“Massachusetts lost $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income in 2023 alone after enacting its 4% millionaire surtax – an 8% increase in income outflow from the prior year, with top earners accounting for roughly 70% of the lost revenue,” said Loughlin, even as Massachusetts, in reality, continues to make new investments in free school meals, fare-free buses, and affordable child care.

Based on his use of wealth-lobby propaganda, Loughlin is proposing a “Millionaire Magnet” agenda consisting of tax cuts (per-job tax credits for pass-through entities) and “more generous charitable giving deductions.” In other words, more Reagan-era trickle-down bullshit that has never accomplished anything other than increasing inequality and economic privation. Laughlin’s ideas are worse than bad economics; they’re a cheap scam meant to impoverish, intentionally or not, the economically vulnerable.

Worse, encouraging the rich to give to charity through expanded charitable giving deductions exacerbates wealth inequality. Tax deductions for charitable giving have been turned into a profitable tax dodge for millionaires and billionaires. In a report from the Institute for Policy Studies, it was found that “regular taxpayers subsidize high-end philanthropy”:

• $73.34 billion in tax revenue was lost to the public in 2022 due to personal and corporate charitable deductions.

• If we include only the limited data we have on charitable bequests and charities’ own investments, the revenue loss rises to roughly $111 billion.

• And if we also include the capital gains revenue lost from the donation of appreciated assets, the true revenue costs of charity likely add up to several hundred billion dollars each year.

Loughlin thinks that the drive to tax millionaires is unrelated to tax fairness, and instead comes from a place of jealousy, writing, “Rhode Island’s future depends on choosing growth over envy…” This is a common attack from those who see the economy and our places within it as a fair accounting of winners and losers, as if the tax system and state and federal laws established a level playing field in which anyone can succeed with enough pluck, hard work, and intelligence. It denies the existence of criminalized poverty, the monopolization of housing, food deserts, environmental racism, inherited wealth, inverted tax codes that favor the wealthy, and a state and federal government that favors oligopolies. It’s better to make you believe that you are poor and struggling due to your own lack of effort, not by forces beyond your control, under the guidance of a wealthy few.

In his press release, Loughlin pledged threatened that if elected Lieutenant Governor, he would work with the General Assembly to enact these reforms immediately and block any version of the millionaire’s tax. This is a threat to take seriously.

Share

Co-op Rhody criticizes today’s preliminary injunction as the latest in a four-year pattern of delays that have benefited incumbent dispensaries while imposing serious financial harm on workers’ cooperative and social equity applicants who were required to invest heavily in the application process. We call on the Cannabis Control Commission to act immediately by issuing emergency regulations and setting a clear timeline that applicants, workers, investors, and cultivators can rely on.

Today, in response to the preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court of Rhode Island in the case of Jensen v. Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission, Co-op Rhody issues the following statement:

“For nearly four years, the CCC has delayed its obligation – and legislative mandate – to review and grant cannabis licenses to new retailers. This delay has permitted a group of seven operators to make extraordinary, nation-leading profits at rates substantially higher than most similar businesses across the country. Social equity and workers’ cooperative applicants have suffered because of the CCC’s stalling.

“Today’s court decision against the CCC further delays the licensing process. It was also entirely predictable - the plaintiff in this case has filed the same lawsuit against multiple other states- and, as the Court noted, the “resulting fall-out will be, to be blunt, self-inflicted [by the CCC].”

“Co-op Rhody is deeply concerned that the Court’s preliminary injunction and the failure of the CCC to prepare for it will further harm the social equity and workers’ cooperative applicants who cannot afford further delay, and will benefit incumbent retailers. We call on the CCC to use the powers it has available under the Rhode Island Cannabis Act to address the Court’s injunction, to stop delaying the licensing process, and to focus on ensuring real Rhode Islanders can benefit from the cannabis economy.

“The Rhode Island Cannabis Act, which legalized adult-use sales and mandated the release of 24 new retail licenses, passed in 2022, but today, eight existing dispensaries still maintain a monopoly on cannabis sales in the $120 million market. As new licenses continue to be delayed, Rhode Island’s incumbent operators are the nation’s most profitable cannabis retailers, and the State forgoes millions in new tax revenue (according to a Whitney Economics report, the tax revenue lost until new dispensaries open is estimated at $7.4 million in 2026 and will double in 2027).

“Applicants for new cannabis retail licenses were required to make significant upfront investments in order to complete the Commission’s incredibly burdensome application, which was due in December 2025. The application required proof of site control, zoning approval, and secured funding. Despite the high cost of entry, under-resourced groups of workers made the sacrifices necessary to prepare and submit qualified licenses for workers’ cooperative and social equity licenses.

“Now, an indefinite pause on the licensing process poses serious financial harm for applicants, who face compounding monthly costs just to remain candidates in a lottery with no guaranteed timeline.

“But the Commission can fix this today. R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.11-32 declares every provision of the Cannabis Act severable. Sections 21-28.11-5(a)(1) and 42-35-2.10 give the Commission rulemaking and emergency-rulemaking authority.

“We demand that the Cannabis Control Commission:

1. Announce within 48 hours whether it intends to appeal the ruling in Jensen v. R.I. Cannabis Control Commission — and if it does not, stipulate to a consent decree;

2. Publish emergency regulations within 30 days, removing the enjoined language and establishing interim application procedures consistent with the court’s ruling; and

3. Immediately begin processing applications from worker cooperatives and social-equity applicants under those interim procedures, on a schedule that credits the time and money they have already spent in good-faith reliance on the Commission’s rules.

“Other states have already taken similar approaches. New York narrowed a similar injunction and kept licensing (Variscite N.Y. Four, LLC v. N.Y. State Cannabis Bd., 152 F.4th 47 (2d Cir. 2025)). Maine amended its law after the First Circuit struck down its residency rule and kept licensing (Northeast Patients Group v. United Cannabis Patients & Caregivers of Maine, 45 F.4th 542 (1st Cir. 2022) — the same precedent Judge DuBose found controlling today). Both cases were decided well before the CCC locked the enjoined language into its final rules on May 1, 2025.

“The Commission was aware of the Northeast Patients Group case for nearly three years before it locked the enjoined language into its own regulations. It chose to ignore the warning. Applicants are paying for that choice in rent, fees, and lost years. The court did not mince words: the Commission “knowing[ly]” pressed ahead with an application process it had been warned was constitutionally defective, and “[t]he resulting fall-out will be, to be blunt, self-inflicted.”

“Today’s ruling is not a new crisis. It is the latest chapter in a four-year pattern of delay that has enriched a handful of incumbent retailers while freezing out workers’ cooperatives and social-equity applicants who relied on the law the General Assembly passed in May 2022.

“We cannot continue to delay the opportunity for market participation while a handful of incumbent operators benefit from artificial scarcity and less advantaged applicants suffer from costly delays. The CCC must do everything in its power to expedite the licensing process and set a firm lottery date in short order that applicants, workers, investors, and cultivators can depend on.”

Share

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha today joined a coalition of 23 attorneys general and one governor in announcing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, challenging his unlawful Executive Order that attempts to interfere with states’ constitutional authority to administer elections by restricting voter eligibility and mail voting to lists of voters pre-authorized by the federal government. The lawsuit will be filed in the District of Massachusetts later today.

As alleged in the complaint, the Executive Order would purportedly require states to act contrary to their own voter roll procedures, vote-by-mail systems, and voter registration laws.

“With the stroke of a pen, this President is attempting to undermine elections and sidestep the deeply rooted authority of states to administer elections,” said Attorney General Neronha. “This President cannot be permitted to bypass the Constitution by threatening officials and withholding congressionally approved funding, as we have proved in court time and time again. With upcoming elections deciding our next leaders, from city council to Congress, we will not jeopardize the integrity of our democratic process to appease the individual at the helm of the executive branch. This is a direct attack on the central pillar of our democracy, and we will not let this Administration restrict Rhode Islander’s right to vote.”

On March 31, President Trump signed an Executive Order attempting to establish a national list of eligible voters and directing the U.S. Postal Service, an independent federal agency, to transmit mail ballots only to those on the list. In the Order, the President threatens states and election officials with criminal prosecution and the loss of federal funding if they do not comply with his demands.

State and federal law entitle all eligible voters to cast ballots and have their votes counted in state and federal elections. The states filing this lawsuit, including Rhode Island, permit registered voters to cast their ballots by mail if they meet their state’s requirements for doing so. Voters of all parties, in all states, and across all demographics use mail-in voting – including the President himself.

