News

How redefining just one word could strip the Endangered Species Act’s ability to protect vital habitat

Published

1 year ago

June 10, 2025

Rod Washington

Last Updated on June 10, 2025 by Rod Washington

Endangered Species Act — Green sea turtles, like this hatchling in Florida, are endangered due in part to habitat destruction and fishing nets.
Keenan Adams/USFWS

Mariah Meek, Michigan State University and Karrigan Börk, University of California, Davis

It wouldn’t make much sense to prohibit people from shooting a threatened woodpecker while allowing its forest to be cut down, or to bar killing endangered salmon while allowing a dam to dry out their habitat.

But that’s exactly what the Trump administration is proposing to do by changing how one word in the Endangered Species Act is interpreted: harm.

For 50 years, the U.S. government has interpreted the Endangered Species Act as protecting threatened and endangered species from actions that either directly kill them or eliminate their habitat. Most species on the brink of extinction are on the list because there is almost no place left for them to live. Their habitats have been paved over, burned or transformed. Habitat protection is essential for their survival.

A bird with a yellow cheeks and a black cap and wings sits on a juniper branch. — The golden-cheeked warbler breeds only in Texas, primarily in Texas Hill Country. It has been losing habitat as development expands in the region.
Steve Maslowski/USFWS, CC BY

As an ecologist and a law professor, we have spent our entire careers working to understand the law and science of helping imperiled species thrive. We recognize that the rule change the Trump administration quietly proposed could green-light the destruction of protected species’ habitats, making it nearly impossible to protect those endangered species.

The legal gambit

The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, bans the “take” of “any endangered species of fish or wildlife,” which includes harming protected species.

Since 1975, regulations have defined “harm” to include habitat destruction that kills or injures wildlife. Developers and logging interests challenged that definition in 1995 in a Supreme Court case, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon. However, the court ruled that the definition was reasonable and allowed federal agencies to continue using it.

In short, the law says “take” includes harm, and under the existing regulatory definition, harm includes indirect harm through habitat destruction.

Map showing large areas marked as critical habitat along the Pacific US coast and in Maine. Also along the Alaska coast. — Critical habitat throughout the U.S., including many coastlines and mountain areas. Note: Alaska is not to scale.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Trump administration is seeking to change that definition of “harm” in a way that leaves out habitat modification.

This narrowed definition would undo the most significant protections granted by the Endangered Species Act.

Why habitat protection matters

Habitat protection is the single most important factor in the recovery of endangered species in the United States – far more consequential than curbing direct killing alone.

A 2019 study examining the reasons species were listed as endangered between 1975 and 2017 found that only 17% were primarily threatened by direct killing, such as hunting or poaching. That 17% includes iconic species such as the red wolf, American crocodile, Florida panther and grizzly bear.

Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

In contrast, a staggering 81% were listed because of habitat loss and degradation. The Chinook salmon, island fox, southwestern willow flycatcher, desert tortoise and likely extinct ivory-billed woodpecker are just a few examples. Globally, a 2022 study found that habitat loss threatened more species than all other causes combined.

As natural landscapes are converted to agriculture or taken over by urban sprawl, logging operations and oil and gas exploration, ecosystems become fragmented and the space that species need to survive and reproduce disappears. Currently, more than 107 million acres of land in the U.S. are designated as critical habitat for Endangered Species Act-listed species. Industries and developers have called for changes to the rules for years, arguing it has been weaponized to stop development. However, research shows species worldwide are facing an unprecedented threat from human activities that destroy natural habitat.

Under the proposed change, development could be accelerated in endangered species’ habitats.

Gutting the Endangered Species Act

The definition change is a quiet way to gut the Endangered Species Act.

It is also fundamentally incompatible with the purpose Congress wrote into the act: “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.” It contradicts the Supreme Court precedent, and it would destroy the act’s habitat protections.

Two small fuzzy owls nestle together on a branch. — Northern spotted owls, like these fledglings, living in old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest are listed as threatened species because of habitat loss.
Tom Kogut/USFS, CC BY

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has argued that the recent “de-extinction” of dire wolves by changing 14 genes in the gray wolf genome means that America need not worry about species protection because technology “can help forge a future where populations are never at risk.”

But altering an existing species to look like an extinct one is both wildly expensive and a paltry substitute for protecting existing species.

