Trump’s DOJ Says EPA Will Appeal Landmark Fluoride Ruling
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to appeal a decision last year by a federal court ordering the agency to address the risks of water fluoridation, according to Michael Connett, lead attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
“Rather than use the court’s decision as an opportunity to finally end water fluoridation (as most of Europe has already done), the EPA will spend its time legally challenging the court’s order,” Connett wrote in a post on X.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade organization representing the chemical industry, and the American Fluoridation Society, a fluoridation advocacy organization that touts its work undermining local efforts to oppose water fluoridation, filed motions seeking to submit amicus briefs supporting the EPA appeal, he said.
Connett told The Defender that the American Dental Association also plans to file a brief.
The EPA said it will file the appeal on July 18, after which the case will go to a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The appeals court will receive briefs from both sides, along with any amicus briefs, and hear oral arguments before issuing its decision.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, said on X that the appeal was “a very disappointing move by EPA.” “A few months ago, @epaleezeldin went on a public speaking tour with @SecKennedy to address why fluoride needs to come OUT of the water. Now the EPA will appeal to keep fluoride IN drinking water.”
Connett noted that the decision to appeal came from the solicitor general at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), who reports to Pam Bondi and the White House, not by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has vocally opposed water fluoridation, but lacks the authority to end it.
“Only the EPA has this power, and it has decided, for now, to forego its historic opportunity (as provided by the court’s decision) to exercise it,” Connett said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes recommendations from the U.S. Public Health Service on whether communities should add fluoride to their drinking water and at what levels. However, the EPA sets the maximum levels allowed in water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The current maximum allowable levels of fluoride in drinking water are 4.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is many orders of magnitude higher than the currently recommended dosage of 0.7 mg/L.
Even the lower recommended dosage has demonstrated a risk to children’s health in numerous studies, and according to the federal ruling that the EPA plans to challenge.
EPA continues to treat fluoride as a ‘protected pollutant’
In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen issued the historic decision in the lawsuit against the EPA, ruling that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children and that the EPA must take regulatory action to address that risk.
At the time of the ruling, more than 200 million Americans were drinking water treated with fluoride at the “optimal” level of 0.7 mg/L.
Chen ruled that a preponderance of scientific evidence showed this level of fluoride exposure may damage human health, particularly that of pregnant mothers and young children.
Environmental and consumer advocacy organizations, including FAN, Moms Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch, along with individual parents and children, filed the lawsuit against the EPA in 2017 under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) after the EPA denied their citizens’ petition to reexamine water fluoridation.
During the trial that followed, Chen reviewed existing regulations, regulatory frameworks and current science on fluoride’s risks to children and pregnant women presented through peer-reviewed papers and experts on both sides.
The case dragged on for seven years, after numerous delays by the EPA, and attempts by HHS officials to block the release of the key piece of evidence in the case, a government report on fluoride’s toxicity.
Chen’s 80-page ruling, issued seven months after closing arguments in February 2024, offered a careful and detailed articulation of the EPA’s review process for hazardous chemicals and summarized the extensive scientific data on fluoride’s toxicity.
Chen concluded that the risk to health at current levels of exposure demanded a regulatory response by the agency.
Evidence against fluoride keeps piling up
Since the end of the trial, the body of scientific evidence showing fluoride’s adverse impacts on children’s health has grown. Scientists at the National Toxicology Program in January published a meta-analysis in JAMA Pediatrics linking fluoridated water and IQ loss in children.
The program also published a monograph in August 2024 that found a link between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children.
In May 2024, a study in JAMA Open Network found children born to Los Angeles mothers exposed during pregnancy to fluoridated drinking water were more likely to have neurobehavioural problems.
FAN’s executive director, Stuart Cooper, said the group has long sought to end the “unnecessary life-long and life-altering brain impairment in children specifically due to artificial fluoridation schemes” and the many other side effects to people’s liver, kidneys, thyroid and bones.