In their lawsuit, the coalition argues that the U.S. Constitution gives states the primary authority to administer elections. Moreover, the President cannot unilaterally change federal election procedures, particularly without an act of Congress permitting him to do so.

The administration of elections is highly complex and requires substantial planning and preparation. The attorneys general argue that the President’s Executive Order would require states to upend their existing election administration procedures for upcoming elections and conduct statewide voter education at a dangerously quick pace – potentially within weeks of primary elections and mere months before the beginning of mail voting for the 2026 general election. Such drastic and rapid changes will undoubtedly create confusion, chaos, and distrust in state election systems, all while threatening to disenfranchise eligible voters.

The complaint further alleges that the President’s Executive Order violates the separation of powers and unlawfully interferes with states’ mail voting programs. The coalition asks the court to declare the challenged provisions of the Executive Order unconstitutional and void, and enjoin the federal government from implementing or enforcing the Executive Order.

Joining Attorney General Neronha in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Colombia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the Governor of Pennsylvania.

Share

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha today joined a coalition of 21 states and local governments in filing a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s repeal of the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule and return to outdated standards that harm the environment and public health.

The MATS Rule implements nationwide standards that limit emissions of toxic air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants, including mercury, arsenic, lead, and other toxic metals, as well as acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and formaldehyde. In 2024, following significant developments in technologies for controlling pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated the standards for emissions of these hazardous air pollutants from power plants. Last month, the Trump administration rolled back the updated standard, allowing for more of these dangerous emissions to be released into the air.

“Public health and safety should be the top priority of any government,” said Attorney General Neronha. “Here, we have the Trump Administration once again acting recklessly and without good reason in rolling back important emissions standards that help mitigate the potentially disastrous health effects of toxic air pollutants associated with power plants like mercury and arsenic. Americans should be able to trust that their government is working to make their lives better, but unfortunately this Administration has proven time and time again that the safety and quality of life of the American people doesn’t factor into their decision making. Nevertheless, we will fight hard to reverse this irresponsible decision.”

While mercury and other hazardous air pollutants disproportionately harm people who live near coal- and oil-fired power plants, their emissions can also travel long distances and be deposited in other states. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that poses serious dangers to public health, especially for pregnant women and children. For example, a pregnant person’s consumption of mercury exposes their child to mercury and can cause lifelong developmental harms and neurological disorders such as seizures, vision and hearing loss, or delayed development. Mercury exposure also increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune dysfunction in adults.

Mercury emissions from power plants are also a major contributor to mercury contamination in U.S. waterways. Mercury pollution in lakes and rivers harms the local commercial and recreation fishing economies, as well as tribal nations and indigenous peoples that rely on fishing for subsistence.

The coalition argues that the repeal is unlawful because the EPA has failed to provide a reasoned basis for it and failed to adequately consider developments in practices, processes, and control technologies in its attempt to revert to outdated standards. The coalition is asking the court to determine that the rule is unlawful and must be reversed.

Joining Attorney General Neronha in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the city of New York, the city of Chicago, and Harris County, Texas.

Share

From a Rent Stabilization Coalition press release:

The Providence City Council received hundreds of testimony submissions regarding its proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance, but there has been uncertainty about how many of those submissions were from actual Providence residents. The City Council and City Clerk’s Office have now released a breakdown of the listed place of residence associated with the received testimony. The breakdown shows that Providence residents who submitted testimony supported the proposed ordinance by a significant margin. Among Providence residents, 304 pieces of non-duplicative testimony were submitted in support of the Rent Stabilization ordinance. By contrast, Providence residents submitted only 183 pieces of non-duplicative testimony in opposition.

The data breakdown, performed by the Department of the City Clerk and the City Council’s office, was released by the Rent Stabilization Coalition. The Coalition is a citywide alliance of grassroots organizations, tenant advocates, and community leaders working together to advance housing stability in Providence. The members of our coalition include: Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE), SISTA Fire, Reclaim RI, Providence Organization of Workers and Renters (POWR), the Olneyville Neighborhood Association (ONA), the Center for Justice (CFJ), and the Rhode Island State Council of Churches.

The Coalition is grounded in direct organizing with tenants across neighborhoods most impacted by rising rents, displacement, and unsafe housing conditions. Coalition members have fought together to bring resident leadership to the forefront in this battle. The testimony breakdown reinforces what Coalition organizers have heard across the city through direct outreach and testimony. Providence residents most impacted by rising rents are leading the call for Rent Stabilization, and City Council data now make it clear there is broad public support for Rent Stabilization among Providence residents.

The data also show that the majority of the testimony that was received in opposition to the proposed ordinance came from non-Providence residents. A significant portion of those were individuals who do not reside in Rhode Island at all. Less than 44% of the (non-duplicative) testimony submitted in opposition to the ordinance came from Providence residents. By contrast, nearly 93% of (non-duplicative) support for the ordinance came from Providence residents.

The ratios of testimony received by the Council had previously been expressed only as raw totals. The breakdown reveals that those raw totals provided an incomplete and misleading picture of the testimony. In total, the Council received 619 opposition letters and 349 supporting letters. However, 199 of those in opposition were duplicate submissions. Only 21 of those in support were duplicate submissions.

Excluding duplicates, around 56% of testimony received by the Council expressed opposition — 420 opposed to 328 supporting. Among Providence residents, however, that ratio was weighted in favor of rent stabilization, with around 62% of testimony in support of the ordinance.

“We listen to residents every day who are living with instability,” said Ditra Edwards, Director of SISTA Fire. “People whose rent jumps hundreds of dollars. People are choosing between rent and food. People are dealing with unsafe conditions with no response. Their lived experience is expertise. Their lived experience should guide city policy. Rent stabilization is a direct response to what residents have already told us they need to survive and stay rooted in their communities.”

“This breakdown perfectly illustrates why we need Rent Stabilization,” said Will Casey, THA Case Coordinator of DARE. “We need to regulate the big landlords because they’ll engage in shady and underhanded tactics to stay in power. Whether it’s rent gouging, speculating, or generating hundreds of duplicate and out-of-town testimony submissions to inflate their numbers, we can’t expect honesty from the corporate landlords who oppose this. This is exactly why we need Rent Stabilization.”

“We introduced Rent Stabilization because we’ve been seeing higher rents across Providence each year, and we needed to protect our community from getting displaced,” said Providence City Councilmember Miguel Sanchez (Ward 6). “What we’re seeing in this data is a clear message from the people of our city, who are demanding that these massive rent increases stop.”

“In our organizing conversations with tenants all over Providence, we hear resounding and near-universal support for common-sense protections like Rent Stabilization,” said Siraj Sindhu, Executive Director of Reclaim RI. “This data breakdown confirms that the working people of Providence strongly support Rent Stabilization. It strongly suggests that the opposition is primarily landlords who often live outside of the city or even in other states, but who have the time and money to disproportionately influence the political process.”

Share

From a press release:

A group of eight clergy members representing a diversity of faith communities serving East Greenwich, Rhode Island, has written a letter to the East Greenwich community expressing support for the Jewish community and solidarity in condemning antisemitic graffiti in three public schools:

To the East Greenwich Community:

As religious leaders in East Greenwich, we are writing today with a shared sense of grief, profound concern, and absolute solidarity. The recent discovery of antisemitic graffiti at Hanaford Elementary School, Cole Middle School, and East Greenwich High School is an assault on us all and a violation of the safe community we work hard to build.

To the Jewish community: Please hear this clearly – you are not alone. We see you, we value you, and we stand with you. When any group within our town is targeted, our entire community is diminished. These acts of hate do not represent the values of East Greenwich, and we unequivocally condemn them.

We see these incidents as part of a distressing trend of hateful behavior in our public spaces. We know that removing the graffiti, as school officials have done, does not erase the fear, pain, and discomfort it causes students and families. Such rhetoric has no place in our schools or our town.

We are grateful for the work of East Greenwich Police and East Greenwich Public Schools in investigating these incidents. We look for timely and appropriate communication to the community about the outcomes and consequences of these incidents. We know that a meaningful response must not be limited to identifying and disciplining the children who committed these acts. We are committed to fostering a culture of understanding and respect in our entire community. We support educational programming for children and adults with the message that East Greenwich is “No Place for Hate.”

As clergy, we call upon all members of our congregations – and all citizens of East Greenwich – to proactively engage in conversations about empathy, responsibility, and the impact of our words and actions. We must stand together against antisemitism, racism, and all forms of bigotry.

