The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a significant shift in how it assesses air pollution standards. From now on, the agency will still recognize and describe the impacts of pollution on human health — such as premature deaths avoided or reduced respiratory disease — but those effects will no longer be translated into economic figures in cost-benefit analyses. Instead, regulatory assessments will focus on the costs businesses face in complying with environmental standards.

The decision affects regulations on fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅) and ground-level ozone, two of the most dangerous and widespread pollutants in the country, and has provoked a strong reaction from public health experts, scientists, and environmental organizations.

The change, initially revealed by The New York Times and confirmed in recent regulatory documents, is part of the approach to environmental policy under the Donald Trump administration, characterized by prioritizing industrial interests and paying less attention to various regulations designed to protect public health and the environment.

EPA officials argue that the modification does not imply ignoring the effects of pollution, but rather recognizing the limitations of the economic models used to date. In official communications, the agency has insisted that “not monetizing does not equate to not considering or valuing the impact on human health.” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency will still take into account lives saved when setting pollution limits, but without assigning a dollar value to them.

For decades, monetizing health benefits was a pillar of the EPA’s regulatory approach. By estimating the economic value of avoided hospitalizations, workdays not lost, and premature deaths prevented, the agency was able to demonstrate that air quality standards generated net benefits of billions of dollars, even when the costs to industry were high.

Under the Biden administration, for example, the EPA calculated that tightening limits on PM₂.₅ could prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays by 2032. According to those estimates, for every dollar invested in reducing this pollutant, the health benefits could reach up to $77.

The current administration believes that these figures convey a false sense of accuracy. In a recent economic impact analysis, the EPA argued that its previous assessments gave the public excessive confidence in the monetized benefits of reducing PM₂.₅ and ozone, despite scientific uncertainties, especially in a context of overall declining emissions.

To “correct this error,” the document states, the agency will stop monetizing the benefits associated with these pollutants until it has models that it considers more reliable.

Concerns intensified following the publication of a new standard on nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from gas turbines in power plants. Although these pollutants contribute to the formation of smog and fine particles associated with heart and lung disease, the final version of the rule is less stringent than the one proposed during the Biden administration and, in some cases, weakens protections that have been in place for two decades. The analysis accompanying the rule does not include any economic assessment of the health benefits of reducing pollution.

Warnings

Scientists and public health experts emphasize that the effects of PM₂.₅ and ozone are well documented. Fine particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, increasing the risk of asthma, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and premature death. Recent studies also link exposure to PM₂.₅ with low birth weight and other health problems.

Although air quality in the United States has improved since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, pockets of pollution persist, especially in low-income and minority communities, which already bear disproportionate burdens of disease.

Some experts note that the legal impact of the change remains to be seen. The Clean Air Act requires that national air quality standards be based on public health criteria, not economic costs. Although the EPA will continue to quantify health impacts, eliminating their monetary translation could lead to more litigation and leave courts with incomplete assessments.

Concerns have also arisen internationally. For years, EPA methods have served as a global benchmark for assessing the costs and benefits of air pollution. Abandoning the monetization of health impacts, experts warn, could weaken environmental standards in other countries.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

California Governor Gavin Newsom has decided to wage an all-out battle against one of the most ambitious and controversial tax proposals in the state’s recent history: a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of billionaires. The plan, called the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, has not yet reached the ballot, but it has already sparked a chain reaction that includes threats of capital flight, strategic moves by some of the country’s richest men, and intense political confrontation.

Billionaire Tax

The proposal, promoted by the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), proposes to tax California residents whose fortunes exceed $1 billion. Its proponents claim that the measure would affect about 200 people and generate tens of billions of dollars. Most of that money would go toward funding the state’s healthcare system, as well as strengthening education and food assistance programs, in response to federal cuts approved last year.

Newsom, however, believes that this tax would not solve the problems and could cause even bigger ones. In recent interviews, the governor has reiterated that he opposes the tax not because he rejects progressive taxation, but because it is a tax on assets rather than income. In his view, this difference is crucial. He pointed out that California already has the most progressive income tax system in the country and relies heavily on higher-income taxpayers to sustain its budget.

What would the tax look like?

Under the proposal, wealth would be calculated based on assets held as of December 31, 2026, and a one-time tax of 5% would be levied. Taxpayers could pay the amount over a period of five years and, in cases of illiquid assets, defer payment until those assets are sold.

The proposal has been strongly rejected by business groups and law firms representing large fortunes. Some lawyers have warned that, if approved, the law would face constitutional challenges and lengthy litigation. Others argue that even the threat of the tax could affect the recent economic rebound in the Bay Area, driven by the boom in artificial intelligence and new technology investments.

The response of the ultra-rich

Although the governor does not have veto power over a citizen initiative, he has acknowledged that his administration has been working for months to stop the project. Newsom has said that the mere announcement of the tax is already having tangible consequences: several billionaires have begun to move assets or reduce their ties to the state. Among them are Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as well as investor Peter Thiel and other tech entrepreneurs.

