To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
In a perfect, ghastly metaphor for the state of our "democracy," J.D. and Drunken Pete just oversaw an "artillery fiasco" at a Marine Corps celebration where a live shell detonated over a highway and hit their motorcade - Lesson #1: "Morons Are Governing America" - and Trump abruptly began a demolition of the East Wing of The People's House for "his fucking ballroom," though he claimed construction "wouldn't interfere" with it. Lesson #2: They "lie like they breathe," bulldoze history and wreak havoc as they go.
On the same day as No Kings but definitely not to distract anyone even though the actual date they're marking isn't until November 10, repulsive bros J.D. Vance and manly "We Are The War Department" Pete Hegseth went to California for the 250th anniversary of the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton to watch a training exercise that included firing live 155mm M777 shells out of howitzers from the ocean over Interstate I-5, an action Gavin Newsom decried as "an absurd show of force" that threatened public safety. Just in case, being a grown-up, Newsom shut down 17 miles of the highway. Vance, in turn, ridiculed his move as "consistent with a track record of failure," sneering the governor "wants people to think this exercise is dangerous" when of course it's "an established safe practice" and anyway he's a big boy who knows stuff.
So. What happens "when the commander-in-chief is an idiot and the head of the Pentagon is a blackout drunk?" In Chap. 874 of Adventures of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight But Still Hit Enough, after Marines began firing live rounds over the highway, one shell prematurely exploded - some "saw the artillery round fail to clear the highway and explode near the southbound lane" - raining burning shrapnel onto a Highway Patrol car and motorcycle in Vance's security detail in what officials called "an unusual and concerning situation" that surely nobody could have predicted. Except maybe Gavin Newsom, who I-told-you-so raged, "Next time, the Vice President and the White House shouldn’t be so reckless (with) their vanity projects (and) put lives at risk to put on a show. If you want to honor our troops, open the government and pay them."
Vance, who's evidently hated wherever he goes - his family's summer vacation in the English countryside was met by residents holding a "Dance Against Vance Not Welcome" party complete with Go Away banner, insults, memes, and a staff mutiny at a pub where he wanted to eat - told reporters he had "a great visit" with the Marines. His team declined to comment on his "artillery fiasco," but others had thoughts. They suggested he'd probably say "it was just kid pieces of shrapnel doing normal kid pieces of shrapnel stuff," or locker room shrapnel, or antifa, thus representing the most destruction seen on No Kings Day. Also, "Nothing says 'Warrior Ethos' like firing live ammunition across a busy Southern California freeway on a Saturday afternoon," "MAGA stands for Morons Are Governing America," and, "This is a whole new level of dipshitery."
Then, on Monday, came Trump's backhoes and destruction crews suddenly, methodically ripping through the historic, stately, 1902 East Wing of the White House to build a garish $250 million, "beautiful, beautiful ballroom like I have at Mar-a-Lago" - "the remodel no one asked for" - despite his earlier adamant claim the project "wouldn’t interfere” with the former structure: "It’ll be near it but not touching it (and) pay total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of...It’s my favorite place. I love it." Shockingly, he evidently lied. Announcing the boondoggle in July, he also said it would be 90,000 square feet and seat up to 650 people - now grown to 999 people - making it the largest room in the White House. And it will ostensibly be funded by "many generous patriots" who also happen to be billionaires seeking deregulation and access to his gilded power.
Trump claims America's masses have long been yearning for a glitzy ballroom - it took so long because "there’s never been a president that was good at ballrooms" - and he is "honored to finally get this much-needed project underway," especially now during a government shutdown, when wealth and income inequality is at a record highs, SNAP benefits are being slashed, millions of people are struggling to buy groceries, health care and Medicaid are threatened, special ed and veterans' services are in jeopardy, farmers and small businesses are suffering, federal workers are either losing their jobs or not getting paid, he is sending billions to Argentina for no discernible reason and he is giddily spending millions on golf and new jets and fake gold slathered feckin' everywhere while demanding his let-them-eat-cake cult members keep tightening their gullible belts.