We look forward to a continued partnership with Jewish leaders in our town and across Rhode Island to ensure that East Greenwich remains a place where every individual feels safe, welcomed, and honored.

In solidarity and with hope for peace,

• Reverend Deborah Bennett, Minister, Westminster Unitarian Church, East Greenwich

• Pastor Thom Blackstone, The United Methodist Church in East Greenwich

• Reverend John M. Fountain, Rector, St.Luke’s Episcopal Church, East Greenwich

• Rabbi Jeffrey Goldwasser, Temple Sinai, Cranston

• Reverend Bernard A. Healey, JCL, S.T.L., Pastor, Our Lady of Mercy Church, East Greenwich

• Reverend Cheryl Lavornia, Christ Church, East Greenwich

• Reverend Dr. Jonathan Malone, Pastoral Associate, St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, East Greenwich

• Rabbi Ari Y. Saks, Temple Torat Yisrael, East Greenwich

Share

From a press release:

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha today joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration over its unconstitutional and unlawful attempt to impose conditions on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs, grants, cooperative agreements, and mutual interest agreements.

In their lawsuit, the coalition asserts that USDA has threatened harsh penalties if states do not comply with the agency’s vague and expansive funding conditions relating to immigration, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and gender identity, which are unrelated to the purpose of USDA funding. The lawsuit asks the court to block USDA from imposing these illegal funding conditions, including on critical USDA programs such as the school lunch program, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), and the Volunteer Fire Capacity Program.

“This President would rather Americans go hungry than disagree with him politically,” said Attorney General Neronha. “As this Administration has attempted to do in the recent past, and failed, they are once again trying to make federal funding for essential services contingent on political capitulation. This was plainly illegal when they tried to do it with funding for transportation, emergency preparedness, and other essential areas, and it is plainly illegal here. Millions upon millions of Americans struggle with food insecurity and rely on this funding to feed themselves and their families. They cannot and will not impose illegal conditions on this funding; we will make sure of it.”

Effective December 31, 2025, USDA adopted new funding conditions. The conditions require states to pledge to comply with the Trump Administration’s policies on gender identity, diversity, immigration, and fair athletic opportunities for girls and women. However, as the attorneys general explain in their lawsuit, USDA does not clearly identify or limit which policies the states must comply with, leaving states at the mercy of the administration in enforcing the new conditions.

In their lawsuit, the coalition alleges that the Trump Administration has violated the Spending Clause by imposing coercive conditions without clear notice of its funding conditions. The lawsuit also alleges the Trump Administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because conditions are arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional, contrary to law, and beyond USDA’s statutory authority.

USDA programs feed about 30 million children across the nation through the school lunch program, strengthen the American food ecosystem from farm to table, support national security by fostering a robust, safe domestic agricultural community, fund university research to advance domestic food production, and save lives and infrastructure by funding firefighting programs.

In FY 2024 alone, the State of Rhode Island and its agencies received over $418 million in USDA funding, the vast majority of which went towards feeding Rhode Island’s most vulnerable populations. The State depends on USDA funding to feed its residents and run several critical programs, and even a temporary loss of USDA funding could quickly lead to food insecurity, financial stress, unemployment, and poor student outcomes, among other negative impacts.

Joining Attorney General Neronha in filing the lawsuit are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

Share

From a press release:

The Economic Progress Institute (EPI) and nearly two dozen additional policy and community organizations recently called on the General Assembly to take immediate action to protect residents from the harmful impacts of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R.1).

There are already crisis-level shortages in housing, affordable childcare, and elder care, the coalition warns in its letter,1 delivered late last week. There is also a shortage of primary care doctors, and many are being forced to go without health insurance, not because they don’t need it, but because they can’t pay for it. In addition, Rhode Island has one of the highest rates of chronic homelessness in the country.

Meeting basic needs has even become an impossible challenge for so many neighbors, essential workers, families, small business owners, older residents, and more. With H.R.1, 53,000 residents risk losing health coverage, and up to 14,000 could lose SNAP benefits unless the state takes action.

“Rhode Island is already at its breaking point,” said Nina Harrison, EPI’s policy director. “These federal cuts will worsen the state’s affordability challenges, deepen inequities, and push more families into instability unless our elected officials act decisively now.”

The coalition outlines several urgent risks:

• Healthcare system strain: Increased uninsured residents could overwhelm emergency rooms and raise costs statewide

• Rising inequity: Disproportionate harm to immigrant communities and Rhode Islanders of color

• Food insecurity: Thousands at risk of losing SNAP benefits amid rising costs

These impacts could lead to increased homelessness, uncompensated hospital care, and long-term economic instability. To mitigate these risks, the coalition urges lawmakers to:

• Advance tax justice by taxing the top one percent of income earners (only on taxable income above $640,000 per year) to generate over $200 million annually;

• Protect healthcare access through state subsidies and expanded care systems;

• Strengthen food security by investing in SNAP and local service providers; and

• Invest in community infrastructure, including transit, workforce programs, and public communication systems.

“The path forward requires bold action and equitable investment,” states the coalition in its letter sent to all General Assembly members, Governor Daniel McKee, and members of his staff during an advocacy day at the State House on March 19. “Rhode Island must act now to prevent widespread harm and ensure economic security for all residents.”

Share

From a press release:

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha today joined a coalition of 16 attorneys general filing a lawsuit challenging unlawful actions by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including threats to withhold funding from state and local fair housing enforcement agencies for abiding by state laws and threats to impose illegal conditions on HUD funding. These actions threaten to weaken America’s fair housing enforcement system and undermine states’ ability to ensure equal access to housing.

“This Administration is nothing if not consistent in its attempts to make life much harder for the vast majority of Americans,” said Attorney General Neronha. “For decades, HUD has worked in tandem with state agencies to root out discriminatory housing practices. We know this President isn’t guided by morality but by perceived political expedience. Even so, it’s hard to wrap one’s mind around why he thinks making it harder for Americans to obtain housing would fit into that category. HUD’s new guidance ignores the states’ right to enact laws that make sense for their residents and unlawfully attempts to hold federal funding hostage from those who don’t capitulate. There are few things more important than housing, and we will fight to make sure these longstanding protections stay intact.”

Sixty years ago, Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to address pervasive housing discrimination. Congress also created a robust partnership between HUD and state and local agencies, known as the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), to enforce this landmark civil rights law in tandem with state fair housing laws. The FHAP has had strong bipartisan support in Congress and stable funding since its establishment in 1980.

Through the FHAP, HUD refers allegations of housing discrimination to state and local partner agencies for investigation and enforcement. These agencies receive HUD funding, which they use to process housing discrimination complaints, train staff, and support community outreach and education.

In September 2025, HUD issued guidance threatening to decertify FHAP state agencies from the program and cut off funding unless they stop enforcing crucial protections against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, language, criminal records, and source of income. The guidance also bars agencies from pursuing claims targeting housing practices that may appear neutral but are discriminatory and have a disparate impact on certain populations. In Rhode Island and many other states, these fair housing protections are enshrined in state law.

In addition to the threat to decertify partner agencies, HUD is attempting to impose vague, ideologically motivated, and unlawful conditions on program funding. Further, the coalition asserts that the administration’s actions will raise the costs of enforcing state and federal fair housing laws in their states. They also argue that HUD’s vague conditions will sow confusion over enforcement.

In Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights (RICHR) is charged with antidiscrimination law enforcement and is a participating agency in FHAP. RICHR enforces the Rhode Island Fair Housing Practices Act, which expressly provides protections based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, lawful source of income, military status, ancestral origin, disability, age, familial status, and status as a victim of domestic abuse. Because Rhode Island’s Fair Housing Act expressly protects classes beyond those listed in the FHA, the policy change puts RICHR at risk of losing its substantial equivalence certification for enforcing broader provisions than those deemed allowed by HUD.

The attorneys general note that this unlawful ultimatum comes after HUD gutted its own fair housing enforcement capabilities by slashing its headcount and significantly reducing the number of housing discrimination cases it charges. The agency also fired employee whistleblowers after they publicly sounded the alarm about its decimation of fair housing enforcement.

The coalition’s lawsuit alleges that HUD’s guidance violates the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies implement rule changes.

Joining Attorney General Neronha in filing the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

Share

The People’s Port Authority is calling on the Providence Board of Licenses to deny the new license application for Rhode Island Recycled Metals LLC (dba Rhode Island Recycled Metals), located at 434 Allens Avenue.

Here’s a link to the Board of Licenses hearing.

The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 4:32 pm (yes, 4:32, not a misprint) in the Providence City Hall Probate Courtroom, 25 Dorrance Street, 5th Floor.

The unlicensed facility has a long history of serious problems, including multiple fires, safety concerns, and ongoing violations that have repeatedly put the surrounding community at risk. These incidents have been widely reported in the news and have raised significant concerns about the company’s ability to operate safely and responsibly in a densely populated neighborhood.

[See: Yet another disaster in the Port of Providence - When will this end? and Neighbors call for action on RI Recycled Metals and other Port polluters]

“I oppose any new license to operate a junk shop or anything else at Rhode Island Recycled Metals along Allen’s Avenue,” said Linda Perri, President of the Washington Park Neighborhood Association. “They have severely damaged the land and water, and have current unresolved legal issues pending. I urge that this new license board deny any further expansion at RIRM of any commercial business along the water, the dependent zone in which it is located.”

Residents of South Providence and Washington Park already live with the cumulative impacts of heavy industry, pollution, and dangerous facilities concentrated in the Port area. Granting a new license to a company with this track record would continue to endanger our community.

“For years, residents of South Providence and Washington Park have been forced to live with fires, toxic smoke, and constant safety risks coming from this facility,” said Monica Huertas, Founder of the People’s Port Authority. “Our community should not have to keep paying the price for a company that has repeatedly shown it cannot operate safely. The Board of Licenses must deny this application and finally put residents’ health and safety first.

“We urge the Providence Board of Licenses to prioritize residents’ health and safety and deny this license application.”

“For years, our neighbors in South Providence have been forced to breathe the smoke, deal with the noise, and live with the risk that comes from a facility that has repeatedly failed to operate safely,” said Representative David Morales, who is running for Mayor of Providence. “Enough is enough. Our communities should not be treated as dumping grounds for dangerous industrial operations.

“A company that has repeatedly put our neighbors at risk should not be rewarded with another license to operate. I urge the Board of Licenses to stand with our community and deny this application. All our communities deserve clean air, safe neighborhoods, and a city government willing to stand up to polluters.”

Share

From a press release:

Members of the Rhode Island General Assembly call on Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse and Representatives Gabe Amo and Seth Magaziner to reject President Donald Trump’s illegal and unjust war in Iran. The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. Congress must act now to prevent more bloodshed and wasteful weapons spending, and to avoid widespread conflict in the region.

Nearly 60% of Americans disapprove of U.S. military action in Iran, which has already led to seven U.S. service members’ deaths. Additionally, over 1000 Iranians have been killed in Tehran alone during Trump’s illegal war, including an estimated 175 people – mostly schoolgirls between the ages of 7 and 12 – in an attack likely caused by U.S. missiles. In just under a week, the war has already cost U.S. taxpayers over $5 billion.

President Trump is expected to request an additional $50 billion in emergency funding from Congress to fuel the U.S.-Israel war in Iran. These are precious taxpayer dollars that should be invested back into housing, healthcare, and education that the American people need, not in weapons manufacturers or the ultra-rich, who run defense companies.

Rhode Islanders, like Americans across the country, are already experiencing higher fuel, utility, and grocery costs in addition to the escalating costs of housing. U.S. involvement in this war has now further increased fuel costs, which will have downstream impacts on utilities, groceries, and transportation.

This war is unpopular and comes with an expensive price tag that everyday American taxpayers will be expected to pay with their loved ones’ lives and their dwindling paychecks.

We respectfully call on our state Congressional leaders to hold the line and reject any funding for Trump’s illegal war and demand that he seek Congressional approval for future actions.

Signatories include:

• Senator Jonathan Acosta

• Senator Alana DiMario

• Senator Dawn Euer

• Senator Meghan Kallman

• Senator Pam Lauria

• Senator Tiara Mack

• Representative Edith Ajello

• Representative Jose Batista

• Representative Cherie Cruz

• Representative Leonela Felix

• Representative Kathy Fogarty

• Representative Rebecca Kislack

• Representative Michelle McGaw

• Representative Brandon Potter

• Representative Enrique Sanchez

• Representative Jennifer Stewart

Also: Email Jack Reed: Not a dime for Trump’s war!

Email Senator Jack Reed’s office now — tell him to use every tool at his disposal to block funding for this war.

Email Sen. Reed Now

According to Politico, Senator Jack Reed is leaving the door open to supporting Trump’s request for billions in “emergency funds” to finance his unpopular and illegal war on Iran. In response, grassroots groups representing thousands of Rhode Islanders have demanded that he and other members of the congressional delegation vote against any request for additional military funding and do everything in their power to end the war. The undersigned organizations have told Reed that “a vote to fund Trump’s war is also a vote for his war on our democracy. Rhode Islanders say no to fascism, no to war!”

• We demand that Sen. Jack Reed and other members of Rhode Island’s congressional delegation do everything they can to stop this war.

• We demand that all vote “no” on any Trump request for additional military funding.

As ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Reed has real power here. Rhode Islanders need him to be a national leader in blocking funding for Trump’s needless and deadly war of aggression.

A vote to fund Trump’s war is also a vote for his war on our democracy. Rhode Islanders say no to fascism, no to war!

As of 5 pm Thursday, the letter had been signed by over a dozen groups, including:

• Cranston Forward

• Indivisible Metro RI

• Indivisible Island

• Lil’ Rhody Visibility Brigade

• West Bay Blue Wave

• Indivisible East Bay RI

• Indivisible Island

• India Point Bridge Brigade

• Jewish Voice for Peace-RI

• StandUP Rhode Island

• South County Rising

• Newport Bridge Brigade

• Restore Democracy

• Reclaim RI

Share

From a press release:

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general and two governors in filing a lawsuit to block President Donald Trump’s latest efforts to impose illegal tariffs on American consumers and businesses. The case challenges President Trump’s most recent efforts to increase tariffs worldwide without congressional approval.

“Like most everything this President does, his imposition of tariffs has been fraught with chaos, and Americans are literally paying the price,” said Attorney General Neronha. “While I may not always agree with the Supreme Court’s decisions, they recently made clear, in no uncertain terms, that the President cannot unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs. As I’ve said many times before, the Trump Administration would do well to brush up on the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to levy taxes and regulate foreign commerce, not the President. Americans don’t want economic uncertainty; they want stability, something which is severely lacking in this Administration. Americans shouldn’t have to pay more for goods because of the erratic whims of one man, and we will fight to make sure they don’t.”

For more than a year, President Trump has inflicted chaos on the American economy by imposing tariffs without the legal authority to do so. Initially, the President claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allowed him to impose tariffs of any amount on any product from any country for any length of time. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court rejected that argument, concluding that the IEEPA tariffs were unlawful.

Rather than accepting that loss in court, President Trump immediately turned to a separate law that has never been used before—Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—and announced 15 percent tariffs on most products worldwide, seemingly to address trade deficits. But Section 122 does not apply. That law authorizes tariffs in limited circumstances, including when there are “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits.” Notably, a trade deficit is not a balance-of-payments deficit, meaning that once again the President is acting unlawfully.

A recent analysis by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concluded that nearly 90 percent of the costs of tariffs in 2025 were paid by American consumers and businesses. By imposing another round of price increases on American consumers and businesses, President Trump is doubling down on failed economic policies.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in the United States Court of International Trade, challenges this latest round of tariffs. The complaint contends that these actions by President Trump and his administration violate the law, upend constitutional separation of powers, and violate the Administrative Procedure Act.

Joining Attorney General Neronha in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear.

Share

From a press release:

A new report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) finds that there are just 54 affordable and available rental homes for every 100 extremely low-income households in Rhode Island.

The report, The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Homes, also reveals a national shortage of 7.2 million affordable and available rental homes for extremely low-income renter households – those with incomes at or below the poverty level or 30% of their area median income, whichever is greater – resulting in just 35 affordable and available rental homes for every 100 extremely low-income renter households nationwide.

That’s a gap of 23,222 affordable and available rental homes for extremely low-income renters in Rhode Island.

These findings come amidst ongoing attacks on federal housing resources.

“The annual Gap report reflects what too many Rhode Islanders are living every day: rents that stretch paychecks beyond their limits and impossible choices between housing, food, medicine, and other basic needs,” said Melina Lodge, Executive Director of the Housing Network of Rhode Island.1 “We are still not producing enough homes affordable to residents with the lowest incomes, leaving families without the stability they need to thrive. At a time when federal housing resources are increasingly uncertain, we must recommit to reversing decades of underinvestment and restrictive land use policies and expand deeply affordable housing so people can count on a safe, stable place to call home.”

Released annually, The Gap investigates the affordability and availability of rental homes for households of different income levels nationwide. The supply of affordable rental housing for extremely low-income households remains deeply inadequate nationwide and in Rhode Island.

As a result, 70% of extremely low-income renters in Rhode Island are housing cost-burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing.

Of Rhode Island’s 50,063 extremely low-income renters, 55% are severely housing-cost burdened, spending more than half of their income on housing, leaving little left over for food, health care, and other basic necessities.

“The GAP report highlights some facts in our most recent Housing Fact Book,” said Brenda Clement, Executive Director of HousingWorks RI2 at Roger Williams University. “For the first time, Rhode Island renters need an income that exceeds the median renter income ($48,434) to affordably rent anywhere in the state. Similarly, homeownership is out of reach. Even with an income of $100,000, potential homebuyers are priced out of homeownership opportunities throughout Rhode Island. High housing costs and high rates of housing cost burden (1/3 of Rhode Islanders) continue to pose significant threats to residents wellbeing and economic security.”

The private market, without subsidy, is unable to provide an adequate supply of housing affordable to the lowest-income renters. What extremely low-income renters can afford to pay for rent does not cover the development and operating costs of new housing, and it is often insufficient to provide an incentive for landlords to maintain older housing.

The result is a systemic shortage of affordable housing for extremely low-income renters, impacting nearly every community, including in Rhode Island.

Subsidies are needed to produce new affordable housing, preserve existing affordable housing, or subsidize the difference between what the lowest-income renters can afford to pay and market rents.

“The findings from The Gap show that no state or major metropolitan area has an adequate supply of affordable and available homes for extremely low-income renters,” said NLIHC President and CEO Renee M. Willis. “It is a sad fact that only one in four households that qualify for housing assistance receive it. When renters are housing cost-burdened, they cannot afford to cover other basic necessities such as food, healthcare, transportation, or childcare. Congress has the solutions to increase housing affordability across the country. They must support robust housing assistance programs that can alleviate the housing crisis and ensure the wellbeing of millions of the lowest-income renters.”

Share

From a press release:

Pro-democracy and human rights organizations representing thousands of Rhode Islanders have issued a formal letter to the management of the Crowne Plaza Providence-Warwick, expressing deep concern and anger over the hotel’s decision to host the upcoming Turning Point USA “Rhode Island First Rally” on March 7, 2026.

The organizations say the hotel’s choice to provide a platform for individuals associated with the January 6 attack, election denialism, and extremist rhetoric is “deeply at odds with the values of Rhode Islanders and the community-centered reputation the Crowne Plaza has long cultivated.”

The letter emphasizes that the Crowne Plaza has long been regarded as a family-friendly, community-oriented venue that hosts sports teams, weddings, conferences, and cultural events. The decision to host this rally, the organizations argue, jeopardizes that reputation.

“The Crowne Plaza is a well-known hotel with an important position in Rhode Island’s economy. We believe that your employees and guests deserve to know the rhetoric and past behavior of the people you are hosting at this upcoming event,” the letter states.

The organizations also warn that Rhode Islanders are prepared to “vote with their wallets” in response to the hotel’s decision:

• Many residents are reconsidering whether the Crowne Plaza reflects the values of the community it serves.

• Member organizations plan to inform their networks, supporters, and partner groups about the hotel’s decision.

• Rhode Islanders may choose alternative venues for conferences, weddings, reunions, and professional gatherings.

The letter concludes by urging the hotel to take the community’s concerns seriously, which have long supported its business.

Here’s the letter received by Peggy Oliver, manager of the Crowne Plaza Providence-Warwick:

“This letter is co-signed by more than ten pro-democracy and human rights organizations representing thousands of Rhode Islanders, to express our deep concern and anger around your hotel’s decision to host the upcoming Turning Point USA ‘Rhode Island First Rally’ on Saturday, March 7, 2026.

“Our organizations have long defended free speech and freedom of assembly, including for viewpoints we strongly oppose. However, Turning Point USA and its affiliates have repeatedly worked to undermine those very freedoms for others. Their alignment with anti-democratic movements, including actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, is well documented. Their exclusionary rhetoric has caused real fear among many Rhode Islanders, particularly those from communities targeted by their messaging.

“The Crowne Plaza is a respected Rhode Island institution with a long history of hosting sports teams, family gatherings, and community-centered events. Many Rhode Islanders—including your own employees—will be shocked and dismayed that the hotel is choosing to host a rally featuring individuals whose rhetoric and actions undermine democratic values and threaten the safety and dignity of vulnerable communities. This decision has already sparked significant concern among residents who have long viewed your hotel as a welcoming and community-minded establishment.

“The headline speakers at this event include individuals whose public records and statements are alarming to residents across our state:

• Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI before receiving a presidential pardon. He has since become a prominent figure in the Christian Nationalist movement, promoting QAnon conspiracy theories and election denialism. At a 2021 Texas rally, he openly argued against the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, stating: “If we are going to have one nation under God… we have to have one religion.” He has also suggested using the military to seize voting machines and “rerun” the 2020 election.

• Vic Mellor, the congressional candidate this rally is designed to support, has not lived in Rhode Island for more than 30 years. He has publicly described COVID-19 as a “hoax,” opposes all vaccines, and refers to those who trust them as “weak” and “lazy.” Mellor has acknowledged attending the January 6th insurrection and was photographed wearing a shirt reading “VIOLENCE MIGHT BE THE ANSWER.” He has used his wealth to fund anti-science and anti-public-health campaigns, including efforts to take over public hospital boards to advance anti-vaccine agendas.

• Ramona Bessinger, a Providence teacher, has built a national platform by claiming that standard equity and inclusion curricula discriminate against white students. She is currently suing the Rhode Island Department of Health, arguing that a state law requiring minority representation on public boards constitutes unconstitutional discrimination against white applicants.

• Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is one of the country’s most prominent spreaders of medical disinformation. In 2021, she testified before the Ohio House Health Committee that COVID-19 vaccines could “magnetize” people and interact with 5G towers. Her refusal to cooperate with the State Medical Board of Ohio’s investigation led to the suspension of her medical license in 2023.

• Joe Flynn, brother of Michael Flynn, plays a central role in financing election-denial organizations such as “The America Project” and “America’s Future,” from which he has personally profited.

• Bob Chiaradio, a Rhode Island activist, regularly travels to school committee meetings across the state to demand the rollback of inclusive policies. He targets Title IX protections for transgender students and uses hostile rhetoric, claiming that trans youth are attempting to “erase women.” He advocates for policies that would forcibly “out” transgender students to their parents and labels standard diversity curricula as “Marxist” and “poison.”

“Your hotel has long been known as a place where families gather, sports teams stay, and community events are held. Many Rhode Islanders choose the Crowne Plaza because they believe it reflects the values of the community it serves. Hosting an event featuring individuals who promote exclusion, misinformation, and anti-democratic ideology is difficult to reconcile with that reputation.

“We believe your guests and staff deserve to know who will be speaking at this event and the environment they may encounter. It is reasonable to expect that attendees will share the exclusionary and anti-democratic views of the performers, creating a potentially hostile atmosphere for employees, guests, and neighbors. We will be informing the public about the nature of this event, and we encourage you to do the same.

“Rhode Islanders take pride in supporting businesses that reflect the values of the communities they serve. Many of the people represented by the co-signing organizations have long chosen the Crowne Plaza because of its reputation as a welcoming, family-friendly, community-centered venue. The decision to host this event has caused many to question whether the hotel still aligns with those expectations.

“As consumers, Rhode Islanders have the ability to choose where they hold conferences, weddings, sports banquets, reunions, and professional gatherings. Many have already expressed that they do not wish to support businesses that provide a platform for individuals whose rhetoric promotes exclusion, misinformation, or anti-democratic ideology. We will be sharing these concerns with our members, supporters, and partner organizations so they can make informed decisions about where to spend their money and which venues to trust with their events.

“This is not a step taken lightly. It reflects the seriousness with which Rhode Islanders view the safety, dignity, and democratic rights of their neighbors. We hope the Crowne Plaza will take these concerns seriously and consider how this decision affects your relationship with the community that has supported your business for so many years.”

Signed:

• Li’l Rhode Visibility Brigade

• The West Bay Blue Wave

• South County Resistance

• South County Rising

• Stand Up Rhode Island

• Indivisible East Bay RI

• Cranston Forward

• RI-WTF Resistance Coalition

• Indivisible Metro RI

• Jewish Voice for Peace - RI

• Indivisible South Coast New England

About the Signing Organizations:

Pro-democracy and human rights groups from across Rhode Island and Southern New England cosigned the letter, including many groups involved in area “No Kings” rallies and bridge overpass visibility brigades. These groups emphasize voting rights, the dignity of workers and residents of Rhode Island, and the protection of those who are being cruelly and illegally targeted for abuse and deportation.

