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.
Opposition to the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project is visible on a roadside sign in Bent Mountain, Virginia. (Photo: Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Climate campaigners celebrated Thursday after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit delivered yet another blow to a controversial gas project spanning over 300 miles in Virginia and West Virginia.
"This decision again reinforces the truth that this destructive project must not be allowed to continue."
"At a time when we need to urgently move away from fracked-gas pipelines and all the harms they bring--from impacts to endangered species to damage to water quality to climate change--the law and science prevailed in this case," declared Anne Havemann, general counsel of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
A three-judge panel from the Richmond-based federal appeals court threw out the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' assessment of how the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) would impact two endangered fish species: the Roanoke logperch and the candy darter.
"If a species is already speeding toward the extinction cliff, an agency may not press on the gas. We urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider this directive carefully while reassessing impacts to the two endangered fish at issue, especially the apparently not-long-for-this-world candy darter," Judge James Wynn wrote in the court's opinion.
"We recognize that this decision will further delay the completion of an already mostly finished pipeline," Wynn added, "but the Endangered Species Act's directive to federal agencies could not be clearer: 'halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.'"
\u201cNOT TODAY MVP!!!!!!!!! \n\nBREAKING: The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision finding that MVP construction does jeopardize endangered and threatened species, countering the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\u2019s previous findings. #StopMVP #NoMVP\u201d— Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (@Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights) 1643901964
While the five companies behind the pipeline said that "we remain committed to completing the MVP project and believe the concerns associated with MVP's biological opinion can be addressed by the agency," climate campaigners expressed hope this will help kill the project.
"Sacred life prevailed today with the court's acknowledgment of the harmful impact MVP has on everything in its path, specifically endangered and threatened species," said Russell Chisholm, co-chair of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition. "Holding MVP accountable to the law is key to the ultimate cancellation of this noxious fracked gas pipeline."
"This decision not only protects the candy darter and other endangered species," he continued, "it sets us on course to stop MVP, decisively transition away from deadly fossil fuels, and reroute towards a renewable economy on a livable planet."
\u201cHUGE win in the fight to #StopMVP \u2014\u00a0another permit down, another gaping hole in the Mountain Valley Pipeline's plans to finish this destructive project.\n\nThis pipeline is a disaster for planet + people, & we won't stop saying #NoMVP until it's dead.\n\nhttps://t.co/rPlZWDDKwK\u201d— Collin Rees (@Collin Rees) 1643903158
Calling the court's move a "sweetly welcome decision in our fight to stop the ravage of MVP," Roberta Bondurant of Preserve Bent Mountain--which is part of the POWHR Coalition--pointed out that the local opponents along the pipeline's route "have fought relentlessly, and at unspeakable costs, to protect forest, meadow, and waters of our venerable Appalachians."
Peter Anderson, Virginia policy director for Appalachian Voices, noted that "communities in this region rely on its rich biodiversity to support many recreational and economic opportunities."
While lambasting the failure of "agencies that should be guardians of our most precious resources and the public interest, Wild Virginia conservation director David Sligh welcomed the win for "sensitive and valuable species, which have already been harmed by MVP's pollution."
"This decision again reinforces the truth that this destructive project must not be allowed to continue," Sligh said. "The company needs to face that fact now and should be forced to help heal the wounds it has inflicted."
\u201cI know I already tweeted out this news today but I\u2019m just gonna keep going with it\u2026\n\nWell played, Appalachia pipeline fighters.\u201d— Dr. Sandra Steingraber (@Dr. Sandra Steingraber) 1643918006
Along with cheering the "incredible victory" in court, Jared Margolis, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, put the controversial project into a broader context.
"The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a fossil fuel nightmare that threatens the essential habitat of imperiled wildlife," he said. "These projects lock us into an unsustainable spiral of climate change that inflicts incredible damage to vulnerable species. That cycle must end."
"The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a fossil fuel nightmare that threatens the essential habitat of imperiled wildlife."