For nine years, he said, the EPA has been working against them. “From day one of our interactions with them, they’ve treated fluoridation chemicals as a protected pollutant, likely due to the government’s role in promoting their use and guaranteeing their ‘safety’ for over 80 years.”
Cooper added:
“While the science is clear and the lower court’s ruling was very strong and comprehensive, it’s not necessarily a surprise that the appeal has occurred. Our case is precedent-setting. We were the first to sue the EPA under TSCA. I suspect that corporate polluters who have learned how to manage and influence the EPA to their benefit don’t want citizens groups to use TSCA to force the EPA to regulate harmful chemicals.”
Another plaintiff in the lawsuit, Moms Against Fluoridation, told The Defender it was“deeply disappointed” that the EPA plans to appeal the ruling.
“The science is clear, and our lawsuit’s findings are undeniable: fluoridation is a toxic legacy that must end, like asbestos, DDT, and lead,” it said. “The agency’s plan to appeal only underscores their prioritization of industry interests over the well-being of our children and vulnerable populations. Moms Against Fluoridation will not back down — we will continue to fight tirelessly for the health and safety of all Americans.”
60+ towns and counties and two states vote to end fluoridation
Since the federal ruling last year, more than 60 U.S. towns, counties and two states — Utah and Florida — have voted to stop fluoridating their water, according to FAN.
During that time, there has been an ongoing campaign by the American Dental Association, the American Fluoridation Society and mainstream media to discredit the court’s ruling.
Typically, they assert that water fluoridation is an important, safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay — and that without it, rates of cavities will soar, costing billions. They cite a study published by researchers funded by pro-fluoridation groups.
Yet, overwhelming scientific research shows that fluoride’s benefits to teeth are topical, not the result of ingesting fluoride, and a 2024 Cochrane Review found adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.
Most media reports also highlight the fact that fluoride is a “naturally occurring mineral.” However, they don’t mention that the fluoride added to water supplies is not.
The fluoride most commonly added to U.S. drinking water supplies is hydrofluorosilicic acid, the byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production. Chemical companies sell the byproduct to local water departments across the country.
Communities that have recently ended fluoridation have found themselves saddled with a chemical that they must dispose of as hazardous waste, per EPA regulations — an expensive and time-consuming process.
See more here The Defender
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Aaron
| #
Killing us slowly = windfall profits
Reply
VOWG
| #
There is no option other than one that would possibly be violent. No one listens and no one cares until they are hit up the side of their head.
Reply
Tony
| #
http://www.paulstramer.net
http://www.paulstramer.net/2025/07/international-public-notice-lessons-of.html
International Public Notice: Lessons of Law and History
By Anna Von Reitz
As we have explained many times, the words “common law” refer to a form of law that takes reference to earlier decisions in making current decisions. There are, as a result, many, many forms of “common law” and this can be confusing when a judge is referring to “military common law” as “common law” or a magistrate is referring to “civil code” as “common law”. Both these forms of law, which most of us DO NOT THINK OF as “Common Law”, are in fact common law in that they take cognizance of former decisions made by other courts in considering current matters before the court.
When talking about “Common Law” we always have to ask “Common Law in what sense? What variety of “Common Law” are we talking about?”
Common Law doesn’t “come from the Magna Carta” — a misunderstanding that comes from another misunderstanding about what the Magna Carta is, where it came from, and what it set in place in England.
William the Conqueror means to conquer England permanently — and he went about this in a very methodical manner. First, he did a very methodical survey of the lands and assets he had conquered. This inventory was recorded in two books, the Doomsday Book and the Domesday Book, which still exist.
Upon his death in 1087 A.D., he bequeathed specific parcels of land and homesteads to his loyal Norman Barons who participated in the military conquest. Along with the land grants and improvements, he granted his Barons (who remained only Barons in France) “sovereignty in their own right” on these English properties. These bequests are essentially miniature kingdoms scattered like a crazy quilt over every square inch of England at that time.
And the Barons of France became Kings in England.
