Federal judge grants Rhode Island wind company reprieve from Trump pause

Court rules Trump is wrong on wind - again

By Ariana Figueroa and Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

A federal judge gave a temporary greenlight Monday to a mostly constructed $5 billion Revolution Wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island, reversing a late December order from the Trump administration that halted work.

Judge Royce C. Lamberth rejected the Trump administration’s national security arguments, finding they didn’t provide “a sufficient explanation” for issuing a Dec. 22 stop work order on Revolution Wind, a 65-turbine project already 87% completed.  He found the entire 704-megawatt project would be imperiled if he did not order work to resume and issued a preliminary injunction to block the administration’s pause.

Lamberth was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan.

Project developers along with state attorneys general in Rhode Island and Connecticut filed new motions in an existing federal lawsuit in January after the Interior Department last month suspended construction. Four other projects off the coasts of Massachusetts, Virginia and New York were also subject to the stop work order. Rhode Island’s is the first to be overturned.

Construction will resume “as soon as possible,” Meaghan Wims, a spokesperson for Orsted A/S, project co-developer, said in a statement Monday.

COVID continues to exact heavy toll on older US adults

COVID has NOT gone away - it kills 100,000+ Americans every year

Laine Bergeson

Even after the COVID-19 public health emergency ended in May 2023, the virus continued to cause millions of illnesses and more than 100,000 deaths annually from October 2022 to September 2024, with the majority of severe outcomes and deaths concentrated among older adults, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Using hospitalization data from the COVID-19 Hospitalization Surveillance Network, which covers approximately 10% of the US population, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research team estimated that COVID caused roughly 43.6 million illnesses, 10 million outpatient visits, 1.1 million hospitalizations, and 101,300 deaths during the 2022–23 respiratory illness season. 

In the following season, COVID-related illnesses declined to roughly 33 million, outpatient visits fell to 7.7 million, and hospitalizations dropped to 879,100. But the number of deaths in the 2023–24 respiratory season—an estimated 100,800—remained essentially the same.

Adults 65 years and older shouldered a disproportionate share of the burden. Although they make up less than 20% of the US population, older adults accounted for nearly half (47.5%) of all COVID illnesses, roughly two-thirds (67.5%) of hospitalizations, and over 80% of deaths (81.3%) during the study period. On average, approximately 1 in 100 adults aged 65 years and older were hospitalized for COVID each year.

January 6, 2021—and the Presidency that Followed—did Not have to Be

The New York Times’ Silencing of Mental Health Experts

Dr. Bandy X. Lee

The New York Times Editorial Board published an exceptional, big-picture view of the current presidency with the image that follows.

This has been the perspective of mental health experts from the beginning, as we concern ourselves with underlying dangerousness or unfitness, far before consideration of political affiliation or societal rank. Medical facts are facts, which this article does an admirable job in presenting.

However, it should go further and acknowledge, however inconvenient, its contribution to our current predicament. The editorial notes about January 6, 2021:

It was a day that should live in infamy. Instead, it was the day President Trump’s second term began to take shape.

I would go further back: the true day of infamy occurred when the same Times Editorial Board—unfortunately—caused us to go from being the number one topic of national conversation to being blacked out of all major media. With this, the nation went from a true possibility of addressing a mental health crisis with a mental health intervention, to the current dystopian distortion of reality itself.

This took a concerted effort, defying public demand and reversing the uncommon openness toward the subject of mental health that the media displayed—when I was invited onto all the major network and cable news programs and interviewing fifteen hours a day, week after week. This astonishing absence of stigma reversed course, once the American Psychiatric Association (APA), under the “leadership” of past president Jeffrey Lieberman, aggressively spread disinformation about us.

This was partly in response to an earlier January 6—when the Guardian invited me to contribute a piece and published it in 2018—which, like all other articles by or about us at the time, became the number one article read that day, week, and weekend. I explained:

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President [keeps] within the letter of the Goldwater rule…. the personal health of a public figure is her private affair—until, that is, it becomes a threat to public health.

We were at the height of public demand, with my book being an instant and unprecedented New York Times bestseller of its kind. I was eventually invited to meet with more than fifty U.S. Congress members, who stated that they depended on us to “educate the public medically,” so that they could “intervene politically”—and indeed a Congressional bill was rapidly gaining ground. This bill would have created an “other body” that included psychiatrists, to replace the cabinet for implementing the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, a provision for a president who is unable to perform the duties of office.

