.
Americans have a duty to act, and act quickly: what's already been taken will take generations to regain.
thomasmg
Right. My fear is that the rules of the elections will be significantly changed as well soon, by this party.
odie5533
The human brain can not handle social media. It has melted our brains and completely controls the Main Signal with its algorithms. The right is better at controlling the media in such a system, and is ascendant. We live in meme world now. Nothing is serious. It's all just memes.
cloverich
It does feel like this. I remember this moment clicking for me with my dads family who was typically more rational. "did you hear California is going to outlaw bacon now"; everyone laughs.
I mention that sounds kind of click baity? look it up. California wants to impose more stringent minimum space standards for amimals bred to slaughter (prop 12). Seems maybe good, or at least worthy of a real discussion?
But everyone had moved on by then, ironically to how much they care about animal rights (spending significant time volunteering in shelters and such).
Its just too easy to dumb people down with memes.
estearum
Well, also our adversaries have a vested interest in tilting those systems toward MAGA in particular.
Trump reneging on NATO, turning military attention toward (checks notes) Venezuela, and isolating ourselves in global trade is just an absolute dream come true for China and Russia.
hshdhdhj4444
The American left is one of the most impotent political entities.
The only purpose they seem to serve is strengthening the far right by imposing counter productive purity tests and pushing people to vote for the far right options over more centrist ones.
otterdude
until people starting giving a shit to form alternatives, they're the only option that exists. Were not in a college classroom debating ideals, this is a real life triage situation
softwaredoug
“The Left” as educated elites clustered in cities has and will always be fairly impotent (at least electorally, maybe not culturally)
“The Left” as defined by a broad, working class based coalition independent of urban/rural has historically been formidable. But as the closest example of this in recent history - Obama coalition - erodes, and GOP eats into working class voters, it becomes less formidable.
Really The Left (the Democratic Party) needs to rebuild an electorally successful coalition. The leaders that could lead that aren’t obvious to me yet.
cogman10
This is hogwash.
The american left by and large is simply unrepresented. Democrats have represented center right positions since clinton.
If anything, it's those centrist democrats that use purity tests as much as possible to eject the left from the party.
As a good example of that, consider the case of Al Franken vs Andrew Cuomo. Franken was pretty progressive, so when it came out that he had a picture in bad taste where he mocked squeezing boobs, gone. 24/7 news about how he's really a monster and the worst person in the world.
Meanwhile, Cuomo has multiple credible allegations of sexual harassment and who does the party STILL back even after he lost the primary? He literally got endorsements from Democrats who shed tears because of the Al Franken photo.
The same thing happened to Bernie Sanders. The centrist dems and media started circulating garbage about how he was sexist over a comment he didn't make.
adrr
And what purity tests are those?
mschuster91
At least our "purity tests" don't end up with dead people. By the current state of information, the CK killer was a Nick Fuentes follower.
And hell, just look at how first the Tea Party and then MAGA managed to yeet a lot of what used to be "moderate" Republicans out of the party alright.
hypeatei
You're referring to very far left circles that definitely don't represent liberals or more moderate Dems. I agree though, those circles consist of single-issue voters (e.g. palestine) that harm actual progress.
cluckindan
Again with the left vs. right. Are you really that easy to divide into two diametrically opposed groups?
the__alchemist
This is also a key part of it. People should explore the complexity instead of treating this as team sports. I think we have a genetic disposition to this sort of thinking, but can overcome it.
null
smt88
Due to gerrymandering, our elected officials are increasingly sorting themselves into left and right, whether that represents us or not.
dvrj101
i mean the right literally voted for epsteins BFF and also the most prominent partner in child trafficking. Hiring minor under pretense of internship, drugging/spiking then and then trafficking them to private island. The difference between right and left is like night and day.
in case someone's feeling got hurt. Throughout the history of world not USA, right ideology has also blindly supported deregulation that people will die but regulation will naturally take place( ? ) like free markert
hypeatei
The left doesn't hold power in any branch of government right now. The most they can do before midterms is cause a government shutdown, but that can backfire unless messaging/demands are perfect.
actionfromafar
Messaging should probably be "follow the law". Until that happens, voting in the house is just charades.
Filligree
What do you propose they do?
the__alchemist
I would love to have an answer to your question!
Edit: Here's a start: Be more critical of the news. Content a bit; the scope of topics that are discussed more importantly.
purple_turtle
Drop counterproductive and unpopular Culture War issues and instead fight about very stupid ideas pushed by Trump et all.
Part of problem is that the most unproductive and unpopular and poor ideas are the most loved ones among their elites.
deadbabe
We are soldiers in revolt for truth, And we have fought for our independence, When we spoke nobody listened to us, So we have taken the noise of gunpowder as our rhythm, And the sound of machine guns as our melody
cogman10
> They are too easily distracted by hot-button issues.
I disagree.
The issue is there's about 1000 fires burning all with somewhat critical importance.
But further, the left and the politicians ostensibly representing the left simply are not aligned (at least in the US). It's a rock and a hard place. Generally the politicians positions are better than the right, but far less than what the left actually wants. So they rely heavily on "what are you going to do, let the other guys win?".
Meanwhile, the right has adopted nearly the opposite position. On most positions when the base says "jump" they say "how high?".
A big reason for that is money in politics. What the rightwing base wants is generally pretty compatible with monied interests. It's no skin off the nose of a rightwing politician if they want to ban books, that doesn't ultimately harm Disney's bottom dollar.
For the left, what they want in almost all ways will negatively impact monied interested. Better regulations makes rich polluters mad. Nationalized healthcare makes every business (except maybe small businesses) mad.
That's why "left" politicians tend to only support initiatives which effectively do nothing like recognizing a MLK or saying it's ok to be gay. And even then, they are happy to ditch those positions to win more rightwing base support because, shocker, that rightwing base is likely to care less about their inaction on climate change.
You are right, though, news is a big problem. And that's because mainstream media is corporate captured. That's why left policy positions no matter the channel are always framed in the absolute worst way possible. For example, whenever nationalized healthcare comes up I can guarantee you the framing will be "How will you pay for this very expensive program that will eliminate choice and cost a lot of money which might make everyone sad and probably will bankrupt everyone?"
selimnairb
The just-released MAHA report[1] mentions PFAS limits for drinking water to be enforced by EPA. Hopefully the unusually extreme contradictions in policy force a change.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-R...
PartiallyTyped
It’s okay though, as some brilliant minds have said, the price of a few deaths is acceptable for less regulation!
thrance
This is a form of political violence.
cprayingmantis
Are there any labs in the US that a regular joe could use to get their water tested? I’ve got quite a few properties with natural springs and I can send the water to get tested for bacteria and mineral content but I don’t know of anywhere that tests for PFAS.
gigatexal
This administration can’t end soon enough.
rajup
Do RO filters eliminate these chemicals?
Havoc
Bit of research suggests even counter top filters help, though with very wide range of opinions as to how much it helps and which PFAS it does work against (there are thousands)
https://www.epa.gov/water-research/identifying-drinking-wate...
llm_nerd
They do, but the vast majority of fluids the average person consumes comes in products made elsewhere, along with restaurants, etc. So you can RO your home water, but unless you don't eat anything made elsewhere, water your own crops, etc, you need comprehensive protections to avoid them.
Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?