

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.
Today, the federal court in Eugene, Oregon decided in favor of 21 youth plaintiffs in their "groundbreaking" constitutional climate lawsuit against President Obama, numerous federal agencies, and the fossil fuel industry. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken completely rejected all arguments to dismiss raised by the federal government and fossil fuel industry, determining that the young plaintiffs' constitutional and public trust claims could proceed. Now, the 21 plaintiffs, who range in age from 9-20, are preparing for trial in what is believed to be a turning point in United States constitutional history.
In determining the complaint to be valid, Judge Aiken's ruling contained these passages:
"Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environmental law, and the world has suffered for it."
...
"Although the United States has made international commitments regarding climate change, granting the relief requested here would be fully consistent with those commitments. There is no contradiction between promising other nations the United States will reduce C02 emissions and a judicial order directing the United States to go beyond its international commitments to more aggressively reduce C02 emissions."
...
"[The defendants and intervenors] are correct that plaintiffs likely could not obtain the relief they seek through citizen suits brought under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or other environmental laws. But that argument misses the point. This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants' actions and inactions - whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty - have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs' fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty."
"My generation is rewriting history," said Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, a 16-year-old plaintiff and youth director of Earth Guardians. "We're doing what so many people told us we were incapable of doing: holding our leaders accountable for their disastrous and dangerous actions. I and my co-plaintiffs are demanding justice for our generation and justice for all future generations. This is going to be the trial of our lifetimes."
"This decision is one of the most significant in our Nation's history," said Julia Olson, counsel for the plaintiffs and executive director of Our Children's Trust. "This court just gave the youth of this country the critical opportunity to protect their futures. In what will be the trial of the millennium, these young plaintiffs will prove that their federal government, in cooperation with the fossil fuel industry, has knowingly put them in grave danger, trading their futures for present convenience and gross profits for a few."
"It's clear Judge Aiken gets what's at stake for us," said 17-year-old plaintiff Victoria Barrett, from White Plains, New York. "Our planet and our generation don't have time to waste. If we continue on our current path, my school in Manhattan will be underwater in 50 years. We are moving to trial and I'm looking forward to having the world see the incredible power my generation holds. We are going to put our nation on a science-based path toward climate stabilization."
"Based on our Constitution, Judge Aiken correctly determined we have properly claimed the federal defendants are responsible for harm caused by climate change and these young plaintiffs may challenge the government's wholly inadequate climate change policies in court," said Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Philip Gregory, with Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy, LLP of Burlingame, CA.
"This is a critical step toward solution of the climate problem, and none to soon as climate change is accelerating," said Dr. James Hansen, guardian in the case for all future generations, and world-renowned climate scientist. "Now we must ask the Court to require the government to reduce fossil fuel emissions at a rate consistent with the science."
The young plaintiffs sued the federal government for violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and their rights to vital public trust resources, by locking in a fossil-fuel based national energy system for more than five decades with full knowledge of the extreme dangers it posed.
This federal case is one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, all supported by Our Children's Trust, seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.
Our Children's Trust is a nonprofit organization, elevating the voice of youth, those with most to lose, to secure the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate on behalf of present and future generations. We lead a coordinated global human rights and environmental justice campaign to implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans that will return atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to below 350 ppm by the year 2100. www.ourchildrenstrust.org/
Earth Guardians is a Colorado-based nonprofit organization with youth chapters on five continents, and multiple groups in the United States with thousands of members working together to protect the Earth, the water, the air, and the atmosphere, creating healthy sustainable communities globally. We inspire and empower young leaders, families, schools, organizations, cities, and government officials to make positive change locally, nationally, and globally to address the critical state of the Earth. www.earthguardians.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs include Philip L. Gregory, Esq. of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy of Burlingame, CA, Daniel M. Galpern, Esq. of Eugene, OR, and Julia Olson, Esq., also of Eugene, OR.
Our Children's Trust is a nonprofit organization advocating for urgent emissions reductions on behalf of youth and future generations, who have the most to lose if emissions are not reduced. OCT is spearheading the international human rights and environmental TRUST Campaign to compel governments to safeguard the atmosphere as a "public trust" resource. We use law, film, and media to elevate their compelling voices. Our ultimate goal is for governments to adopt and implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans with annual emissions reductions to return to an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 350 ppm.
Content creator María Teresa Felipe Sosa hailed Cubans as "a people who refuse to submit to the true regime of horror, which the United States represents, as it goes around starting wars throughout the world."
As the team at Tehran-based Explosive Media keeps churning out viral artificial intelligence-generated Lego-style animated videos condemning the US-Israeli war on Iran, a Cuban version of the clips reacting to President Donald Trump's threats to attack the island appeared Monday on social media.