A small fox with a fluffy tail under cactuses. — The Catalina Island fox is endemic to Catalina Island. Habitat loss, diseases introduced by domestic dogs, and predators have diminished the population of these small foxes to threatened status.
Catalina Island Conservancy/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The administration has also refused to conduct the required analysis of the environmental impact that changing the definition could have. That means the American people won’t even know the significance of this change to threatened and endangered species until it’s too late, though if approved it will certainly end up in court.

The ESA is saving species

Surveys have found the Endangered Species Act is popular with the public, including Republicans. The Center for Biological Diversity estimates that the Endangered Species Act has saved 99% of protected species from extinction since it was created, not just from bullets but also from bulldozers. This regulatory rollback seeks to undermine the law’s greatest strength: protecting the habitats species need to survive.

Congress knew the importance of habitat when it passed the law, and it wrote a definition of “take” that allows the agencies to protect it.

Mariah Meek, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University and Karrigan Börk, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Rod Washington

Economy

Donor States vs. Recipient States: Where Does Your Federal Tax Dollar Go?

Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don’t necessarily measure government dependency.

Published

13 minutes ago

August 3, 2026

Daily News Staff

us capitol in washington dc
Donor States. — Photo by Ivan Dražić on Pexels.com

Every year, Americans send trillions of dollars to Washington through income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and other federal revenues. The federal government then sends trillions back across the country through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, federal salaries, contracts, grants, infrastructure projects and dozens of other programs.

But the money doesn’t necessarily return to the states in the same proportions in which it was collected.

That’s where the terms “donor state” and “recipient state” come in.

What Is a Donor State?

Simply put, a donor state sends more money to the federal government than it receives back in federal spending.

Imagine taxpayers and businesses in a state contribute $100 billion to the federal government during a year. If federal spending within that state totals only $80 billion, the state has effectively contributed $20 billion more to the federal government than it received.

A recipient state experiences the opposite: federal expenditures within the state exceed the amount collected there in federal revenue.

These aren’t official federal government classifications, however. They’re terms commonly used by researchers analyzing the flow of money between individual states and Washington.

Only Three Donor States in 2023?

According to an August 2025 analysis from the Rockefeller Institute of Government using preliminary federal fiscal year 2023 data, only three states had negative balances—meaning they contributed more federal revenue than they received in federal expenditures.

Those states were:

New Jersey: approximately $18.9 billion more contributed than received.

Massachusetts: approximately $6.8 billion more contributed than received.

Washington: approximately $54 million more contributed than received.

At first glance, that might suggest nearly every other state depends financially on those three states.

The reality is considerably more complicated.

Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don't necessarily measure government dependency.

COVID Changed the Numbers

Historically, several wealthy states—including California and New York—have frequently appeared on the donor side of the equation.

The enormous federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted that pattern.

Trillions of dollars in extraordinary federal spending flowed into states through stimulus payments, business assistance, unemployment programs, healthcare funding, state and local government assistance and other programs.

Even after the emergency phase of the pandemic ended, some of those expenditures continued influencing federal balance-of-payments calculations.

That’s one reason examining a single year can produce a misleading picture.

California: Recipient Today, Historical Donor

California provides perhaps the best example.

In fiscal year 2023, California technically received slightly more federal spending than it contributed—approximately $342 more per person.

But look at the longer-term numbers and the picture changes.

Using a nine-year average that excludes COVID-related spending, Rockefeller Institute researchers calculated California’s average balance at approximately negative $29 billion.

In other words, over a more typical period, California has historically contributed substantially more to the federal government than it received.

Its enormous economy, high incomes and large number of taxpayers generate tremendous amounts of federal revenue.

New York Tells a Similar Story

New York has also historically ranked among America’s major donor states.

Yet in 2023, New York had a positive federal balance of approximately $13.3 billion, receiving roughly $1.04 in federal expenditures for every $1 it contributed.

Researchers attributed much of the change from New York’s historical pattern to lingering pandemic-era federal expenditures.

As those programs disappear from the calculations, New York could return to its traditional position as a donor state.

Arizona Is a Net Recipient

Arizona presents a different picture.

Over the Rockefeller Institute’s nine-year analysis, Arizona averaged a positive federal balance of approximately $44.5 billion.