To this day I am convinced that, without the intervention of the APA and the Times, we would have succeeded in having a rational, mental health intervention for a mental health problem. And instead of becoming the most bewildering “Banana Republic” the world has seen, we would have been globally praised for handling a difficult situation, setting standards for other nations.

Trump leaves his mark on Washington DC

 

Not making this up: Trump declares himself to be "Acting President of Venezuela"

What is it that Trump wants to steal from Greenland?

The Danish territory holds significant stores of oil, gas and minerals. But regulations and the extreme environment have kept the vast majority in the ground.

By Nicholas Kusnetz

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.

Even before U.S. forces seized Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump reiterated his long-stated desire to take control of Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory.

“We need Greenland for national security,” Trump said publicly last month.

Those comments took on new urgency after the military intervention in Venezuela. Within a day, Trump was again speaking of seizing control of Greenland. Now European leaders appear to be taking the president’s comments seriously.

The leaders of Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement saying that security in the Arctic should be achieved through cooperation by NATO allies, and reiterating the territory’s sovereignty.

“Greenland belongs to its people,” the statement said. “It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.” 

Despite that statement, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that the administration was currently discussing how it might buy Greenland. In response to a question about military involvement, Leavitt said, “all options are always on the table.”

While Trump last month stressed that his interest in the Arctic island was driven by security, “not minerals,” members of his administration had previously listed Greenland’s mineral wealth as a reason to gain control.

Microplastics Burrow Into Blood Vessels and Fuel Heart Disease

Appears to be worse in men

By University of California - Riverside

New research led by biomedical scientists at the University of California, Riverside suggests that routine contact with microplastics — tiny particles released from packaging, clothing, and many plastic products — may speed up atherosclerosis, a condition in which arteries become clogged and can lead to heart attacks and strokes. In this study, the harmful effects appeared only in male mice, offering fresh insight into how microplastics could influence heart health in humans.

“Our findings fit into a broader pattern seen in cardiovascular research, where males and females often respond differently,” said lead researcher Changcheng Zhou, a professor of biomedical sciences in the UCR School of Medicine. “Although the precise mechanism isn’t yet known, factors like sex chromosomes and hormones, particularly the protective effects of estrogen, may play a role.”

Microplastics Found Throughout the Body and Environment

Microplastics have become nearly impossible to avoid. They are present in food, drinking water, and the air, and have even been detected inside the human body. Recent studies involving people have found microplastics embedded in atherosclerotic plaques and have linked higher concentrations to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Until now, however, it was unclear whether these particles actively damage arteries or simply accompany disease.

“It’s nearly impossible to avoid microplastics completely,” Zhou said. “Still, the best strategy is to reduce exposure by limiting plastic use in food and water containers, reducing single-use plastics, and avoiding highly-processed foods. There are currently no effective ways to remove microplastics from the body, so minimizing exposure and maintaining overall cardiovascular health — through diet, exercise, and managing risk factors — remains essential.”

How to avoid seeing disturbing content on social media and protect your peace of mind

Besides throwing your devices into the ocean

Annie Margaret, University of Colorado Boulder

When graphic videos go viral, like the recent fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, it can feel impossible to protect yourself from seeing things you did not consent to see. But there are steps you can take.

Social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement, not protect your peace of mind. The major platforms have also reduced their content moderation efforts over the past year or so. That means upsetting content can reach you even when you never chose to watch it.

You do not have to watch every piece of content that crosses your screen, however. Protecting your own mental state is not avoidance or denial. As a researcher who studies ways to counteract the negative effects of social media on mental health and well-being, I believe it’s a way of safeguarding the bandwidth you need to stay engaged, compassionate and effective.

No, Trump Did Not End Taxes on Social Security

Don't be gullible - Trump is lying. AGAIN.

Martin Burns and Mary Liz Burns

Watching Donald Trump’s speech on national television and Vice President JD Vance’s remarks at the Turning Point event in Arizona, we identified with Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day. For those who have not seen the movie, Murray plays a TV weatherman who is trapped reliving the same day, day after day. 

We felt exactly like Murray when both Trump and Vance claimed once again that they ended taxes on Social Security.