See also:

• Michael Flynn and the ‘Destiny of America’

Share

From a press release:

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha joined a coalition of 14 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania in filing a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s radical overhaul of the nation’s childhood immunization schedule. The complaint names Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Jay Bhattacharya, and the CDC and HHS as defendants.

The lawsuit challenges a January 5, 2026, CDC “Decision Memo” that stripped seven childhood vaccines—those protecting against rotavirus, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)—of their universally recommended status. The complaint also challenges the unlawful replacement of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the expert federal panel that has guided U.S. vaccine policy for decades.

“The Trump Administration’s actions here are the natural result of appointing an anti-vaxxer as head of HHS, but that doesn’t mean we’re not going to fight to safeguard public health,” said Attorney General Neronha. “You don’t need to be a scientist to understand the science: for decades, vaccinations have prevented hundreds of millions of cases of illness in this country and have saved Americans trillions of dollars in related expenses. Now, Secretary Kennedy has unlawfully fired all members of a qualified committee charged with protecting our kids’ health and replaced them with those who will do his bidding. If allowed, Americans, and especially our kids, will pay the price. We can’t, and won’t, allow them to endanger the lives of our children.”

According to the 2024 CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, researchers have estimated that among children born in the U.S. between 1994 and 2023, routine childhood vaccinations prevented approximately 508 million cases of illness, 32 million hospitalizations, and over 1.1 million deaths, generating $2.7 trillion in societal savings.

This remarkable achievement has been made possible in large part by leading medical scholars and public health experts who have served on ACIP and established the science-based childhood vaccination schedule that federal agencies, states, and parents have confidently relied on for decades.

In June 2025, Secretary Kennedy abruptly fired all 17 ACIP voting members and replaced them with individuals who lack the scientific qualifications required by ACIP’s own charter and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). At least nine of the 13 current ACIP members lack the expertise or professional qualifications required for the role, and a majority have publicly expressed views aligned with Secretary Kennedy’s well-documented opposition to vaccines.

In December 2025, the reconstituted ACIP reversed nearly thirty years of CDC policy by eliminating the recommendation for a universal hepatitis B birth dose—a vaccine that is up to 90 percent effective in preventing perinatal infection when administered within 24 hours of birth. Shortly thereafter, the CDC expanded its ideological attack on routine childhood vaccines. On January 5, 2026, then-Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill—who has no medical or scientific background—signed off on a “Decision Memo” that demoted seven vaccines from the universally recommended childhood vaccination schedule to a lesser status that invites confusion and uncertainty.

The Decision Memo is not based on any new scientific evidence, any recommendation by a lawfully constituted ACIP, or any systematic review of the available data. Instead, it relied primarily on superficial comparisons to purported “peer countries”—particularly Denmark—while ignoring the fundamental differences between those nations and the United States, as well as the overwhelming evidence supporting the effectiveness of the CDC’s pre-Kennedy childhood immunization schedule. Additionally, in contrast to countries like Denmark with universal healthcare, more than 100 million Americans lack usual access to primary care, making the instruction to “discuss vaccines with your clinician” essentially meaningless.

Lower vaccination rates will, in turn, lead directly to higher rates of infectious disease. For Rhode Island and other states, this means greater strain on their Medicaid programs and public health systems, more time and money spent combating outbreaks and misinformation, and wasted resources spent decoupling state laws, regulations, and public guidance from ACIP’s and CDC’s now-untrustworthy recommendations.

The actions taken by ACIP, HHS, and the CDC are likely to increase vaccine hesitancy in Rhode Island, increasing the risk of vaccine-preventable illness at significant cost to the State. Further, these actions impose significant costs on Rhode Island, which relies heavily on the ACIP’s recommendations to inform its own vaccine policy.

The plaintiff states are asking the court to declare the Kennedy Schedule and the Kennedy ACIP appointments unlawful, and to enjoin, vacate, and set aside both the new immunization schedule and the unlawful appointments.

Joining Attorney General Neronha in filing this lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin, and the Governor of Pennsylvania.

Share

Affordable Rhode Island, a new 501(c)(4) organization, has formed with the mission of advancing public policy solutions to address the affordability crisis facing Rhode Islanders.

This introductory campaign ad will encourage working-class Rhode Islanders to step up and run for office. Learn more about the campaign at AffordableRI.org:

A press conference will be held on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, at 4 pm in Providence to announce the campaign and share details about the organization’s Affordable Rhode Island Agenda. SteveAhlquist.news will cover this event. Location provided upon RSVP to hello@affordableri.org.

In the coming weeks, the campaign will publicize public opinion polling of Rhode Island voters on the Affordable RI Policy Agenda.

“Rhode Islanders are in an affordability crisis,” said Affordable RI Chair Jesse Martin. “While housing and healthcare costs soar, wages remain stagnant. There is a profound disconnect between the debates at the State House and the relief working families actually need.

“Change requires new voices. Affordable Rhode Island is fighting for policies that raise wages and lower costs. We are empowering working people to lead and run for office because when working people are in power, government works better for everyone. Join us and help to bridge the gap between politics and financial prosperity for every Rhode Islander.”

Affordable Rhode Island will

• Gather and share stories from Rhode Islanders impacted by these issues;

• Highlight ideas and solutions to address these challenges;

• Support issue campaigns that improve people’s financial wellbeing and economic stability/success; and,

• Educate voters on policies and where candidates and elected officials stand.

Affordable Rhode Island seeks to accomplish this by

• Sharing opportunities to advocate for policies that lower costs and make Rhode Island more affordable;

• Highlighting training from aligned groups on how to advocate, organize, and run for office;

• Providing resources and information for candidates preparing to run on an affordability agenda in the 2026 elections; and,

• Educating the public on candidates’ positions and track records on key issues. The campaign’s website, AffordableRI.org, will serve as a hub for a range of information to help people across the state advocate for policies that improve affordability for regular Rhode Islanders and to share resources to support working people in running for office.

The organization’s initial investment was provided by the District 1199 SEIU Political Action Committee RI.

Share

From an ACLU of Rhode Island press release:

The Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence (RICADV) and a nationwide group of other state domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions1 today filed an amended complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to block the Trump Administration from enforcing unlawful new restrictions on grants issued to help victims of domestic violence and other crimes.

The filings follow a lawsuit – Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, et al. v. Bondi – filed in June 2025 that successfully obtained preliminary relief against the administration’s conditions on federal funding for lifesaving programs administered by the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). DOJ’s efforts targeted grantees that implement diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, as well as those that recognize and respect people regardless of gender identity. The court issued a preliminary order in August 2025, blocking the DOJ from enforcing its unlawful restrictions, which would have made it impossible for many grantees to operate legally or effectively.

Now, DOJ has imposed additional conditions on critical grant funding administered by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in its Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). These new conditions include restrictions and limitations that would prevent providers from serving certain noncitizen survivors. The coalition argues that the conditions are unauthorized, vague, and that they fail to account for the devastating consequences they will have.

“Each additional attempt by the federal government to restrict funding for these lifesaving services — now weaponizing citizenship status to exclude survivors from receiving support — is as cruel and unlawful as the last,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of RI, adding, “We will continue to use every legal avenue to defend this funding.”

The amended complaint expands the coalition’s original lawsuit and asks the court to halt enforcement of the new restrictions while the case proceeds. The complaint argues that the administration’s new conditions exceed DOJ’s authority, violate the Constitution, conflict with statutory requirements protecting communities in vulnerable situations, and unlawfully leverage the threat of False Claims Act liability to pressure providers to alter their programming and speech. The newest unlawful conditions once again put organizations in the impossible position of having to either risk severe financial penalties and undermine their missions or sacrifice essential funding that supports survivors of violence.

Read the amended complaint here and the motion for temporary restraining order here.

The coalition issued the following statement:

“Funding for victims of crime has supported lifesaving services for domestic violence and sexual assault survivors and strengthened communities nationwide. These grants help sustain shelters, crisis response services, legal assistance, prevention programs, and coordinated community efforts that victims rely on in moments of profound danger. The administration’s new restrictions threaten to undermine that work, create confusion and fear among providers and survivors alike, and place critical resources at risk. We are asking the court to ensure that congressionally authorized grants can continue to support survivors as Congress intended, without unlawful political conditions attached.”