Architects have noted the fortuitous timing: The White House is a public property run by the National Park Service, but this carnage is purportedly exempt from review by multiple planning and preservation bodies Trump has dismissed, rendered toothless or effectively disappeared in the shutdown. "This is by design," said one. “The object of power is power." Whose very public abuse, in this instance, prompted cries of WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? Many Americans watched in horror as an iconic White House built by slaves - where Nancy Reagan's new china, Jimmy Carter's solar panels, Obama's dog once quaintly sparked outrage - was blithely razed and pillaged. Joe Walsh called it "an utter desecration of the Peoples’ House," adding he'd gladly invite patriots, some weekend, "to bring their own sledgehammers & crowbars to help tear that abomination down."
The Bulwark's Mona Charen has called Trump "a walking wrecking ball of law, tradition, civility, manners, and morals." His tacky paved Rose Garden, fake-gold-drenched Oval Office, many crimes against good taste and now ballroom reflect "a low and shameful time" of transforming the graceful into the sordid (that) "will be both awful and fitting." Now, the metaphorical has become literal in a defacement one historian calls "like slashing a Rembrandt painting.” "This is Trump's America," said one patriot of the dusty devastation. "And that was our history." Many felt sickened by the grisly manifestation "of the entire Trump administration": "It is not his fucking house," "Holy mother of God, this is horrifying," "Jesus fucking Christ, somebody stop him," "That was our democracy." "Breaking News: Antifa destroys the White House," said one. "Correction: It was Trump."
Update: Aceco, the company doing the demolition, is being savaged on Yelp with a flood of one-star reviews for "taking one of the most sacrilegious dem jobs in American history." "We all make choices in this life," read one, "and this was a bad one." Others: "How dare you destroy part of OUR house for that pedo dictator?", "Oops. Bad move tearing down the People's House. And you probably won't get paid," and, "May karma prevail."
Updated update for a surreal timeline: Wednesday night, the mad king said, Ok, fuck it, we'll just take down the whole thing: "We determined that, after really a tremendous amount of (non-existent) study with some of the best (imaginary) architects in the world, we determined that really knocking it down, trying to use a little section — you know, the East Wing, was not much.”
American children and young adults suing over President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive orders plan to keep fighting after a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed their case, citing a previous decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Eva Lighthiser, Rikki Held—of the historic Held v. State of Montana case—and 20 other young people filed a federal suit in Montana in May, taking aim at Trump's executive orders (EOs) declaring a "national energy emergency," directing federal agencies to "unleash" American energy by accelerating fossil fuel development, and boosting the coal industry.
"The founders of this country believed our rights to life and liberty were the fundamental tenets of a reasoned and just society, among the most sacred of rights to protect from government intrusion and overreach," said Daniel C. Snyder, director of the Environmental Enforcement Project at Public Justice, one of the groups representing the young plaintiffs.
"Not only should Americans be outraged by unlawful executive actions that trample upon those rights, but also because the harm these executive orders have inflicted was acknowledged by the court—showing the serious nature of plaintiffs' case," Snyder continued. "Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."
"Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."
US District Judge Dana Christensen "reluctantly" dismissed Lighthiser v. Trump on Wednesday, pointing to the 9th Circuit's 2020 opinion in Juliana v. United States, a constitutional climate case that the US Supreme Court effectively ended in March.
"Plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels," wrote Christensen. "The record further demonstrates that climate change and the exposure from fossil fuels presents a children's health emergency."
The appointee of former President Barack Obama also said that he was "troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged EOs' effect on carbon dioxide emissions." Specifically, he noted, "plaintiffs have shown the challenged EOs will generate an additional 205 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2027, an increase which plaintiffs convincingly allege will expose them to imminent, increased harm from a warming climate."