Thursday's decision is "the third blow the pipeline has received in just over a week," Virginia Mercury reported, noting that on January 25, the same court "yanked the project's Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management approvals, finding that those agencies' evaluations of impacts had been inadequate."
Acknowledging the project's recent setbacks, Sierra Club senior director of energy campaigns Kelly Sheehan--whose group argued the case on behalf of conservation groups--said that "the previous administration's rushed, shoddy permitting put the entire project in question."
"Now, the Biden administration must fulfill the commitments it has made on climate and environmental justice by taking a meaningful, thorough review of this project and its permitting," she said. "When they do, they will see the science is clear: MVP is not compatible with a healthy planet and livable communities. MVP must not move forward."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Climate campaigners celebrated Thursday after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit delivered yet another blow to a controversial gas project spanning over 300 miles in Virginia and West Virginia.
"This decision again reinforces the truth that this destructive project must not be allowed to continue."
"At a time when we need to urgently move away from fracked-gas pipelines and all the harms they bring--from impacts to endangered species to damage to water quality to climate change--the law and science prevailed in this case," declared Anne Havemann, general counsel of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
A three-judge panel from the Richmond-based federal appeals court threw out the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' assessment of how the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) would impact two endangered fish species: the Roanoke logperch and the candy darter.
"If a species is already speeding toward the extinction cliff, an agency may not press on the gas. We urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider this directive carefully while reassessing impacts to the two endangered fish at issue, especially the apparently not-long-for-this-world candy darter," Judge James Wynn wrote in the court's opinion.
"We recognize that this decision will further delay the completion of an already mostly finished pipeline," Wynn added, "but the Endangered Species Act's directive to federal agencies could not be clearer: 'halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.'"
\u201cNOT TODAY MVP!!!!!!!!! \n\nBREAKING: The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision finding that MVP construction does jeopardize endangered and threatened species, countering the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\u2019s previous findings. #StopMVP #NoMVP\u201d— Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (@Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights) 1643901964
While the five companies behind the pipeline said that "we remain committed to completing the MVP project and believe the concerns associated with MVP's biological opinion can be addressed by the agency," climate campaigners expressed hope this will help kill the project.
"Sacred life prevailed today with the court's acknowledgment of the harmful impact MVP has on everything in its path, specifically endangered and threatened species," said Russell Chisholm, co-chair of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition. "Holding MVP accountable to the law is key to the ultimate cancellation of this noxious fracked gas pipeline."
"This decision not only protects the candy darter and other endangered species," he continued, "it sets us on course to stop MVP, decisively transition away from deadly fossil fuels, and reroute towards a renewable economy on a livable planet."
\u201cHUGE win in the fight to #StopMVP \u2014\u00a0another permit down, another gaping hole in the Mountain Valley Pipeline's plans to finish this destructive project.\n\nThis pipeline is a disaster for planet + people, & we won't stop saying #NoMVP until it's dead.\n\nhttps://t.co/rPlZWDDKwK\u201d— Collin Rees (@Collin Rees) 1643903158
Calling the court's move a "sweetly welcome decision in our fight to stop the ravage of MVP," Roberta Bondurant of Preserve Bent Mountain--which is part of the POWHR Coalition--pointed out that the local opponents along the pipeline's route "have fought relentlessly, and at unspeakable costs, to protect forest, meadow, and waters of our venerable Appalachians."
Peter Anderson, Virginia policy director for Appalachian Voices, noted that "communities in this region rely on its rich biodiversity to support many recreational and economic opportunities."
While lambasting the failure of "agencies that should be guardians of our most precious resources and the public interest, Wild Virginia conservation director David Sligh welcomed the win for "sensitive and valuable species, which have already been harmed by MVP's pollution."
"This decision again reinforces the truth that this destructive project must not be allowed to continue," Sligh said. "The company needs to face that fact now and should be forced to help heal the wounds it has inflicted."
\u201cI know I already tweeted out this news today but I\u2019m just gonna keep going with it\u2026\n\nWell played, Appalachia pipeline fighters.\u201d— Dr. Sandra Steingraber (@Dr. Sandra Steingraber) 1643918006
Along with cheering the "incredible victory" in court, Jared Margolis, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, put the controversial project into a broader context.