Even after excluding COVID-related spending, Arizona’s average remained positive at roughly $35.3 billion.

That means federal expenditures flowing into Arizona have substantially exceeded federal revenue collected from the state.

But that doesn’t mean Arizona simply receives tens of billions of dollars in “welfare.”

Federal spending includes far more than public assistance.

Arizona hosts military installations, federal lands and agencies, defense and aerospace operations, veterans programs and a significant retiree population receiving Social Security and Medicare.

All of those expenditures count toward the state’s federal balance.

Texas Receives More Than It Sends

Texas also had a substantial positive balance in 2023.

Federal expenditures exceeded revenues collected from Texas by approximately $80 billion, making it one of the country’s largest net recipients in total dollars that year.

Again, the number needs context.

Texas is home to major military installations, NASA operations, defense contractors, federal infrastructure projects and millions of Social Security and Medicare recipients.

Those federal dollars all count as money flowing back into the state.

The Surprising Leader: Virginia

If recipient-state status simply meant dependency on federal welfare programs, Virginia would seem like an unlikely candidate to lead the country.

Yet Virginia recorded the nation’s largest positive federal balance in 2023 at approximately $145.4 billion.

Why?

Location.

Virginia sits next to Washington, D.C., and contains an enormous concentration of federal employees, military installations, government contractors and defense spending.

Neighboring Maryland ranked second with a positive balance of approximately $81.1 billion.

The numbers illustrate why federal balance-of-payments statistics should not automatically be interpreted as measurements of welfare dependency.

A recipient state isn’t necessarily a “welfare state.” Federal expenditures include Social Security, Medicare, military installations, defense contracts, federal salaries, research, infrastructure, grants and other programs.

Where Does the Federal Money Actually Go?

Federal expenditures flowing into a state can include:

Social Security
Medicare and Medicaid
Military bases and personnel
Defense contracts
Federal employee salaries
Highway and transit funding
Scientific and university research
Agricultural programs
Veterans benefits
Disaster assistance
Federal grants
Infrastructure projects
Federal agency operations

A state containing a large military installation, federal laboratory or government agency can therefore receive billions of federal dollars without that money having anything to do with traditional public assistance programs.

Why Wealthier States Often Become Donors

Federal income taxes are progressive.

People with higher incomes generally pay a larger percentage of their income in federal income taxes.

States containing large concentrations of high-income households and highly profitable companies can consequently generate enormous amounts of federal revenue.

That helps explain why states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have historically appeared frequently among net contributors.

The federal government doesn’t earmark the taxes collected in California exclusively for California.

The money enters the national treasury and helps finance programs throughout the United States.

In that sense, federal taxation intentionally redistributes resources geographically as well as economically.

So Are Donor States “Subsidizing” Recipient States?

In a broad accounting sense, yes.

Federal revenue collected disproportionately from some states helps finance federal expenditures occurring elsewhere.

But describing the relationship simply as one state “paying for” another leaves out important context.

Federal spending follows national priorities rather than state borders.

A Navy base in Virginia protects the entire country. NASA facilities in Texas conduct missions funded by taxpayers nationwide. Social Security benefits paid to a retiree in Arizona may reflect payroll taxes that person paid while working decades earlier in California, Illinois or New York.

Americans and businesses also move between states throughout their lives.

The federal system was never designed to ensure that every dollar collected within a state’s borders would eventually return to that same state.

The Bigger Picture

The donor-state debate is often used as political ammunition, particularly when politicians argue about which parts of the country are supporting others.

The numbers are real, but they require context.

A state can move from donor to recipient status because of a recession, natural disaster, military spending, demographic changes, infrastructure investments or extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

That’s why examining several years of data generally tells us more than looking at a single year.

Ultimately, the donor-versus-recipient calculation reveals something fundamental about the United States:

Federal taxes don’t remain where they’re collected.

They become part of a national pool used to fund programs, obligations and investments across all 50 states.

And depending on where you live, your state may be putting more into that pool—or taking more out—at any particular moment.

Food Truths

The Truth About the “Chemical” in McDonald’s Burger Buns: Should Consumers Be Concerned?

What’s in the Burger Buns:The “yoga mat chemical” controversy changed how consumers view food additives. Here’s what azodicarbonamide is, why McDonald’s removed it, and what the science actually says.