Time after time, fact-checkers and news outlets have pointed out that contrary to Trump and Vance’s claims, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) did not eliminate taxes on Social Security. Most recently, Factcheck.org on December 18 reported that:

Trump called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act he signed in July “perhaps the most sweeping legislation ever passed in Congress” and touted provisions that include “no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security for our great seniors.” (As we have said, fewer seniors would pay taxes on Social Security benefits, but millions of Americans would still have to pay.)

The Constitution Prohibits Trump’s War on Rhode Island and other Blue States

Trump intends to punish all who voted against him

Robert Reich

What does Trump have against Minnesota? Not only is ICE causing mayhem in Minneapolis, but Trump is halting hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for social services programs there, according to a Tuesday announcement from Health and Human Services.

It’s not just Minnesota. Trump is also stopping billions in funding for social services in Colorado, Illinois, New York, and California.

Why? Could it be because all of them are led by Democrats and inhabited by voters who overwhelmingly rejected Trump in 2024?

It’s not the first time Trump has openly penalized “blue” states. What’s new is how blatant his vindictiveness toward blue states has become.

Angry at Colorado’s votes against him in three successive elections and at its refusal to free Tina Peters — the former clerk of Mesa County, who was convicted in 2024 of tampering with voting machines under her control in a failed plot to prove they had been used to rig the 2020 election against Trump — Trump has cut off transportation money to Colorado, relocated the military’s Space Command, vowed to dismantle a major climate and weather research center located there, and rejected disaster relief for rural counties hammered by floods and wildfires.

Two weeks ago Trump used the first veto of his second term to kill a pipeline project that had achieved bipartisan congressional support, to provide clean drinking water to Colorado’s parched eastern plains. 

Trump’s action enraged Republican congresswoman and formerly dedicated Trumper Lauren Boebert, who stated: “Nothing says America First like denying clean drinking water to 50,000 people in southeast Colorado, many of whom voted for him in all three elections.”

Trump’s blatant lawlessness will haunt America and the world for a long, long time.

From Jan. 6th to Maduro Kidnapping, the Threat Trump Poses Is Existential

Robert Reich for Inequality Media

Trump sees the world as belonging to him, Putin
and China. "Xi" refers to Xi Jinping, China's leader

Trump’s domestic and foreign policies — ranging from his attempted coup against the United States five years ago, to his incursion into Venezuela last weekend, to his current threats against Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland — undermine domestic and international law. But that’s not all.

They threaten what we mean by civilization.

The moral purpose of civilized society is to prevent the stronger from attacking and exploiting the weaker. Otherwise, we’d be permanently immersed in a brutish war in which only the fittest and most powerful could survive.

This principle lies at the center of America’s founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It’s also the core of the post- World War II international order championed by the United States, including the UN Charter — emphasizing multilateralism, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

But it’s a fragile principle, easily violated by those who would exploit their power. Maintaining the principle requires that the powerful have enough integrity to abstain from seeking short-term wins, and that the rest of us hold them accountable if they don’t.

Every time people or corporations or countries that are richer and more powerful attack and exploit those that are not, the fabric of civilization frays. If such aggression is not contained, the fabric unravels. If not stopped, the world can descend into chaos and war. It has happened before.

We now inhabit a society and world grown vastly more unequal. Political and economic power are more concentrated than ever before. This invites the powerful to exploit the weaker because the powerful feel omnipotent.

Every time people or corporations or countries that are richer and more powerful attack and exploit those that are not, the fabric of civilization frays. If such aggression is not contained, the fabric unravels. If not stopped, the world can descend into chaos and war. It has happened before.

Ya think?

Dance in the New Year

The medal he deserves

R.I. has a rising tide of tiny trash on its beaches.

But it still doesn’t have a bottle bill.

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

Cigarette butts strewn across the sand and plastic bottles bobbing in the waves are the most obvious targets of frustration about litter on Rhode Island beaches.

But the button-sized plastic and foam pieces less visible to the casual observer might be a more serious problem. More than 14,000 of these 2.5-or-smaller centimeter pieces were collected from state shorelines as part of 2025 volunteer-led efforts through the International Coastal Cleanup, according to a new report from Save the Bay. 

Tiny trash came in second to cigarette butts, which claimed the dubious honor of no. 1 trash item among the 15,561 pounds of trash collected from September to November 2025. “Other plastic waste” was the third most prevalent, followed by food waste, bottle caps and plastic beverage bottles and cans.