While Adam Gustafson, acting assistant attorney general of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the US Department of Justice, cheered the dismissal of what he called "a sweeping and baseless attack on President Trump's energy agenda," the judge wrote that "if the 9th Circuit disagrees" with his decision, he "welcomes the return of this case to decide it on the merits."
Lawyers for the youth plaintiffs have already set their sights on the higher court. Lead attorney Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust stressed that "Judge Christensen said he reached his decision reluctantly and invited the 9th Circuit to correct him so these young Americans can have their case heard—and the 9th Circuit should do just that."
"Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future," she noted. "The judge recognized that the government's fossil fuel directives are injuring these youth, but said his hands were tied by precedent."
"We will appeal—because courts cannot offer more protection to fossil fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights," Olson added. "This violates not only the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, but the most basic principles of justice."
US ranchers and industry groups are responding critically to President Donald Trump's proposal that the United States "would buy some beef from Argentina," in a bid to "bring our beef prices down," while pursuing an up to $40 billion bailout for the South American country.
Trump made the suggestion to reporters on Air Force One Sunday, according to the Associated Press. A few days earlier, he'd said that a deal to cut the price of beef was "gonna be coming down pretty soon." The AP noted various reasons for "stubbornly high" US prices, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico.
"President Trump's plan to buy beef from Argentina is a betrayal of the American rancher," Christian Lovell, an Illinois cattle producer and senior director of programs at the organization Farm Action, said in a Monday statement. "Those of us who raise cattle have finally started to see what profit looks like after facing years of high input costs and market manipulation by the meatpacking monopoly."
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," he continued, referring to one of the impacts of Trump's tariff war. "Importing Argentinian beef would send US cattle prices plummeting—and with the meatpacking industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either. Washington should be focused on fixing our broken cattle market, not rewarding foreign competitors."
"Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people."
"With these actions, President Trump risks acting more like the president of Argentina than president of the United States," Lovell declared. The US leader is a key ally of the nation's actual president, Javier Milei, whose austerity agenda has created the need for a massive bailout from Washington, DC.
Farm Action's proposed fix for the US is to tackle the "structurally flawed system" with three steps: "Reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork, restore competitive markets by enforcing antitrust laws, and rebuild the US cow herd to achieve national self-reliance in beef production."
The group was far from alone in criticizing Trump's weekend remarks and offering alternative solutions to reduce US prices.
"We appreciate President Trump's interest in addressing the US beef market, which has been producing all-time record-high consumer beef prices," said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, the nation's largest cattle association, in a statement. "We urge the president to address the fundamental problems in the beef market, not just its symptom."
"The symptom is that the US has shrunk its beef cow herd to such a low level that it can no longer produce enough beef to satisfy domestic demand," he continued. "But the fundamental problem is that decades of failed trade policies have allowed cheap, undifferentiated imports to displace the domestic cow herd, driving hundreds of thousands of cattle farmers and ranchers and millions of domestic beef cows out of the domestic beef supply chain."
"In addition, the nation's beef packers and beef retailers have been allowed to concentrate to monopolistic levels, enabling them to interfere with competitive market forces," he asserted. "Attempting to lower domestic beef prices simply by inviting even more imports will both exacerbate and accelerate the ongoing dismantling of the domestic beef supply chain."
Instead of promoting US beef production, Trump now wants to establish a preferred position for Argentine beef in the US. Why, exactly? Is this what America First means?
[image or embed]
— Scott Horton (@robertscotthorton.bsky.social) October 20, 2025 at 2:23 PM
National Cattlemen's Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said that "NCBA's family farmers and ranchers have numerous concerns with importing more Argentinian beef to lower prices for consumers. This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices."
"Additionally, Argentina has a deeply unbalanced trade relationship with the US," Woodall noted. "In the past five years Argentina has sold more than $801 million of beef into the US market. By comparison, the US has sold just over $7 million worth of American beef to Argentina. Argentina also has a history of foot-and-mouth disease, which, if brought to the United States, could decimate our domestic livestock production."
