WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department has slashed by about 80% the fee for Americans to formally renounce their U.S. citizenship.

After years of legal battles with several groups representing Americans wanting to give up their citizenship, the department on Friday published a final rule in the Federal Register that reduces the cost from $2,350 to $450.

The new fee, which took effect on Friday, had been promised in 2023 but had never been implemented. The cost is now the same as it was when the State Department first started charging Americans to formally renounce their citizenship in 2010.

Renouncing U.S. citizenship can be an intensive and lengthy process. Applicants must repeatedly confirm in multiple written and verbal attestations to a State Department consular officer that they understand the implications of the step before being allowed to take a formal oath of renunciation. It must then be reviewed by the department.

The fee was raised from $450 to $2,350 in 2015 to cover the administrative expenses as the number of people wanting to renounce their citizenship surged in part due to new U.S. tax reporting requirements for American expatriates that angered many.

That dramatic fee increase drew significant opposition from groups such as the France-based Association of Accidental Americans, which represents people mainly living abroad whose U.S. citizenship is due purely to their having been born in the United States.

The association filed several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the fee, including one that remains pending that argues there should be no cost at all for renouncing one’s citizenship.

“The Association of Accidental Americans welcomes this decision, which acknowledges the necessity of making this fundamental right accessible to all,” its president, Fabien Lahagre, said in a statement. “This victory is the direct result of six years of relentless legal action and advocacy.”

In court, the association said since the 2023 announcement that the fee would be reduced at least 8,755 Americans had paid the full $2,350 to renounce their citizenship. The State Department did not provide numbers for the total number of Americans who have renounced their citizenship.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency proposed Friday to weaken air pollution limits on a chemical used to sterilize medical equipment, a move that would reverse a Biden administration finding of high cancer risks at manufacturing facilities that use ethylene oxide to clean medical devices like catheters and syringes.

The EPA said it is concerned that the current Biden-era standards “actively threaten” manufacturers’ abilities to sterilize equipment and “jeopardize one of America’s only options for a secure domestic supply chain of essential medical equipment.”

Ethylene oxide plays a crucial role in sterilizing lifesaving medical devices, including pacemakers and syringes, but long-term exposure can cause leukemia and other types of cancer among people who work at medical sterilization facilities or live nearby.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the proposed rule shows the agency’s commitment to protecting people’s health while maintaining a stable domestic medical supply chain.

“The Trump EPA is committed to ensuring life-saving medical devices remain available for the critical care of America’s children, elderly and all patients without unnecessary exposure to communities,” he said in a statement.

The proposal is the latest in a series of moves by the EPA under President Donald Trump to relax pollution limits and lower costs for industry. In February alone, the agency weakened restrictions on mercury from coal-burning power plants and repealed a scientific finding that served as the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

An EPA rule finalized in 2024 was intended to reduce ethylene oxide emissions by about 90% by targeting nearly 90 commercial sterilization facilities across the country. The Biden-era rule also required companies to test for the antimicrobial chemical in the air and ensure their pollution controls are functioning properly.

The American Lung Association called the proposed rule change unacceptable.

“The science shows that both short-term and long-term exposure to ethylene oxide is dangerous for health,” said Laura Kate Bender, the association’s vice president. “People who live near many commercial sterilization facilities are much more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes. No one should have to live with elevated cancer risk because of air pollution in their community.”

Environmental justice advocates noted that many ethylene oxide facilities are located in minority communities where Black and Brown people have been exposed to the cancer-causing chemical.

Ethylene oxide, also known as EtO, is a gas used to sterilize roughly half of all medical devices and is also used to ensure the safety of certain spices and other food products. It is used to clean everything from catheters to syringes, pacemakers and plastic surgical gowns. Brief exposure isn’t considered a danger, but breathing it long term elevates the risk of breast cancer and lymphoma, the EPA said.

The EPA first classified ethylene oxide as a human carcinogen in 2016.

In 2022, the EPA laid out the risks faced by residents who live near medical sterilization facilities. In Laredo, Texas, for example, residents and activists fought to clean up a sterilization facility run by Missouri-based Midwest Sterilization Corp. It was one of 23 sterilizers in the United States that the EPA said posed a risk for people nearby.

Sterigenics, a major sterilization company, shuttered a medical sterilization plant in a Chicago suburb after monitoring found emissions spikes in nearby neighborhoods. They eventually settled numerous lawsuits.

Scott Whitaker, president and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, said medical sterilizers provide a vital service and many devices can’t be sterilized by any other method.

“We appreciate the EPA’s efforts in listening to and understanding the importance of supplying safe, sterile medical technology without interruption while protecting employees and communities near sterilization facilities,” he said in an email.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A Wisconsin legislator has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct in connection with a bitter feud with her caucus over resolutions honoring Hispanics.

Prosecutors in Milwaukee County charged state Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez in February. Online court records show the Milwaukee Democrat entered the guilty plea Friday, and Judge Paul Malloy ordered her to pay a $300 fine and submit a DNA sample. She could have faced up to 90 days in jail.

Ortiz-Velez said in a statement after the sentencing that she will pay the fine and remains focused on her constituents, not caucus infighting.

“My voting choices caused a rift that has been ugly and bitter,” she said. “My constituents did not send me to Madison to litigate internal caucus disputes or be distracted by the personal feuds — they sent me there to deliver results.”

A spokesperson from Assembly Democratic Minority Leader Greta Neubauer did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

According to the criminal complaint, the feud began in August as Democratic members of the state Assembly were planning resolutions honoring Hispanic heritage and Hispanic veterans in observance of Hispanic Heritage Month in September.

Ortiz-Velez grew angry because she believed an unnamed lawmaker drafting the heritage resolution had intentionally excluded her from working on it.

The complaint states that she had been invited to work on the resolution in June and chose not to participate but still wanted to help draft the language. She contacted media outlets saying she had been intentionally left out of the resolution work. She also told the resolution’s author that she felt excluded from working on another resolution that same legislator was crafting honoring Hispanic veterans, saying her late husband was a Hispanic veteran.

Two more unnamed lawmakers told investigators that Ortiz-Velez told them in separate phone conversations that she was going to spread “negative personal information” about the resolutions’ author to the media and that “they are going to do what I want them to do, or I’m going to x, y and z,” according to the complaint.

When one of the lawmakers asked her what that meant, she made comments about the resolutions’ author’s personal life and other legislators. The complaint characterized those remarks as “indecent and tended to disrupt the good public order” but does not elaborate or offer any more specificity.

Democratic leaders issued a statement in September saying Ortiz-Velez had made a comment about shooting three caucus members. That statement came a day after another statement announcing that Ortiz-Velez was leaving the Democratic caucus.

In interviews with the news website Wisconsin Right Now and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Ortiz-Velez denied that she threatened her colleagues. But the Legislature’s human resources office barred her from entering the state Capitol for a day. A spokesperson for Assembly Republican Speaker Robin Vos said at the time that she shouldn’t have been banned.

Ortiz-Velez’s attorney, Michael Cernin, said in a telephone interview Friday that Assembly Democrats were already upset with Ortiz-Velez going into September because she had voted for the 2025-27 state budget and for new legislative maps Democratic Gov. Tony Evers drew up in 2024. Democrats opposed the spending plan in part because they felt it doesn’t adequately fund public schools and argued the state Supreme Court should have drawn the new legislative maps.

Rep. Priscilla Prado, another Milwaukee Democrat, wouldn’t allow Ortiz-Velez to participate in the Hispanic resolutions, he said. Two of the lawmakers who went unnamed in the complaint made allegations to investigators that Ortiz-Velez had threatened to expose unsavory elements of Prado’s personal life to the media, he said.

“It’s incredibly petty, and Sylvia didn’t want any part of this,” Cernin said. “Sylvia truly wanted to spare Prado any sort of embarrassment on this.”

No one immediately responded to messages left with Prado’s Capitol’s office seeking comment on Friday afternoon.