The other thing that William the Conqueror purposefully did was to disinherit all his children from owning anything in England. Forever.
He didn’t want there to ever be a singular King of England again, so that England would never again rear its ugly head against France.
Now, how is it that there appears to be a King of England today and for generations in the past despite William’s plan?
The Pope had lands in England that had been ceded to the Church by various Kings prior to “the Norman Settlement” and William of Normandy allowed the Church to retain all its Church properties in England. After the Settlement of William the Conqueror’s Will as described above, the Pope came back into the picture and cut a deal with William the Conqueror’s Grandson, “King” John to act as the Overseer of the Church’s Commonwealth properties in England.
Thus, “King” John was a “King” of the Vatican, not of England. His “kingdom” was borrowed from the Pope and not actually his at all, thus he was not operating in any true sovereign capacity, but was instead operating as a Legal Person in an Office granted to him by the Pope.
The Norman Barons who had become Kings in England, of course, were unaffected by this and did not regard “King John” as their king at all.
Thus, when poor administrative decisions made by John adversely impacted people living on Church Commonwealth land and this led to uprisings and complaints, the French Barons who had become Kings in England got together and set forth and signed off on the Magna Carta, clearly establishing standards of justice and law and basic rights for people throughout England — for everyone living outside the Pope’s enclaves.
Thus, the “Great Product” of England, turns out to be the Great Product of France, instead.
The Normans brought their own standards of justice to England and set them forth in the Magna Carta and they imposed these standards throughout the lands they inherited from William the Conqueror — and they could do this as a group in opposition to anything “King” John might decree as the “law” on the Pope’s Commonwealth land for the simple reason that they were all already kings in their own right.
The principles they jointly set forth to establish “a” Common Law for England — essentially, as the Landlords of a foreign land they inherited by conquest and primogeniture — already existed long before the Magna Carta, and were common to the Celtic peoples of Continental Europe.
What they held to be “Common Law” meant “law held to be right and just in common” — in the same way that we use the words “common sense” to indicate commonly held standards of practicality and logic. This venerable form of law comes to us from clan traditions that are thousands of years old, in which elders meet on a regular basis to sort through current complaints and controversies in light of traditional wisdom: principles of justice held in common, and former decisions rendered over time.
For example, we all have a
Reply
Tony
| #
http://www.paulstramer.net/2025/07/international-public-notice-vital.html
International Public Notice: Vital Explanation
By Anna Von Reitz
The DOJ — that is, “Department of Justice” — is a private organization, a subcontractor hired by the British Territorial U.S. Government during the Belle Epoch Era, under the auspices of the Scottish Interloper merely calling itself “The United States of America” — Incorporated.
It is a nest of British Bar Association Members employed to protect and defend the illegal confiscations and other illegal, unlawful, and immoral activities of the foreign Federal “service providers”.
In other words, our British Territorial Subcontractors, acting in Breach of Trust and Conflict of Interest, accessed our credit by using similar names and their own position as Subcontractors, to impersonate us.
Then, they used our own money to hire a group of Bar Attorneys to protect them from us.
They called this in-house attorney firm the “Department of Justice”, and later, its Municipal Government “side” was called the DOJ.
Most people assume that “DOJ” is an abbreviation for Department of Justice, but it’s not. It’s code for “Municipal” versus “Territorial” personnel and functions.
But whether it’s DOJ or Department of Justice, their fundamental role and job is the same: Flak Jacket for the Incorporated Federal Government Operations in this country.
These are still private attorney firms to this day and deserve no public respect, and certainly, only by rare accident or commonality of a goal, do they render anything like public service.
With this information firmly in mind concerning the nature and role of the “DOJ” and “Department of Justice”, both and either, consider all the reasons why Pam Bondi might be at odds with Dan Bongino, Deputy Director of the FBI?
The FBI is a hired Law Enforcement Agency. Traditionally, it covered International Law Enforcements within The United States — things like counterfeiting, smuggling, interstate kidnapping, interstate bank fraud, alcohol bootleggers, interstate racketeering and extortion, money laundering, etc.