Justin Tupper, president of the US Cattlemen's Association, highlighted the rising costs that ranchers are enduring.
"The cost of producing beef today is accurately represented in the consumer markets where it is sold," he said. "Ranchers are facing historic highs for feed, fuel, labor, and land—and those costs have risen far faster than beef prices on grocery shelves."
"When policymakers hint at intervention or suggest quick fixes, they can shake the market's foundation and directly impact the livelihoods of ranchers who depend on stable, transparent pricing," Tupper warned in the wake of the president's recent remarks. "Sudden price moves make it harder for independent producers to plan, invest, and keep their operations running."
"Efforts to support consumers must consider the economic realities on the ground and ensure the voices of independent ranchers lead the discussion," he added. "Market-driven prices—not mandates or panic interventions—have delivered value for generations. Let's focus on transparency, market integrity, and maintaining the conditions for sustainable rural economies."
Trump's signal that the US may buy more beef from Argentina comes as poll after poll shows that Americans—whose federal minimum wage hasn't increased in over 15 years—are stressed about the climbing costs of groceries. In addition to beef, shoppers are facing higher prices for staples such as coffee and eggs.
The Democratic National Committee also called out Trump's proposal on Monday, with Kendall Witmer, the DNC's rapid response director, charging that "Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people, who are struggling to afford everything from rent to groceries."
"Because of Trump, farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy, and the government has been shut down for almost a month," Witmer added. "You would think that the so-called 'America First' president would be focused on reopening the government and saving millions of Americans from skyrocketing healthcare premiums—but Trump is showing his true colors. He only cares about helping himself and his friends, even at the expense of the American people. Let's be clear: MAGA now stands for Make Argentina Great Again."
Sen. Jeff Merkley on Tuesday night began a marathon speech on the floor of the US Senate, which he said was intended to "ring the alarm bells" against President Donald Trump's authoritarian ambitions.
The speech, which began at approximately 6:30 pm ET on Tuesday and and was still continuing at press time, documented Trump's unprecedented assaults on American institutions and the rule of law.
"I’ve come to the Senate floor tonight to ring the alarm bells," Merkley (D-Ore.) said at the start of his speech. "We’re in the most perilous moment, the biggest threat to our republic since the Civil War. President Trump is shredding our Constitution."
Among other things, Merkley pointed to the Trump administration's attacks on the media, including threats from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr to pull broadcast licenses of stations unless they stopped airing late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, who for years has been a staunch Trump critic.
Merkley also noted Trump's attempts to send the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, based on completely false claims that the city is "burning down" due to rioting from Antifa operatives. He ridiculed the notion that the current protests outside of the Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility constituted an organized rebellion with an intent to overthrow the US government.
"So among the inflated costumes, and the women in doing their pajamas and pastries... and the Unipiper on the unicycle, where do you find a large, organized, armed group with a mission of overthrowing the government?" he asked rhetorically. "Not to be found!"
Merkley highlighted the threat posed by National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by Trump last month that mandates a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence," with an exclusive focus on left-wing groups.
Merkley argued that the order was a thinly veiled effort to shut down political dissent in the US by labeling all opposition to the president as a form of "political violence."
"It certainly appears like it's a strategy to take folks you disagree with and label them a terrorist threat, when they may actually be no such threat at all," he said.
Elsewhere in the speech, Merkley slammed Trump for using the US Department of Justice as an instrument of revenge to go after his political opponents, including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and former Trump national security adviser John Bolton, all of whom have been indicted on criminal charges over the last month.
“This is an extraordinarily dangerous moment,” he said. “An authoritarian president proceeding to attack free speech, attack free press, weaponize the Department of Justice, and use it against those who disagree with him, and then seeking the court’s permission to send the military into our cities to attack people who are peacefully protesting."