First posted by Havana art historian and digital content creator María Teresa Felipe Sosa, the video was shared by users including US investigative journalist Ryan Grim and Explosive Media, which added, "Welcome to the #LRF Cuba," or Lego Resistance Front.
"The threat that Cuba represents to the United States is the dignity and principles of a people who refuse to submit to the true regime of horror, which the United States represents, as it goes around starting wars throughout the world," Felipe said Tuesday on social media.
According to the video's lyrics:
They seek to stifle the lifeblood of this land with the talons of empire and the drums of war, from the north they unleash their poisonous breath seeking to seize what belongs to others. But this soil has roots of steel and a people who cannot be bought with money.
They raise walls of hatred and lies while the island, relying on its own strength, breathes amid 60 years of constant hostile siege—yet we continue to march forward with a firm step. There is no threat that can break our faith; the Cuban knows well how to stand tall.
Here dignity has neither price nor master; we are the guardians of our own dream. My people, stand tall, with fists held high against the invader and their dark assault.
There's no surrender beneath this burning sun, for it's known that the homeland must be defended. Resist my brother with your head held high for every victory in the battle-hardened struggle, your love is the compass of our people, for you know that the homeland must be defended.
The video comes amid more than 65 years of US-based terrorism, assassination attempts, and a tightened economic embargo targeting Cuba, as well as Trump's threats to attack or "take" the island. Despite extreme hardship caused or exacerbated by these internationally condemned policies, the Cuban people have been resolute in their resistance to US aggression.
With no victory in sight in the US-Israeli war on Iran and the American people increasingly wary of yet another war of choice waged by the self-described "president of peace" who's now attacked 10 countries over the course of his two terms in office, even some Republican lawmakers are warning Trump against attacking Cuba.
Asked if he would support such an attack, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told The Hill on Tuesday, "No, I would not."
"There’s a lot of economic pressure you can put on Cuba that makes a big difference by itself,” the hawkish senator added.
Numerous Democratic lawmakers have consistently opposed any attack on Cuba; however Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently helped sink a Senate war powers resolution aimed at blocking Trump from attacking the country.
More than 6 in 10 Americans surveyed by multiple pollsters in recent months said they oppose a US war on Cuba.
Responding to the renewed US menace under Trump, Felipe recently wrote that "the current threats aren't anything new, they only confirm a dangerous insistence—that of replacing international law with the law of the strongest."
"In the face of that, Cuba responds with an uncomfortable and persistent idea—its people does not give up," she continued. "Cuba is not seeking confrontation. It demands respect. And history, although some prefer to ignore it, has been clear—independence is not negotiated under threat."
"Once again," Felipe added, "and against all imperial odds, Cuba will win."
"These numbers tell the real story," said one campaigner. "His administration has failed to address—and in many cases, worsened—an historic cost-of-living crisis that is crushing everyday Americans."
While inflation hit a three-year high on Tuesday and President Donald Trump publicly confessed that he doesn't consider how his illegal war on Iran impacts Americans' finances, a Federal Reserve bank revealed that US household debt has risen to a record high of $18.8 trillion.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Center for Microeconomic Data found that household debt increased by $18 billion in the first quarter of this year.
It specifically found that by the end of March, mortgage balances increased by $21 billion to $13.19 trillion, home equity line of credit balances jumped by $12 billion to $446 billion, and automobile loan balances rose by $18 billion to $1.69 trillion.
The center further found that "while student loan balances remained essentially flat, decreasing by $6 billion and standing at $1.66 trillion," the delinquency rate "increased to 10.3% of balances 90+ days delinquent, up from the 9.6%" in the last quarter of 2025.
The analysis notes that credit card balances dropped by $25 billion to $1.25 trillion, a seasonal decline that generally occurs after the winter holidays. However, in its coverage of the New York Fed's findings, CNBC highlighted another report out Tuesday that shows how Americans are struggling with current economic conditions.
As CNBC detailed:
More than half—53%—of consumers carry credit card balances to cover essential expenses, according to a report released Tuesday by debt management company Achieve.
"For many households, higher balances are less a sign of economic optimism and more a sign that wages and savings are struggling to keep pace with essential expenses like groceries, utilities, and housing," Austin Kilgore, analyst for the Achieve Center for Consumer Insights, said in a statement.
Among respondents in Achieve's survey of 2,000 consumers, 57% of borrowers said it would take six months or longer to pay off all their credit card debt.
According to ABC News, "On a call with reporters Tuesday morning, researchers at the New York Fed described Americans' overall credit as 'stable,' but noted there are weaknesses among younger consumers and lower-income households."
Mike Pierce, co-founder and executive director of the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, was far more scathing, declaring in a statement that "working families are at a breaking point and desperately need relief. Instead, President Trump is bragging about his plans for a new White House ballroom while his head economist touts families' surging debts as a sign of a booming economy."