Everyone remembers Elliot Ness v Al Capone.
Still, it is an open question who ultimately captured whom.
They got Capone, and when they did, they also got his bookkeeper, Fast Eddie O’Hare, who created the funky “double entry bookkeeping system” that the Federal Government uses today.
The rest of us just call it dishonest bookkeeping, or keeping two sets of books.
So the criminals won in the end, by corrupting the heroes — and nothing has changed since then. The same phenomenon plays out.
Why wouldn’t Bondi release the Epstein files and continue prosecution? Obviously, two reasons: she has an obligation to protect the President and all his entourage— high ranking political allies and donors could be exposed; and second, she sees an opportunity to blackmail the blackmailers — which equals political black gold.
Why would Dan Bongino resist this with his soul and blood? Because he sees her cupidity concerning the blackmail material as a gross betrayal of the promises made to the American people, and to the cause of justice itself.
We’re with Dan Bongino.
If someone, anyone, was on Epstein Island molesting children, they need to be exposed and arrested and brought to justice. And the blackmail material needs to be debased and released, not hoarded up and used to blackmail other unsavory kingpins.
All that Pam Bondi could do with this material is become a blackmailer herself — which would not further the cause of justice in America or anywhere else.
It’s like that moment when Frodo seizes the Ring of Power in the Lord of the Rings series.
Pam Bondi sees her moment to seize upon fifty years’ worth of yummy (on one side) and damning (on the other side) blackmail goodies, and she can’t let go.
Any clients of hers that have bared their butts on Epstein Island deserve what they get in court and her obligation as their attorney begins and ends when they break the law.
That’s the truth.
The truth in this world often needs a spokesman, like Dan Bongino, who hasn’t devoted his life to law enforcement only to see an Attorney General break the law and engage in obstruction of justice.
The tie-breaker has to be Donald Trump. He’s the customer, after all, the head of the Corporation that employs the Department of Justice, Inc., using our credit to fund their activities, even when those activities run counter to the Public Interest.
It’s his morality or lack of it being put to the test, and that will ultimately cast the die for the entire MAGA Movement in this country.
Our view of it all, and the politics involved, remains the same: in terms of economics and business and overall administration, Donald Trump’s Administration is the Lesser of Two Evils. They at least –more or less — understand what their contract says.
In terms of fascist surveillance state spending, gross pro-Israel bias and spending, lack of moral fortitude and decency to end the carpet bombing and genocide in Gaza, failure to quickly recognize and counter DARPA’s treasonous activities and those of the Frankfurt (Mossad influenced) CIA — and now this “failure to prosecute” the Epstein issues, means that the Trump Administration can be severely criticized and the entire MAGA Movement stands betrayed and discredited.
No doubt this is why Elon Musk withdrew his support. From inside the Swamp, all the quid pro quos being made among the Swamp Creatures (officially known as “denizens”) become apparent. The actual collusion between the supposed enemies surfaces, and at some point, the uneasy sense of unreality provokes the impulse to run, quickly, away.
This Notice is issued for public education purposes, so that people are not confused when they see “their” Justice Department morph into something foreign and unsavory.
Simply realize that it was never “your” Justice Department, and was always an instrument — not of justice, but of injustice — deliberately engaged to defend indefensible “government” prosecutions and protect the interests of the foreign corporations engaged in commandeering our actual government.
As such, none of these “Attorney Generals” have any lawful or authorized power. There is no war, only endless mercenary conflicts, engendered by crooks to benefit themselves. No lawful Martial Law can be applied by these “Generals”, so they are reduced to following the “Orders” of a “President” of a commercial corporation.
And it is all, 100%, based on deceit, fraud, and deception under color of law.
Wake up, America. See what you’ll see. You can’t ever be Great, much less Great Again, by licking the feet of criminals, stealing their blackmail stashes, and adopting their accounting systems.
Expecting the DOJ to
Reply