At press time, Merkley has been speaking for more than 16 consecutive hours. Earlier this year, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) held the Senate floor for a record 25 hours in a speech that similarly warned about Trump's authoritarian takeover of the US government.
Days after new reporting revealed that at least 170 US citizens are among those who have been detained by federal immigration agents under the Trump administration, which Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal called "absolutely shocking," the Washington Democrat joined Rep. Jamie Raskin in demanding answers from top homeland security officials on the report.
Jayapal and Raskin (D-Md.) noted that they previously wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Todd Lyons in February, just weeks into President Donald Trump's second term, when the detention of US citizens ensnared in Trump's mass deportation operation was already raising alarm.
At that point, NBC News had reported on the detentions of US citizens including Native tribe members, which raised concerns about racial profiling—but in their Monday letter to Noem and Lyons, Jayapal and Raskin said the response they got in February was "flippant and unserious," with the officials simply reiterating existing policies that prohibit ICE from detaining US citizens—"without providing any assurance" that agents were "actually following that policy."
"This administration cannot hide behind a broad policy statement, as it continues to unlawfully detain US citizens as part of indiscriminate immigration raids," wrote Jayapal and Raskin.
The lawmakers emphasized that numerous arrests of US citizens by ICE and other immigration agents have been violent.
Raskin and Jayapal drew attention to four specific cases, including those of:
Other cases not mentioned in the letter include those of Job Garcia, a photographer who was tackled and held on the ground by ICE agents during a raid at a Home Depot in Los Angeles and then detained for more than 24 hours, and Debbie Brockman, a news producer in Chicago who was handcuffed by agents who accused her of throwing an object at them, and then hauled into an unmarked vehicle that crashed into another car as it sped away—only to be released later that day with no charges.
Raskin and Jayapal accused Noem and Lyons of overseeing a "lawless 'detain first, ask questions later' approach to immigration
enforcement" that is "terrorizing communities across the country."
"Masked, armed agents are snatching people on the street and refusing to identify themselves," said the lawmakers. "US citizens are now afraid to speak Spanish in public and are carrying their passports everywhere they go. This administration’s failure to investigate or even acknowledge that these indiscriminate immigration raids are canceling the rights of US citizens is dangerous."
Jayapal and Raskin demanded that Noem and Lyons provide an accounting of all the US citizens who have been detained with their identities, the length of time they were held, and their criminal records if they had any—which, according to an analysis by the CATO Institute in June, a majority of people arrested by ICE this year have not.
"We once again demand that you immediately provide a full accounting of all cases in which US citizens have been detained since January 20, 2025," said the Democrats, "and explain any concrete steps your agencies are implementing to prevent such abuses from continuing."
A group of United Nations experts on Tuesday condemned US President Donald Trump's recent threats to wage war on Venezuela and said his decision to bomb at least seven boats in international waters—killing dozens of people accused without evidence of drug trafficking—amounted to "extrajudicial executions."
Trump's repeated threats against Venezuela "violate the fundamental international obligations not to intervene in the domestic affairs or threaten to use armed force against another country," said the trio of experts, warning that the US president's belligerence represents "an extremely dangerous escalation with grave implications for peace and security in the Caribbean region."
Even if the Trump administration had substantiated its drug trafficking claims, the experts continued, "the use of lethal force in international waters without proper legal basis violates the international law of the sea."
The statement from the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, and special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism came amid growing alarm over Trump's actions and posturing against Venezuela.
Earlier this month, Trump authorized covert CIA operations in the country and declined to answer when asked whether the move amounted to a green light for the agency to assassinate the nation's president, Nicolás Maduro.
The Trump administration has also amassed an "unusually large force" in the Caribbean consisting of thousands of troops, at least eight warships, and a squadron of jets.
"Trump has said nothing to dispel concerns that the United States could launch a full-scale military operation," The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
In their statement, the UN experts called Trump's warmongering against Venezuela a violation of the UN Charter, which they note "prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
They also cast the administration's aggressive conduct as a reprise of the sordid record of US intervention, covert and otherwise, in Latin America.