For Newsom, these moves confirm a fear he has long expressed: that California will lose not only future tax revenue, but also innovation, investment, and jobs. “This is my fear. It’s just what I warned against. It’s happening,” he said to Politico, highlighting the possibility that the state could be at a disadvantage compared to other territories competing to attract capital.

Supporters of the tax reject Newsom’s view. They argue that billionaires represent a relatively small fraction of the state’s tax revenue and that many of them minimize their tax payments by avoiding taxable income. From this perspective, the wealth tax would tax assets that would otherwise be beyond the reach of the tax authorities.

Not all billionaires are opposed. Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, has publicly stated that he is willing to accept the tax and that living in Silicon Valley means accepting the state’s tax rules. However, other ultra-rich individuals have begun actively funding campaigns to block the initiative.

What’s next?

Before reaching the ballot, the promoting union must collect nearly 900,000 valid signatures, a process that is already underway. If successful, the tax would become one of the central issues in California’s political debate this year, pitting the governor against progressive sectors, unions, and a segment of the electorate that sees the measure as a direct response to inequality.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

As soon as the first videos of Renee Good’s death began spreading uncontrollably on social media, Donald Trump’s government was determined to dominate the narrative. It was no easy task — the footage showing an immigration agent shooting a woman in a car on a Minneapolis street spoke for itself. Even so, just a couple of hours after three shots ended Good’s life, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, wearing a cowboy hat at a press conference from the Texas–Mexico border, called the actions leading up to the shooting “an act of domestic terrorism.” In the days that followed, nobody in the administration has veered from this message.

But they have adapted and expanded it in response to the work done by the news media they consider their enemies — outlets that have analyzed the evidence and presented the incident as a killing, not an act of self-defense. For the government, it is no longer just a matter of putting forward the idea that the victim was actually the agent who pulled the trigger — while the government initially never identified Good, Noem claimed the officer who shot her had been dragged by a vehicle in June— but of accusing anyone who says otherwise of lying, of spreading “fake news.”

Vice President J. D. Vance deployed this line on Friday morning. Speaking angrily at a White House press briefing, Vance described the work of journalists who covered Good’s death and its aftermath as “an absolute disgrace.” “You guys are meant to report the truth. How have you let yourself become agents of propaganda, of a radical fringe that’s making it harder for us to enforce our laws?” he said, addressing the press present.

“If people want to have a serious conversation about what she was really doing, that’s reasonable,” Vance said. “What’s not reasonable is plastering across the media that this was an innocent woman and that the ICE agent committed murder,” he added, overlooking rigorous media analysis. And in classic Trump-style hyperbole, he continued: “The reporting on this has been one of the biggest scandals I’ve ever seen in the media. I’ve never seen a case so misrepresented and so misreported.”

On its social media accounts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE, has also been busy pointing at and openly answering the press. “The media continue to fail the American people in their coverage of the events in Minneapolis. […] The evidence speaks for itself. Legacy media have lost the trust of the people,” reads a post on the official DHS account on X, accompanied by a recording that until then had not been public, allegedly showing the entire incident from a house vantage point rather than from the street like earlier videos, including the one shot by the agent.

In another video posted on Sunday, the DHS raised the stakes. Speaking to the camera, DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary Lauren Biss introduced herself and said: “I am here to set the record straight on false reporting surrounding our brave law enforcement.”

The roughly three-minute recording goes on to attack outlets such as The Washington Post and HuffPost for publishing “garbage” about the events — for example, that Good was not given immediate medical attention or that the car never hit the agent who fired. However, both of those points can be corroborated in witness videos.

The DHS post continues and moves on to the shooting in Portland that happened on Thursday. It accuses the media of portraying the two injured people there as innocent, when they are allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua. “How does CNN choose to portray these suspected gang members? ‘Innocent married couple shot by border patrol.’ Give me a break!” Biss says — although in the screenshots shown of the CNN website, the word “innocent” does not actually appear. And while the description of the couple as affiliated with the Tren de Aragua was initially attributed to DHS, once local authorities corroborated the information, it was accepted as valid.

The enhanced and revitalized accusations against the press by the government —and by Trumpism more broadly, which amplifies them — include the argument that it’s the media’s fault, and the fault of opposition politicians, that there has been a dramatic increase in assaults on law enforcement officers and police. DHS claims agents have seen an increase of more than 1,000%. Independent investigations by Los Angeles Times and NPR, however, have found that the figure is closer to 25%.

At the same time, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which monitors and tallies arrests and attacks on journalists, found that in 2025 there were 174 reported aggressions against the press, mainly by law enforcement at protests against the government’s immigration policies. In 2024, the figure was 87. The foundation says it only reports “incidents that can be verified through first-person testimony or cross-checked with multiple journalistic sources.” Part of that increase, they note, is simply because there were more protests.

Currently, there is a temporary federal judge’s ban on DHS agents dispersing anyone they know to be a journalist without probable cause to believe they committed a crime other than failing to obey an officer’s order. There is, however, no limitation on the rhetorical attacks they can level at the media — and over the past week, those attacks have increased dramatically.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition