

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Dr. Neil Carman, Plant Scientist, Sierra Club +1.512.663.9594
Anne Petermann, Executive Director, Global Justice Ecology Project +1.802.578.0477
Scot Quaranda, Campaign Director, Dogwood Alliance +1.828.242.3596
George Kimbrell, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Food Safety +1.571.527.8618
The U.S. Department of Agriculture re-released their draft
environmental assessment [1] regarding a request by ArborGen, a
subsidiary of timber giants International Paper and MeadWestvaco, to
plant over a quarter of a million genetically engineered eucalyptus
trees in so-called "test plots" across seven southern U.S. states. [2]
"If these invasive GE eucalyptus are planted across the South on this
large of a scale, it is highly likely that fertile seeds will escape
into surrounding forests," said Dr. Neil Carman, a plant scientist with
the Sierra Club. "This is a major problem since eucalyptus is already
known for its invasiveness. Once they escape into the forests, there
is no way to call them back. It would be an ecological nightmare for
southern forests."
The environmental assessment was re-released by the USDA after groups
concerned about the environmental impacts of transgenic eucalyptus
trees pointed out that the assessment was missing key hydrological
studies conducted by the U.S. Forest Service that directly refute the
conclusions of the USDA's draft environmental assessment which
recommend approving ArborGen's request. The USFS studies point out
that eucalyptus trees have heavy water requirements and can seriously
impact ground and surface water reserves. [3]
The USDA is seeking public comments on their draft environmental assessment through February 18th, 2010. [4]
"In countries that are already suffering the impacts of large-scale
eucalyptus plantations--like Brazil, Chile and South Africa--people
have organized massive campaigns against them," stated Anne Petermann,
Executive Director of Global Justice Ecology Project and North American
representative of the Global Forest Coalition. "This is because
eucalyptus plantations have devastated forests and communities. In
Brazil, the Mata Atlantica forest has been all but wiped out by
eucalyptus plantations. In Chile, communities living near eucalyptus
plantations have lost their access to fresh water."
Other new information in the assessment reveals that some of the
supposedly infertile engineered eucalyptus trees in existing field
trials produced fertile seeds. Eucalyptus is a non-native tree and
numerous species of eucalyptus are already considered invasive. This
new transgenic (or GMO) eucalyptus has been engineered to tolerate
colder temperatures giving it the potential for invading forest
ecosystems throughout the South.
"I had hoped that the disaster of kudzu would have taught us the
consequences of releasing invasive species into the environment,"
agreed Scot Quaranda, Campaign Director for the Dogwood Alliance.
"Instead, ArborGen wants to release invasive GE eucalyptus trees.
Unlike kudzu, however, these trees are not only invasive, they are
also highly flammable and use huge quantities of fresh water.
California is already spending millions to eradicate invasive and
flammable eucalyptus trees. We do not want these invasive trees to be
mass-planted in the South."
The STOP GE Trees Campaign [5] is working with the Center for Food
Safety on plans to stop ArborGen's proposal to release hundreds of
thousands of genetically engineered eucalyptus trees across the U.S.
South. "This is a very slippery slope," warns George Kimbrell, an
attorney for the Center for Food Safety. "Allowing the release of these
GE eucalyptus trees will set a legal precedent that could allow the
release of genetically engineered poplars or pines--which have wild
relatives across the continent. The commercial release of engineered
versions of native trees would lead to the contamination of forests
with engineered pollen. Once this occurs there is absolutely nothing
that can be done to stop the further contamination of more forests. We
have to stop the release of GE trees before this contamination occurs."
The public is encouraged to submit comments to the USDA regarding the
ArborGen proposal to release 260,000 genetically engineered cold
tolerant eucalyptus trees across seven southern states. For details on
this, please visit: https://www.globaljusticeecology.org/stopgetrees.php?tabs=0
[1] To download the USDA's December 17, 2009 revised draft environmental assessment, go to: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/08_014101rm_ea2.pdf
[2] The seven states targeted for ArborGen's GE eucalyptus
deployment are South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana and Texas.
[3] The summary findings of the USFS with regard to the impacts of
eucalyptus plantations on water resources can be found on page 57 of
the new USDA draft environmental assessment. These findings include
the fact that the water usage by eucalyptus plantations is at least
double the water usage by other forest types, and that afforestation to
eucalyptus plantations will reduce stream flow, lower the water table
and affect groundwater recharge.
[4] Comments to the USDA can be submitted at: https://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=09000064809c344a
[5] Global Justice Ecology Project coordinates the STOP
Genetically Engineered Trees Campaign. The Sierra Club and Dogwood
Alliance are part of the Steering Committee for the Campaign. For more
information on the campaign, go to: https://www.nogetrees.org.
"Paul Singer's shady purchase of Citgo has everything to do with this coup."
One of President Donald Trump's top billionaire donors, who has spent the past several months backing a push for regime change in Venezuela, is about to cash in after the president's kidnapping of the nation's president, Nicolas Maduro, this weekend.
While he declined to tell members of Congress, Trump has said he tipped off oil executives before the illegal attack. At a press conference following the attack, he said the US would have "our very large United States oil companies" go into Venezuela, which he said the US will "run" indefinitely, and "start making money" for the United States.
As Judd Legum reported on Monday for Popular Information, among the biggest beneficiaries will be the billionaire investor Paul Singer:
In 2024, Singer, an 81-year-old with a net worth of $6.7 billion, donated $5 million to Make America Great Again Inc., Trump’s Super PAC. Singer donated tens of millions more in the 2024 cycle to support Trump’s allies, including $37 million to support the election of Republicans to Congress. He also donated an undisclosed amount to fund Trump’s second transition.
Singer is also a major pro-Israel donor, with his foundation having donated more than $3.3 million to groups like the Birthright Israel Foundation, the Israel America Academic Exchange, Boundless Israel, and others in 2021, according to tax filings.
In November 2025, less than two months before Trump's operation to take over Venezuela, Singer's investment firm, Elliott Investment Management, inked a highly fortuitous deal.
It purchased Citgo, the US-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, for $5.9 billion—a sale that was forced by a Delaware court after Venezuela defaulted on its bond payments.
The court-appointed special master who forced the sale, Robert Pincus, is a member of the board of directors for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Elliott Management hailed the court order requiring the sale in a press release, saying it was "backed by a group of strategic US energy investors."
Singer acquired the Citgo's three massive coastal refineries, 43 oil terminals, and more than 4,000 gas stations at a "major discount" because of its distressed status. Advisers to the court overseeing the sale estimated its value at $11-13 billion, while the Venezuelan government estimated it at $18 billion.
As Legum explained, the Trump administration's embargo on Venezuelan oil imports to the United States bore the primary responsibility for the company's plummeting value:
Citgo’s refiners are purpose-built to process heavy-grade Venezuelan “sour” crude. As a result, Citgo was forced to source oil from more expensive sources in Canada and Colombia. (Oil produced in the United States is generally light-grade.) This made Citgo’s operations far less profitable.
It is the preferred modus operandi for Singer, whose hedge fund is often described as a "vulture" capital group. As Francesca Fiorentini, a commentator at Zeteo, explained, Singer "is famous for doing things like buying the debt of struggling countries like Argentina for pennies on the dollar and then forcing that country to repay him with interest plus legal fees."
Venezuelan Vice President and Minister of Petroleum Delcy Rodríguez called the sale of Citgo to Singer "fraudulent" and "forced" in December.
After the US abducted Maduro this week, Trump named Rodriguez as Venezuela's interim president—and she was formally sworn in Monday—but he warned that she'll pay a "very big price" if she refuses to do "what we want."
That is good news for Singer, who is expected to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of an oil industry controlled by US corporations, which will likely not be subject to crippling sanctions.
Singer has reportedly met with Trump directly at least four times since he was first elected in 2016, most recently in 2024. While it is unknown whether the two discussed Venezuela during those meetings, groups funded by Singer have pushed aggressively for Trump to take maximal action to decapitate the country's leadership.
Since 2011, Singer has donated over $10 million and continues to sit on the board of directors for the right-wing Manhattan Institute think tank, which in recent months has consistently advocated for Maduro to be removed from power. In October, it published an article praising Trump for his "consistent policies against Venezuela’s Maduro."
He has also been a major donor to the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), serving as its second-largest contributor from 2008-2011, with more than $3.6 million.
In late November, shortly before Trump announced that the US had closed Venezuelan airspace and began to impound Venezuelan oil tankers, FDD published a policy brief stating that the US has "capabilities to launch an overwhelming air and missile campaign against the Maduro regime" that it could use to remove him from power.
Singer himself has acted as a financial attack dog for Trump during his first year back in office. In June, he contributed $1 million to fund a super PAC aiming to oust Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who'd become Trump's leading Republican critic over his Department of Justice's refusal to release its files pertaining to the billionaire sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
A super PAC tied to Miriam Adelson, another top pro-Israel donor who recently said she'd give Trump $250 million if he ran for a third term, also reportedly helped to fund the campaign against Massie.
Massie has since gone on to be one of the most vocal opponents in Congress to Trump's regime change push in Venezuela, joining Democrats to co-sponsor multiple failed war powers resolutions that would have reined in the president's ability to launch military strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and launch an attack on mainland Venezuela.
As the Trump administration has asserted that American corporations are entitled to the oil controlled by Venezuela's state firm, Massie rebutted this weekend that: "It’s not American oil. It’s Venezuelan oil."
"Oil companies entered into risky deals to develop oil, and the deals were canceled by a prior Venezuelan government," he said. "What’s happening: Lives of US soldiers are being risked to make those oil companies (not Americans) more profitable."
Massie said that Singer, "who’s already spent $1,000,000 to defeat me in the next election, stands to make billions of dollars on his distressed Citgo investment, now that this administration has taken over Venezuela."
Fiorentini added that "Paul Singer's shady purchase of Citgo has everything to do with this coup."
“The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize maintaining rock-bottom taxes for big corporations to the detriment of ordinary Americans and our allies across the globe," said one critic.
The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development is facing criticism for buckling under US demands when finalizing an update to the global minimum corporate tax agreement.
As reported by Reuters on Monday, the OECD agreed to amend a 2021 deal to enforce a 15% global minimum corporate tax to include "simplifications and carve-outs to align US minimum tax laws with global standards, accommodating earlier objections raised by the Trump administration."
Under the original framework, OECD members agreed to apply a 15% corporate tax on multinational corporations that book profits in jurisdictions that have lower tax rates.
President Donald Trump objected to this, however, and insisted that some US corporations be given exemptions that have subsequently been granted by OECD states.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the revised deal "represents a historic victory in preserving US sovereignty and protecting American workers and businesses from extraterritorial overreach," while noting that it allowed for US-headquartered firms to be subject only to US global minimum taxes.
Some critics, though, accused the OECD of letting the US get away with robbery.
Zorka Milin, policy director at the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition, warned that the deal "risks nearly a decade of global progress on corporate taxation" by allowing "the largest, most profitable American companies to keep parking profits in tax havens."
“The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize maintaining rock-bottom taxes for big corporations to the detriment of ordinary Americans and our allies across the globe," Milin added.
Alex Cobham, chief executive at Tax Justice Network, said other OECD members were only hurting themselves by caving to Trump's demands.
"By the Tax Justice Network’s assessment, France for example is already losing $14 billion a year to tax cheating US firms, Germany is losing $16 billion, and the UK is losing $9 billion," Cobham explained. "Today’s bending of the knee to Trump will cost countries billions more. But how much more? Tellingly, the OECD, which has delivered this shameful result, and OECD members have not put a number on the scale of tax losses that will result."
An analysis published last month by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) made the case that global minimum corporate taxes were needed to prevent US companies from sheltering vast profits by reporting them in nations that serve as offshore tax havens.
As an example, ITEP pointed to data showing that the profits US companies reported in notorious tax havens such as Barbados and the British Virgin Islands were more than 100% of those territories' gross domestic product, which the report noted "is obviously impossible."
ITEP went on to state that full implementation of this global minimum tax is "the best hope for blocking the types of tax avoidance that have weakened corporate income taxes all over the world" by making it "difficult for any single government (even one as powerful as the US) to ignore or weaken it."
"International law is not 'dead' just because the most powerful no longer respect it," one expert stressed. "To preserve the rules-based international order, all states need to call out breaches of the law when they occur."
Protests have erupted in the US and around the world following President Donald Trump's attack on Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, and international law experts on Monday joined in rebuking the deadly military operation, with several outlining exactly how Trump's actions were unlawful.
At Just Security, University of Reading professor of international law Michael Schmitt, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, and NYU Reiss Center on Law and Security senior fellow Tess Bridgeman explained that the US military's bombing of Venezuela and kidnapping of Maduro differs legally from the dozens of boat strikes the US has carried out in the past four months.
The attacks in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have killed more than 100 people and have also been violations of international law, according to numerous legal experts—but they "have occurred in international waters against stateless vessels," wrote Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman.
In contrast, the operation in the early morning hours on Saturday took place within Venezuelan borders and "is clearly a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter," they wrote. "That prohibition is the bedrock rule of the international system that separates the rule of law from anarchy, safeguards small states from their more powerful neighbors, and protects civilians from the devastation of war."
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, to which both the US and Venezuela are parties, states:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The scholars vehemently rejected the narrative the Trump administration has put forward for months about its escalation in the Caribbean and Venezuela: that the White House simply aims to protect Americans from drug trafficking, a claim that officials have repeated despite the fact that US and international law enforcement agencies have not identified the South American country as a significant player in the drug trade.
For Trump's assertions that drug cartels in Venezuela pose an imminent threat to Americans "to make any sense," wrote the authors, "the drug activity must be characterized as an 'armed attack' against the United States... Drug trafficking simply does not qualify as, and has never been considered, an 'armed attack.' In brief, the relationship between drug trafficking and the deaths that eventually result from drugs being purchased and used in the United States is far too attenuated to qualify as an armed attack."
"It is indisputable that drug trafficking is condemnable criminal activity, but it is not the type of activity that triggers the right of self-defense in international law," they continued, adding that any possible involvement by Maduro's government in the drug trade also does not rise "to the level of an armed attack against the United States."
Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman wrote that "Operation Absolute Resolve," as the administration has termed the Saturday attack that killed more than 80 people, "amounts to an unlawful intervention into Venezuela’s internal affairs," and that while officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio have claimed the kidnapping of Maduro was simply a law enforcement operation and not an act of war, the US does not have jurisdiction to carry out such an action in Venezuela without the government's consent.
"The United States has engaged in governmental activity in Venezuela—law enforcement—that is exclusively the domain of the Venezuelan government," wrote the authors. "Even though the United States does not recognize the Maduro government as legitimate, international law provides that the relevant officials to grant consent are those of the government that exercises 'effective control' over the territory; in this case, officials in the Maduro administration."
As a head of state, Maduro is also subject to protections from enforcement jurisdiction by another state, they wrote, under "customary international law."
"The United States has engaged in governmental activity in Venezuela—law enforcement—that is exclusively the domain of the Venezuelan government."
The authors wrote that, as Maduro said in a statement Monday, the president may be considered a prisoner of war and be "entitled to the extensive protections of the Third Geneva Convention," given his status as commander-in-chief of Venezuela's armed forces. His wife is also "entitled to a robust set of protections afforded to captured civilians" under the Fourth Geneva Convention, they wrote.
The explanation by Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman bolstered remarks by other international law experts including Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism.
Saul on Saturday condemned Trump's "illegal aggression against Venezuela and the illegal abduction of its leader and his wife," and said the president "should be impeached and investigated for the alleged killings," of dozens of Venezuelans in the attack.
“Every Venezuelan life lost is a violation of the right to life," he said.
At the Conversation, Australian National University international law professor Sarah Heathcote emphasized that the UN Security Council, which held an emergency meeting Monday in response to the US strike, had not authorized the attack. Such an authorization, along with consent by Venezuela's government or a credible claim that the US was acting in self-defense, would have made the Trump administration's actions lawful.
Instead, she wrote, "the US intervention in Venezuela was as brazen and unlawful as its military strike on Iran in June last year."
"But international law is not 'dead' just because the most powerful no longer respect it," she said. "To preserve the rules-based international order, all states need to call out breaches of the law when they occur, including in the current instance."
At the Security Council meeting, UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized "the imperative of full respect, by all, for international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, which provides the foundation for the maintenance of international peace and security."
"Venezuela has experienced decades of internal instability and social and economic turmoil. Democracy has been undermined. Millions of its people have fled the country," he said. "In situations as confused and complex as the one we now face, it is important to stick to principles. Respect for the UN Charter and all other applicable legal frameworks to safeguard peace and security."
"International law contains tools to address issues such as illicit traffic in narcotics, disputes about resources, and human rights concerns," he added. "This is the route we need to take."