Share

RIDOT1 Director Peter Alviti will soon be gone, not just from RIDOT but also from his role as Board Chair of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA). He was surely no friend of transit, but his departure won’t change an underlyng RIPTA problem - the low opinion of transit held by leaders such as Governor Daniel Mckee, Mayor Brett Smiley, legislative leaders, and, the business establishment symbolized by Joseph Paolino Jr.’s desire to remove passengers from Kennedy Plaza plus very weak business support for RIPTA’s “ecopass” to promote employee transit use, plus the willingness of big corporations (e.g. Citizens Bank) to move to out of the metro area to places without transit access.

Those leaders may be decent people, but they apparently see transit only as a necessary service for basic mobility for the low-income residents and those unable to drive, and they are quite willing to fund it to the level they think will provide that. But they don’t really see it as a tool for addressing climate emissions, congestion, and road safety, for helping develop housing in compact, walkable, energy-efficient neighborhoods, for attracting progressive entrepreneurs, for lowering transportation expenses for many burdened by the cost of car ownership, or even for keeping more of our energy dollars in the state. They didn’t see transit as something to promote when the Washington Bridge closed, as other states did when facing major road closures; they tried a cockamamie winter ferry service. They don’t think it is worth implementing a state law that requires measures, including a transit pass offer, to reduce state employee commuting miles. Indeed, the opposite: some state agencies moved out of the metro area to locations almost impossible to reach by transit. One of the latest is the Board of Elections. Despite years of advocacy, there is still no bus shelter at the State House, even as parking in the area has been expanded several times, including on part of the State House lawn. That limits what our transit will look like, regardless of the RIPTA Board’s structure.

That said, Alviti cut off the quarterly Roundtables that previous directors had with community groups. While he did finish the Pawtucket-Central Falls commuter train station project, in 11+ years, he made no progress on electrifying that MBTA service, which would make it cleaner, quicker, quieter, and more reliable, even though it is already mostly under the wires that Amtrak uses. He squandered some of the 2014 bond voters approved “to fund enhancements and renovations to mass transit hub infrastructure throughout the state,” instead using some of it to hire consultants who came up with a breakup of Kennedy Plaza into a “multihub” scheme, even a tunnel for cars under Kennedy Plaza, soon rejected by almost everybody. He was seen to bully other Board members when they were trying to appeal to the Governor to avert the service cuts last fall. So a new Board Chair might indeed be helpful for transit in the state.

Beyond that, the transit outlook is improving. Christopher Durand, RIPTA’s new CEO, is working with employers to promote transit, with some success, notably at the new Amazon facility. His workforce development has recruited enough drivers to largely eliminate the many missed trips that once plagued riders. EC4, the state’s climate bureau headed by DEM, is finally looking at transit as a tool to address climate change. Unlike last year, Governor McKee’s proposed budget does cover RIPTA’s projected deficit, at least for next year, though it does not restore the cuts from last fall. Newport area businesses and planners are becoming interested in transit. With Patrick Crowley as head of the RI AFL-CIO and a RIPTA Board member, transit is more on the union agenda. There are indications that the State Planning Council and its Transportation Advisory Committee are considering whether it is time to shift priority away from the big highway projects of recent years toward greener travel, and how to do so.

And, expect a Rosa Parks-themed bus shelter in the State House area soon that will honor the civil rights pioneer and also help riders stay dry when it rains. Keep hope alive!

From a CLF press release:

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), as part of a broad coalition of health and environmental groups, has sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its illegal determination that it is not responsible for protecting us from climate pollution and its elimination of rules to cut the tailpipe pollution fueling the climate crisis and harming people’s health.

The case, filed in the D.C. Circuit, challenges the Trump EPA’s rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding, which found that climate pollution is a threat to public health and welfare. The finding supported common-sense safeguards to cut that pollution, including from cars and trucks. In addition, the agency eliminated the clean vehicle standards, which were set to deliver the single biggest cut to U.S. carbon pollution in history, save lives, and save Americans’ hard-earned money on gas.

The case was brought by:

• The American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, Alliance of Nurses for a Healthy Environment, Clean Wisconsin, represented by Clean Air Task Force (CATF),

• Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ), Clean Air Council, Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Rio Grande International Study Center (RGISC), and the Union of Concerned Scientists, represented by Earthjustice, and

• Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Public Citizen, and Sierra Club.
  

The named defendants are EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and EPA itself as an agency.

“Taking away the endangerment finding doesn’t protect families — it abandons them,” said Conservation Law Foundation Senior Vice President for Law and Policy Kate Sinding Daly. “This scientific determination has for years served as the bedrock of our nation’s efforts to curb deadly pollution and safeguard public health and welfare. Taking it away only absolves the EPA of acting on behalf of every family in the country. We won’t let that stand and we’re prepared to take this fight to court to ensure our communities aren’t left to bear the consequences of unchecked climate-warming pollution.”

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is legally required to limit vehicle emissions of any “air pollutant” that the agency determines “cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” In 2007, the United States Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases unambiguously are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and told EPA to determine, based on the science, if that pollution endangers human health and welfare. EPA made that determination in 2009, which led to new standards for vehicles. It built on that finding when issuing other standards.

In its repeal, the Trump EPA is rehashing legal arguments that the Supreme Court already considered and rejected in Massachusetts v. EPA.

Along with the repeal of the endangerment finding, the EPA eliminated all carbon emissions standards from vehicles. The EPA’s clean car standards set in 2024 would save drivers of new cars an average of $6,000 over the lifetime of their vehicles. The EPA’s own analysis found that eliminating vehicle standards will increase gas prices, force Americans to spend more on fuel, and have a net negative effect on the economy.

QUOTES:

“Ignoring the scientific evidence of the threat climate pollution poses to the health of all of us sends a very wrong message to communities across the nation and around the world. EPA has a duty to consider the well-being and safety of all, and the science is clear; climate change and air pollution threaten everyone’s health,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, Chief Executive Officer of the American Public Health Association. “To reverse course now, and to also repeal limits on climate pollution from vehicles, puts everyone in the country at risk of experiencing serious and preventable harm. It also weakens our nation’s ability to address the severe health impacts caused by climate change.”

“EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment,” said Harold Wimmer, President and CEO, American Lung Association. “Repealing the Endangerment Finding and vehicle emission safeguards weakens important protections against air pollution that harm lung health. On behalf of the millions of people living with lung disease and everyone who breathes, the American Lung Association is committed to upholding the law and protecting public health.”

“We need to call the Trump Administration’s repeal of the Engagement Finding what it is – climate denialism and the EPA abandoning its responsibility to protect us from climate change,” said Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN, Executive Director, Alliance of Nurses for a Healthy Environment. “The EPA is legally required to protect against air pollution that endangers the public’s health. It’s time that the EPA be held accountable for these reckless actions and get back to its mission to protect human health and the environment.”

“Repealing the endangerment finding and vehicle emissions standards are among the most destructive and irresponsible actions taken by the Trump EPA to date,” said Katie Nekola, General Counsel, Clean Wisconsin. “The dangers of climate change are becoming ever more apparent as Wisconsin experiences record heat, toxic air from wildfire smoke, and extreme weather. The EPA is ignoring its legal duty to protect our communities from the heath harms of greenhouse gas emissions in its zealous pandering to big oil, gas and coal interests.”

“As the nonpartisan National Academies stated last fall, the endangerment finding ‘was accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence.’ No amount of legal sophistry from this administration or EPA can evade the well settled statutory requirements and those scientific conclusions,” said Frank Sturges, Attorney at Clean Air Task Force. “The Clean Air Act’s requirements are simple: protect public health and welfare from air pollutants that endanger them. On the law and on the science, greenhouse gases fit that bill. To protect public health and the environment, we will challenge this unlawful action in court, and when the dust settles, we will prevail.”

“Here in the Inland Valley, climate change isn’t some abstract future threat—it’s something our families live with every day. It’s parents worrying about their kids’ asthma as diesel trucks rumble past schools and neighborhoods. It’s workers commuting through smog and extreme heat, and families cutting short time outdoors because the air simply isn’t safe to breathe, it’s wildfires and flooding,” said Ana Gonzalez, Executive Director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. “By trying to repeal the endangerment finding and weaken vehicle greenhouse gas standards, the Trump administration’s EPA is abandoning its legal duty to protect communities like ours. That decision would lock in more pollution, more dangerous heat, and more health risks—threatening our well-being, our local economy, and our children’s future. We won’t stand by while climate denial becomes official policy and puts the Inland Valley at risk.”