Published

5 days ago

July 30, 2026

Rod Washington

The Truth About the "Yoga Mat Chemical" in McDonald's Burger Buns — Image Credit: Adobe Stock

For years, headlines and social media posts have warned consumers about a so-called “yoga mat chemical” found in hamburger buns served by major fast-food chains. The claims sparked widespread concern, prompted petitions, and eventually led several restaurant companies—including McDonald’s—to change their recipes.

But what was the chemical, and is there actually a health risk today?

What Was the Controversial Ingredient?

The ingredient at the center of the controversy was azodicarbonamide (ADA), a chemical used as a dough conditioner. It helped improve the texture of bread, making dough easier to handle and producing softer, more consistent buns.

Ironically, the same compound is also used in manufacturing certain foamed plastics, including some yoga mats and shoe soles. That connection gave rise to the viral nickname, “the yoga mat chemical.”

While the comparison was technically accurate, it also lacked important context. Food-grade azodicarbonamide and industrial applications are very different, and many chemicals have multiple uses across industries.

Why Did People Become Concerned?

The concern wasn’t simply that ADA was used in food. Scientists focused on what happens during baking.

When bread is baked, most azodicarbonamide breaks down into other compounds. Some laboratory studies involving animals raised questions about one of these breakdown products, called semicarbazide (SEM), when administered in high doses.

Those findings prompted some countries to take a more cautious regulatory approach.

mouthwatering close up of a double patty hamburger 2026 03 26 04 39 10 utc — Image Credit: Adobe Stock

Why Is It Banned in Some Countries?

The European Union and Canada do not permit azodicarbonamide as a flour treatment agent. Their food safety policies often follow the precautionary principle, removing ingredients when safer alternatives exist or when scientific uncertainty remains.

In contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that azodicarbonamide is safe when used within approved limits.

These differing regulations don’t necessarily mean one side believes the ingredient is dangerous while the other believes it is harmless. Instead, they reflect different philosophies about regulating food additives.

Does McDonald’s Still Use It?

No.

McDonald’s removed azodicarbonamide from its U.S. hamburger buns in 2014 following growing consumer demand for simpler ingredient lists.

Today’s buns no longer contain the ingredient, joining a broader trend among food manufacturers to eliminate additives that have become controversial with consumers.

Are There Other Ingredients Consumers Should Know About?

Modern commercial bread still contains ingredients designed to improve freshness, texture, and shelf life.

These may include:

Calcium propionate to prevent mold
Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) as a dough conditioner
Enzymes that improve consistency
Emulsifiers that help maintain softness

These ingredients have been evaluated by food safety agencies and are generally recognized as safe when used according to regulations.

The Bigger Health Picture

Nutrition experts generally agree that focusing on one ingredient can distract from the larger issue.

The greatest health risks associated with fast food are more closely linked to:

High sodium intake
Excess saturated fat
Added sugars
Large portion sizes
Frequent consumption of ultra-processed foods

An occasional fast-food meal is unlikely to determine someone’s long-term health. Overall dietary patterns, physical activity, sleep, and other lifestyle factors have a much greater impact.

Consumer Awareness Is Changing the Food Industry

Whether or not an ingredient poses a measurable health risk, public concern can influence corporate decisions.

Over the past decade, many food companies have reformulated products to remove controversial ingredients, reduce artificial additives, and simplify ingredient labels. In many cases, those changes have been driven as much by consumer preferences as by regulatory requirements.

The Bottom Line

The “yoga mat chemical” story captured public attention because it combined science, food safety, and memorable marketing. While azodicarbonamide was once used in some hamburger buns, including those supplied to McDonald’s, the company removed it from its U.S. buns years ago.

Current evidence suggests consumers are better served by paying attention to their overall diet rather than worrying about a single ingredient that has already disappeared from many products.

Being an informed consumer means looking beyond the headlines, understanding the science, and recognizing that nutrition is about the complete picture—not just one ingredient.