"The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a fossil fuel nightmare that threatens the essential habitat of imperiled wildlife," he said. "These projects lock us into an unsustainable spiral of climate change that inflicts incredible damage to vulnerable species. That cycle must end."
"The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a fossil fuel nightmare that threatens the essential habitat of imperiled wildlife."
Thursday's decision is "the third blow the pipeline has received in just over a week," Virginia Mercury reported, noting that on January 25, the same court "yanked the project's Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management approvals, finding that those agencies' evaluations of impacts had been inadequate."
Acknowledging the project's recent setbacks, Sierra Club senior director of energy campaigns Kelly Sheehan--whose group argued the case on behalf of conservation groups--said that "the previous administration's rushed, shoddy permitting put the entire project in question."
"Now, the Biden administration must fulfill the commitments it has made on climate and environmental justice by taking a meaningful, thorough review of this project and its permitting," she said. "When they do, they will see the science is clear: MVP is not compatible with a healthy planet and livable communities. MVP must not move forward."
Climate campaigners celebrated Thursday after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit delivered yet another blow to a controversial gas project spanning over 300 miles in Virginia and West Virginia.
"This decision again reinforces the truth that this destructive project must not be allowed to continue."
"At a time when we need to urgently move away from fracked-gas pipelines and all the harms they bring--from impacts to endangered species to damage to water quality to climate change--the law and science prevailed in this case," declared Anne Havemann, general counsel of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
A three-judge panel from the Richmond-based federal appeals court threw out the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' assessment of how the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) would impact two endangered fish species: the Roanoke logperch and the candy darter.
"If a species is already speeding toward the extinction cliff, an agency may not press on the gas. We urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider this directive carefully while reassessing impacts to the two endangered fish at issue, especially the apparently not-long-for-this-world candy darter," Judge James Wynn wrote in the court's opinion.
"We recognize that this decision will further delay the completion of an already mostly finished pipeline," Wynn added, "but the Endangered Species Act's directive to federal agencies could not be clearer: 'halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.'"
\u201cNOT TODAY MVP!!!!!!!!! \n\nBREAKING: The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision finding that MVP construction does jeopardize endangered and threatened species, countering the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\u2019s previous findings. #StopMVP #NoMVP\u201d— Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (@Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights) 1643901964
While the five companies behind the pipeline said that "we remain committed to completing the MVP project and believe the concerns associated with MVP's biological opinion can be addressed by the agency," climate campaigners expressed hope this will help kill the project.
"Sacred life prevailed today with the court's acknowledgment of the harmful impact MVP has on everything in its path, specifically endangered and threatened species," said Russell Chisholm, co-chair of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition. "Holding MVP accountable to the law is key to the ultimate cancellation of this noxious fracked gas pipeline."
"This decision not only protects the candy darter and other endangered species," he continued, "it sets us on course to stop MVP, decisively transition away from deadly fossil fuels, and reroute towards a renewable economy on a livable planet."
\u201cHUGE win in the fight to #StopMVP \u2014\u00a0another permit down, another gaping hole in the Mountain Valley Pipeline's plans to finish this destructive project.\n\nThis pipeline is a disaster for planet + people, & we won't stop saying #NoMVP until it's dead.\n\nhttps://t.co/rPlZWDDKwK\u201d— Collin Rees (@Collin Rees) 1643903158
Calling the court's move a "sweetly welcome decision in our fight to stop the ravage of MVP," Roberta Bondurant of Preserve Bent Mountain--which is part of the POWHR Coalition--pointed out that the local opponents along the pipeline's route "have fought relentlessly, and at unspeakable costs, to protect forest, meadow, and waters of our venerable Appalachians."
Peter Anderson, Virginia policy director for Appalachian Voices, noted that "communities in this region rely on its rich biodiversity to support many recreational and economic opportunities."