“The Endangerment Finding has been the backbone of climate policy for 17 years, protecting us from air pollution that endangers public health and welfare — including greenhouse gases that are driving climate change,” said Lawrence Hafetz, Clean Air Council’s Legal Director. “By repealing the finding, we are sweeping the single deadliest type of pollution, climate pollution, under the rug. Deadly floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes are harming our health, our communities, and our economy. This climate chaos plan is decimating the EPA’s ability to act when we need protections more than ever.”

“Today’s lawsuit makes clear that we will not idly stand by while EPA blatantly refutes its core mission to protect the environment and public health from dangerous pollution,” said Hallie Templeton, Legal Director for Friends of the Earth. “The science is overwhelmingly clear that greenhouse gases cause harm, yet the Trump administration has unlawfully chosen to benefit polluters at the planet’s expense. We will keep fighting and holding these bad actors accountable in court for their lawlessness.”

“The EPA’s rollback of the endangerment finding is a devastating decision that goes against the science and testimony of countless scientists, health care professionals, and public health practitioners,” said Ankush K. Bansal, MD, DCM, FACP, FACPM, SFHM, Physicians for Social Responsibility Board President. “It will result in direct harm to the health of Americans throughout the country, particularly children, older adults, those with chronic illnesses, and other vulnerable populations, rural to urban, red and blue, of all races and incomes. The increased exposure to harmful pollutants and other greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel production and consumption will make America sicker, not healthier, less prosperous, not more, for generations to come.”

“Revoking the Endangerment Finding sets our country down a dangerous path that will have unimaginable consequences for so many. It ignores the real harms that people and communities like ours along the Rio Grande in South Texas are already experiencing from declining rainfall, heat, and fragile ecosystems,” said Tricia Cortez, Executive Director of Rio Grande International Study Center. “We have a moral obligation to our current and future generations to protect their future and the well-being of our planet’s climate. We must act now to tackle and reduce all sources of harm. We need our national leaders to do everything in their power to protect our human race, and to leave behind a habitable and thriving world for those to come after us.”

“EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding and safeguards to limit vehicle emissions marks a complete dereliction of the agency’s mission to protect people’s health and its legal obligation under the Clean Air Act. This shameful and dangerous action by the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Zeldin is rooted in falsehoods not facts and is at complete odds with the public interest and the best available science. Heat-trapping emissions and global average temperatures are rising—primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels—contributing to a mounting human and economic toll across the nation. This anti-science administration must be held to account for evading its responsibility to help address this acute crisis and we’re going to help make sure that happens,” said Dr. Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“With this action, EPA flips its mission on its head,” said Hana Vizcarra, senior attorney at Earthjustice. “It abandons its core mandate to protect human health and the environment to boost polluting industries and attempts to rewrite the law in order to do so. Earthjustice and our partners will defend what we all know to be true: climate pollution is harming our health, welfare, and economy and EPA has an obligation to control these harmful emissions.”

“We’re suing to stop Trump from torching our kids’ future in favor of a monster handout to oil companies,” said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “Nobody but Big Oil profits from Trump trashing climate science and making cars and trucks guzzle and pollute more. Consumers will pay more to fill up, and our skies and oceans will fill up with more pollution. The EPA’s rollbacks are based on political poppycock, not science or law, and the courts should see it that way.”

“Repealing the Endangerment Finding endangers all of us. People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” said Peter Zalzal, Distinguished Counsel and Associate Vice President of Clean Air Strategies at Environmental Defense Fund. “The Trump EPA’s action tramples mountains of scientific evidence, ignores the law, and is fundamentally at odds with EPA’s core responsibility to protect us from dangerous pollution. We are challenging this action in court, where evidence matters, and we will continue working together to build a better, safer and more prosperous future.”

“This is not a mere rollback. EPA is attempting to completely disavow its statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. After two decades of scientific evidence supporting the 2009 finding, the agency cannot credibly claim that the body of work is now incorrect. This reckless and legally untenable decision creates immediate uncertainty for businesses, guarantees prolonged legal battles, and undermines the stability of federal climate regulations. EPA cannot be permitted to abandon its responsibility to protect public health and welfare,” said Brian Lynk, Senior Attorney, Environmental Law & Policy Center.

“The Trump EPA’s slapdash legal arguments should be laughed out of court. Undercutting the ability of the federal government to tackle the largest source of climate pollution is deadly serious, but the administration’s legal and scientific reasons for doing so are a joke,” said Meredith Hankins, legal director for federal climate at NRDC.

“The repeal of the EPA’s endangerment finding is illegal, and if allowed to stand, it will have devastating impacts on public health and a livable climate for decades,” said Adina Rosenbaum, attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group.

“The Trump administration’s reckless decision to rescind the Endangerment Finding and strip the EPA of its primary authority to regulate greenhouse gases will have disastrous consequences for the American people, our health, and our shared future,” said Joanne Spalding, Director of the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program. “In the early 2000s, the Sierra Club brought the first-ever lawsuit seeking federal greenhouse gas standards under the Clean Air Act, and as a result, these protections became a reality. Nearly 25 years later, we’re taking Lee Zeldin and Donald Trump’s EPA to court because people should not be forced to suffer for this administration’s blind allegiance to the fossil fuel industry and corporate polluters. This shortsighted rollback is blatantly unlawful and their efforts to force this upon the American people will fail.”

Share

On January 24, the world witnessed federal agents execute VA nurse Alex Pretti for the crime of helping a woman they had shoved to the ground. This followed the brazen murder of Renee Good just blocks away in Minneapolis, and dozens more deaths in ICE custody in the last year.

The murders of Pretti and Good were predictable. The Department of Homeland Security targets white supremacists for recruitment, hires without background checks, sends unqualified agents into the field with tactical gear, military weapons, and facemasks, and encourages excessive force, profiling, and other abuses. The Administration blames the victims of ICE violence and shields agents from accountability.

Last year, Republicans handed DHS $75 Billion, 7.5 times ICE’s normal budget, to double the number of agents and vastly expand detention facilities. This year, they are seeking $10 billion more for ICE.

Democrats squandered the chance to leverage the budget process in October to rein in ICE, choosing to focus narrowly on Affordable Care Act subsidies, then caved without a single concession after a 45-day shutdown. Since then, the U.S. government has been funded by a stopgap “continuing resolution” which expired at the end of January.

After the murders of Pretti and Good, we were part of a coalition of 30 grassroots and faith groups that signed and delivered a letter demanding that our congressional delegation hold ICE accountable. Days later, Representatives Amo and Magaziner opposed new DHS funding, which passed anyway with the shameful support of seven Democrats. In the Senate, the bill would have needed seven Democratic votes to meet the 60-vote threshold. Senators Reed and Whitehouse waited until the last minute to publicly declare their opposition to the DHS funding. In the end, Senate Democrats held the line, but agreed to a two-week funding extension to allow time to negotiate. Notably, Reed split with Whitehouse – an infrequent occurrence – to join more progressive colleagues in opposing any funding extension.

We urge all four members of our congressional delegation to continue to hold the line against funding. Our memberships will be watching closely to ensure negotiations don’t fizzle into measures like training or oversight programs that would actually add funds to ICE’s coffers.

There should be no doubt, by now, that this fight is not about immigration enforcement. ICE is not a law enforcement agency; it is an agency that, by design, violates the law every day. DHS is engaged in a campaign to ethnically cleanse America. It targets nonviolent dissent and witnesses to its crimes by everyday heroes like Pretti and Good. ICE is a paramilitary loyal not to the country, but to an authoritarian and his regime, who have lost the support of the electorate and are openly plotting to avoid the coming accountability for their corruption and crimes. And there can be no doubt they plan to use this ICE private army to prevent free and fair elections.

Our delegation must refuse to give one penny more to ICE. They must each demand an end to the violent occupation of Minneapolis and other U.S. cities. They must call for an end to warrantless arrests and to unmask agents. They must demand independent investigations and accountability for agents who commit crimes. When ordinary citizens are putting their bodies on the line every day to defend their neighbors, we should expect no less courage from our elected officials.

The demand is simple and non-negotiable: Defund ICE or shut DHS down.

Kristen Lancaster is an Army veteran living in Cranston, who recently retired after more than two decades of combined military and civil service, including 11 years with the Social Security Administration.

Etta Zasloff is a retired public educator and community volunteer living in Hope Valley. They are members of the RI No Kings coalition, representing thousands of grassroots activists across the state.