"These numbers tell the real story: Trump's economy has driven up costs," Pierce continued. "His administration has failed to address—and in many cases, worsened—an historic cost-of-living crisis that is crushing everyday Americans under stagnant wages and rampant price gouging by grocery conglomerates, data centers, corporate landlords, and private equity firms."
"Making matters worse, Trump's war with Iran is pushing inflation to record levels and forcing Americans to feel the economic pain at the pump," he added, as gasoline prices topped $4.50 a gallon on Tuesday. "It is clear that President Trump is not only failing to 'Make America Affordable Again' but is actively pushing millions of families further into the red."
Last week, Pierce's group and The Century Foundation published an analysis about soaring US auto loan debt. Report co-author and Protect Borrowers senior fellow Tara Mikkilineni said at the time that "for millions of working families, a car is not a luxury, it is an essential economic lifeline. Working families deserve relief, and they deserve to have a government that is watching out for them, not allowing lenders and auto dealers to rake in record profits at their expense."
Meanwhile, Trump—who is facing intense disapproval from the US public, particularly regarding the economy—has repeatedly made clear he doesn't care how his policies, from sweeping tariffs to the Iran War, impact Americans' pocketbooks.
Trump's assault prompted Iran to restrict ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route, which has driven up the prices of fossil fuels worldwide. Speaking with journalists outside the White House last month, Trump suggested that $4 a gallon for gas is "not very high."
Asked about the war's impact on the US public's finances again on Tuesday, Trump said that "the only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran—they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing—we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all."
Those remarks came just hours after the latest consumer price index from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows that prices increased by 3.8% on an annual basis in April—above economists' expected 3.7% jump—and the cost of living rose above average monthly wage gains. Various experts responded by taking aim at the president.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers said that "Trump campaigned on bringing down the cost of living 'starting on day one,' and then: started a trade war; deported much of the farm workforce, bombed Iran, allowed healthcare subsidies to expire, cut food assistance, ran an interest-rate boosting deficit, and attacked Fed independence."
Sen. Jeff Merkley called the project “nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans.”
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday released a report estimating that President Donald Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" missile defense system would cost $1.2 trillion to create, deploy, and operate over the first 20 years of its existence.
The CBO report projects that acquisition costs for the proposed national missile defense (NMD) system would account for the vast majority of the $1.2 trillion total, including "costs for the system’s major components—namely, the interceptor layers and a space-based missile warning and tracking system."
In fact, the report says that the NMD system's space-based interceptor layer will be so expensive that it "accounts for about 70% of acquisition costs and 60% of total costs."
The CBO also questioned whether this massive investment would successfully protect the US from a foreign missile attack.
"Although the notional NMD system... would be far more capable than defenses the United States fields today," the report states, "it would not be an impenetrable shield or be able to fully counter a large attack of the sort that Russia or China might be able to launch."
"The strategic consequences of deploying an NMD system with the capacity considered here are unclear," the report continues, "because they hinge on an adversary’s perception of the defense's capability and how that adversary chose to respond."
The CBO's estimate on the missile system's cost was nearly seven times the projection Trump made last year, when he said it would cost just $175 billion.
And because the US Department of Defense still hasn't delivered key details about the proposed system, the CBO wrote, it is currently "impossible to estimate the long-term cost" of the initiative.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a longtime critic of the "Golden Dome" proposal, said the CBO report shows the Trump-backed project is "nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans."
"Just like the president’s symbolic renaming of the Department of Defense or deploying National Guard troops to our cities," added Merkley, who is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, "this move to fund the ‘Golden Dome’ will be far more effective at squandering money than protecting American lives."
The Oregon Democrat vowed to "continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to prevent another dime from flowing to this racket."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), also a longtime critic of the president's proposed missile system, wrote in a social media post that "Trump’s Golden Dome is a $1.2 trillion golden sieve that won’t stop a nuclear attack, but will balloon the deficit and boost the bottom lines of billionaires."
Tommy Vietor, former National Security Council staffer under President Barack Obama and current co-host of Pod Save America, was even blunter in his criticism of the "Golden Dome" plan.
"$1.2 TRILLION for this dumb fucking Golden Dome missile defense system," he wrote in a social media post. "The initial estimate was $175 billion! Madness. No one wants this."
Daniel Larison, contributing editor at Antiwar.com and former senior editor at The American Conservative magazine, wrote that the CBO report exposed Trump's dome as a "trillion-dollar boondoggle."
Trump has said that he was inspired to develop such a missile system after being impressed by Israel’s “Iron Dome," despite the fact that Israel has a vastly smaller landmass to defend compared to the US and has historically faced far more danger from missile and rocket attacks.