"The long history of external interventions in Latin America must not be repeated," the experts said. "The lessons from history must be learned and not repeated. The international community must stand firm in defending the rule of law, dialogue, and the peaceful settlement of disputes."
“We’ve seen this pattern before—the use of redistricting and voting laws to divide, diminish, and deny," said Bishop William Barber II.
Calling the North Carolina Republican Party's new congressional district map "surgical racism with surgical precision," Bishop William J. Barber II of Repairers of the Breach was in Raleigh Thursday announcing a lawsuit challenging the redistricting effort—pledging that the state's voters will "challenge gerrymandering in the courts, in the streets, and at the ballot box."
"This is a direct attack on the state's Black Belt district and marginalized communities," said Barber at a press conference announcing the legal challenge, a day after the state House of Representatives approved the new map in a party-line vote.
The new map, which was passed by the state Senate earlier this week and cannot be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Josh Stein under state law, will likely give the GOP an additional seat in the US House after the 2026 midterm elections.
President Donald Trump has called for mid-decade redistricting efforts by the GOP in states including Missouri and Texas as well as North Carolina, with state Republicans heeding his demands.
North Carolina's new map will likely give Republicans 11 of the state's 14 districts, by moving some Black voters out of the 1st District and into the 3rd District. Had the new map been in place in 2024, Trump would likely have won 55% of the vote in the new 1st District in 2024, up from the 51% he won.
Barber denounced the redistricting efforts across the country as "political robbery" by a party that wants "to rob people of their rights through this racially based gerrymandering... so that they can give power or keep power in the US Congress to engage in political violence," including by cutting healthcare and blocking the passage of living wages.
“We’ve seen this pattern before—the use of redistricting and voting laws to divide, diminish, and deny," said Barber. "But the truth is simple: When you steal people’s representation, you steal their healthcare, their wages, and their future. That’s why we will fight back... to make clear that in North Carolina, and across America, the people’s will cannot be gerrymandered out of existence."
Barber said Republicans in the state Legislature are "gambling" in order to win another seat, instead of trying to win over voters.
"They're saying, 'Let's move this county over here, let's move this county over here,' he said at the press conference. "Black voters in Congressional District 1 make up approximately 40% of the population, and there's a growing Latino population that makes up 7%... Black communities, Latino communities, and rural, working-class, poor white voters, if the districts are fair, have the power to build a fusion electorate that can overcome the greedy oligarchs' will to control elections in our state."
Along with filing a legal action against state lawmakers to challenge the legality of the map, Barber said Repairers of the Breach will hold a "Mass Moral Fusion Meeting" and public hearing on November 2.
“If they won’t hold public hearings, we will,” said Barber. “This is our Edmund Pettus Bridge moment... Black, white, and brown together—because our democracy is not for sale.”
The lawsuit centers on Philippine laws stating that citizens have the right to a healthy environment.
Dozens of survivors of a "super typhoon" that struck the Philippines are suing fossil fuels giant Shell for its role in causing the climate emergency in a landmark lawsuit.
As reported by The Guardian, 66 victims of Typhoon Rai, a 2021 storm that killed more than 400 people and left millions more displaced, filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom on Wednesday demanding that Shell provide them with financial compensation for their losses.
The Guardian noted that this is the first-ever civil complaint "to directly link polluting companies to deaths and personal injuries that have already happened in the Global South," as most other lawsuits against fossil fuel companies have been focused on potential future risks.
In the US earlier this year, a woman named Misti Leon sued several fossil fuel giants, arguing they were liable for the death of her mother, who died in an extreme heatwave in the Pacific Northwest in 2021.
The attorneys representing the victims in the Philippines case have invited Shell to respond to their allegations, and said they will file the case with the UK High Court by the end of the year if the two parties do not come to an agreement.