Association of Black Cardiologists to Celebrate Legacy and Leadership at 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards

Published

1 week ago

July 27, 2026

Daily News Staff

AdobeStock 326809259 scaled — Adobe Stock

The Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) is bringing its signature celebration of impact back to New York City this fall—spotlighting leaders and organizations working to make cardiovascular care more equitable, more accessible, and more effective. The 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards Program & Fundraiser is set for Saturday, October 3, 2026 (6:00 p.m.–9:00 p.m.) at Cipriani Wall Street in Manhattan.

For ABC, the evening is more than a high-profile awards program. It’s a cornerstone fundraising event that helps power the organization’s year-round work—supporting medical student scholarships, fellowships, education, and programs designed to strengthen the pipeline of diverse clinicians and researchers while improving outcomes in communities that carry a disproportionate burden of heart disease.

The official invitation for the ABC 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards Program & Fundraiser, taking place October 3, 2026, at Cipriani Wall Street in New York City.

A fundraising night with long-term stakes

ABC leaders say the Spirit of the Heart Awards is built around a simple idea: celebrating progress while investing in the people who will drive the next wave of change.

Event co-chair Icilma Fergus, MD—Director of the Cardiovascular Disparities Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center and Board Chair of ABC—framed the night as a forward-looking commitment.

“This gathering is about more than one evening of celebration; it is about investing in the future of cardiovascular health for years to come,” Fergus said in the announcement. She added that the support generated through the event helps expand opportunities for aspiring clinicians, researchers, and leaders whose work can transform care and improve lives nationwide.

Honorary Chairperson: Samin K. Sharma, MD

ABC announced Samin K. Sharma, MD as the event’s Honorary Chairperson. Sharma serves as Chief of Clinical Cardiology, Director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Institute, and the Anandi Lal Sharma Professor of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In the release, ABC highlighted Sharma’s international reputation in interventional cardiology and physician education, noting that he has trained cardiovascular specialists from around the world while advancing the field through research, mentorship, and patient care.

“I am honored to serve as Honorary Chairperson for this important event,” Sharma said. “The Spirit of the Heart Awards Program reflects the power of partnership, philanthropy, and leadership to advance cardiovascular health.”

The Association of Black Cardiologists will host the 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards Oct. 3, 2026 in NYC to honor leaders advancing heart health equity and fund scholarships. — The official invitation schedule for the ABC 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards Program & Fundraiser, taking place October 3, 2026, at Cipriani Wall Street in New York City.

A full weekend of impact, including policy

The awards program is part of a broader weekend of programming. On Friday, October 2, ABC will host its Annual Policy Pulse Summit at Venable LLP in New York City, convening leaders to discuss policy issues shaping the future of cardiovascular health.

What to expect at the Spirit of the Heart Awards

ABC is positioning the evening as both a celebration and a community gathering—bringing together leaders from healthcare, philanthropy, industry, and advocacy.

The event will be co-emceed by:

Sandra Bookman, award-winning journalist and anchor of Eyewitness News on ABC7/WABC-TV New York
Thomas Cunningham IV, President and Chief Content Officer of BrandCunningham

The program is expected to include:

Presentation of the Spirit of the Heart Awards
Recognition of medical student scholarship recipients
Special guest appearances
A live auction
Musical entertainment

Event co-chair Barbara Hutchinson, MD, PhD, President of Chesapeake Cardiac Care, emphasized the role of sustained collaboration in moving the needle on heart health.

“The Spirit of the Heart Awards Program is a reminder that lasting progress in cardiovascular health is achieved through vision, partnership, and sustained commitment,” Hutchinson said.

How to attend, sponsor, or support

ABC is directing attendees and supporters to its event site for tickets, sponsorship opportunities, and donations:

Event info / tickets / sponsorship / donations: https://abcardioevents.org

About the Association of Black Cardiologists

Founded on the belief that “every heart counts,” the Association of Black Cardiologists works to promote prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease and to advance health equity by eliminating disparities. ABC’s membership is open to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or vocation. The organization’s work spans education, advocacy, research, patient and community outreach, and leadership development.

Organization website: https://abcardio.org

Source and media contact

Press release source (PRNewswire): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/association-of-black-cardiologists-to-celebrate-legacy-and-leadership-at-16th-annual-spirit-of-the-heart-awards-302206000.html

Media Contact (from the release):

Akeia Blue, VP of Communications
419395@email4pr.com
240-321-9227

📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!

💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.

Stay connected with STM Daily News!