While lambasting the failure of "agencies that should be guardians of our most precious resources and the public interest, Wild Virginia conservation director David Sligh welcomed the win for "sensitive and valuable species, which have already been harmed by MVP's pollution."
"This decision again reinforces the truth that this destructive project must not be allowed to continue," Sligh said. "The company needs to face that fact now and should be forced to help heal the wounds it has inflicted."
\u201cI know I already tweeted out this news today but I\u2019m just gonna keep going with it\u2026\n\nWell played, Appalachia pipeline fighters.\u201d— Dr. Sandra Steingraber (@Dr. Sandra Steingraber) 1643918006
Along with cheering the "incredible victory" in court, Jared Margolis, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, put the controversial project into a broader context.
"The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a fossil fuel nightmare that threatens the essential habitat of imperiled wildlife," he said. "These projects lock us into an unsustainable spiral of climate change that inflicts incredible damage to vulnerable species. That cycle must end."
"The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a fossil fuel nightmare that threatens the essential habitat of imperiled wildlife."
Thursday's decision is "the third blow the pipeline has received in just over a week," Virginia Mercury reported, noting that on January 25, the same court "yanked the project's Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management approvals, finding that those agencies' evaluations of impacts had been inadequate."
Acknowledging the project's recent setbacks, Sierra Club senior director of energy campaigns Kelly Sheehan--whose group argued the case on behalf of conservation groups--said that "the previous administration's rushed, shoddy permitting put the entire project in question."
"Now, the Biden administration must fulfill the commitments it has made on climate and environmental justice by taking a meaningful, thorough review of this project and its permitting," she said. "When they do, they will see the science is clear: MVP is not compatible with a healthy planet and livable communities. MVP must not move forward."
Rep. Greg Casar accused Trump and his Republican allies of "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen."
Progressives rallied across the country on Saturday to protest against US President Donald Trump's attempts to get Republican-run state legislatures to redraw their maps to benefit GOP candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.
The anchor rally for the nationwide "Fight the Trump Takeover" protests was held in Austin, Texas, where Republicans in the state are poised to become the first in the nation to redraw their maps at the president's behest.
Progressives in the Lone Star State capital rallied against Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for breaking with historical precedent by carrying out congressional redistricting in the middle of the decade. Independent experts have estimated that the Texas gerrymandering alone could yield the GOP five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Speaking before a boisterous crowd of thousands of people, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) charged that the Texas GOP was drawing up "districts set up to elect a Trump minion" in next year's midterms. However, Doggett also said that progressives should still try to compete in these districts, whose residents voted for Trump in the 2024 election but who also have histories of supporting Democratic candidates.
"Next year, [Trump is] not going to be on the ballot to draw the MAGA vote," said Doggett. "Is there anyone here who believes that we ought to abandon any of these redrawn districts and surrender them to Trump?"
Leonard Aguilar, the secretary-treasurer of Texas AFL-CIO, attacked Abbott for doing the president's bidding even as people in central Texas are still struggling in the aftermath of the deadly floods last month that killed at least 136 people.
"It's time for Gov. Abbott to cut the bullshit," he said. "We need help now but he's working at the behest of the president, on behalf of Trump... He's letting Trump take over Texas!"
Aguilar also speculated that Trump is fixated on having Texas redraw its maps because he "knows he's in trouble and he wants to change the rules midstream."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) went through a litany of grievances against Trump and the Republican Party, ranging from the Texas redistricting plan, to hardline immigration policies, to the massive GOP budget package passed last month that is projected to kick 17 million Americans off of Medicaid.
However, Casar also said that he felt hope watching how people in Austin were fighting back against Trump and his policies.
"I'm proud that our city is fighting," he said. "I'm proud of the grit that we have even when the odds are stacked against us. The only answer to oligarchy is organization."
Casar went on to accuse Trump and Republicans or "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen," and then added that "as they try to kick us off our healthcare, as they try to rig this election, we're not going to let them!"
Saturday's protests are being done in partnership with several prominent progressive groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign, Public Citizen, and the Communication Workers of America. Some Texas-specific groups—including Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, and Texas for All—are also partners in the protest.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."