The lawsuit centers on Philippine laws stating that citizens have the right to a healthy environment, and it cites leaked internal documents from Shell that suggest it possessed full knowledge about the negative impact its activities are having on the climate.
Greg Lascelles, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the fact that Shell continued to aggressively expand its fossil fuel extraction operations "knowing the harm they would cause, coupled with deliberately misinforming the public, can be considered acting contrary to certain provisions of Filipino law."
A spokesperson for Shell told The Guardian that it is not fair to blame their company exclusively for the global climate emergency.
"The suggestion that Shell had unique knowledge about climate change is simply not true," they said. "The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has been part of public discussion and scientific research for decades."
One 1988 document from Shell cautioned that "by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation," while another projected that "catastrophic weather events" could eventually trigger lawsuits against governments and oil companies.
"After all, two successive [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports since 1995 have reinforced the human connection to climate change," wrote Shell scenario planners.
Although the lawsuit against Shell is the first to directly link fossil fuel companies to recent climate disasters in the Global South, Climate Home News noted in a Thursday report that many legal experts believe that a ruling earlier this year from a court in Germany "confirmed that climate science can establish legal liability for damage caused by emissions."
Specifically, the court this past May found that companies can be held liable for climate damages, although it dismissed a specific claim from a Peruvian farmer who had sued German energy company RWE for allegedly putting his home at risk of floods due to melting glaciers.
As The Guardian reported at the time, the court ruled that polluters "must bear the costs in proportion to their share of... emissions" if they fail to take "preventative measures" to reduce environmental destruction.
The Missouri Republican introduced a bill to protect SNAP benefits during the government shutdown after supporting a budget package that contains the largest food aid cuts in US history.
Republican US Sen. Josh Hawley is once again posing as the defender of a program he recently voted to cut.
On Wednesday, the Missouri senator introduced legislation that would fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for the duration of the government shutdown as families across the country brace for benefit disruptions and cuts beginning as soon as November 1, potentially impacting more than 40 million people.
"Our kids deserve to eat," Hawley said in a statement, blaming Democrats for the shutdown even as his party refuses to support an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, sending insurance premiums soaring.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told reporters this week that Democrats "want Americans to have healthcare and food."
"The Republicans, evidently, don't care whether they have either," Warren added.
Hawley's statement on the new legislation did not mention his support for President Donald Trump's signature budget package, which included the largest SNAP cuts in US history, affecting millions across the nation—including many children.
The looming SNAP benefit cuts due to the government shutdown are set to compound the impacts of food aid cuts from the Trump-GOP budget law. The Trump administration is currently pressuring states to swiftly implement the law's draconian SNAP changes, including more expansive work requirements.
Hawley's new bill, titled the Keep SNAP Funded Act, marks the second time this year that the Missouri Republican has come to the defense of a program that he has helped attack. Just two weeks after helping pass the Trump-GOP budget package, which contains around $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, Hawley unveiled legislation aimed at repealing some of those cuts.
The bill went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.
It's unclear whether Hawley's SNAP legislation will suffer the same fate. The Republican senator said if GOP leaders don't agree to bring it up for a vote, he intends to try to pass it via unanimous consent.
Dozens of states have said they have begun sending out notices informing SNAP recipients that they won't receive benefits next month if the shutdown continues, and food pantries across the nation are preparing for a surge in demand.
Legislation like Hawley's isn't necessary to ensure that SNAP recipients continue receiving at least partial benefits as the shutdown drags on, experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) stressed earlier this week.
"Nearly two-thirds of the funds needed for a full month of benefits are available in SNAP's contingency fund and must be used when regular funding for SNAP runs short," wrote CBPP's Dottie Rosenbaum and Katie Bergh. "The administration must release those funds immediately as SNAP law requires, to ensure that families can put food on the table next month."
As of this writing, the Trump administration has made no indication it plans to release those funds.
