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.
A farmer sprays a field of no-till corn in Piace, France on May 11, 2018.
"Those most vulnerable, including children, farmers, and farming communities, will continue to pay the price for the E.U.'s inaction," said one advocate.
With agricultural business owners continuing protests across France, Greece, Spain, and other European countries, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen angered public health and biodiversity groups Tuesday as she announced the body would withdraw its proposed law to sharply cut the amount of chemical pesticides used in the European Union—a capitulation, said one journalist, to "landowners."
Brussels-based Arthur Neslen, who has reported for The Guardian and Politico, called von der Leyen's announcement "shocking, cowardly, and dishonest" as she withdrew the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR).
The proposal was first introduced in 2022 and was aimed at slashing pesticide use in half by 2030 and banning pesticide products in areas including urban green spaces and protected sites under the Natura 2000 program, as well as promoting the use of sustainable alternatives.
With farmers staging protests across the E.U. in recent days, complaining over the high cost of maintaining agricultural businesses in Europe, von der Leyen said the SUR had become "polarizing."
Last week, the commission provoked an outcry from environmental advocates when it announced it would allow farmers to delay implementation of a rule requiring them to set aside some of their land to promote biodiversity.
Now, said critics on Tuesday, the commission's decision regarding SUR would further contribute to biodiversity loss as well as water and soil pollution and potential health impacts for people and wildlife.
Reducing European farmers' "dependency on pesticides is not only short-sighted, but a major disservice to public health," said Anne Stauffer, deputy director of the Health and Environment Alliance. "Those most vulnerable, including children, farmers, and farming communities, will continue to pay the price for the E.U.'s inaction."
Grace O'Sullivan, a member of European Parliament representing Ireland, noted that pesticides will continue to be permitted "in nature reserves, city parks, even playgrounds."
In her speech, von der Leyen said farmers "deserve to be listened to" as they face drought and other effects of the climate crisis, higher costs of living, and other factors that make agriculture more expensive.
"Only if our farmers can live off the land will they invest in the future. And only if we achieve our climate and environmental goals together, will farmers be able to continue to make a living," the commission president said.
Friends of the Earth said the "translation" of von der Leyen's comments was "farmers will keep on being poisoned and nature degraded, while the pesticide industry reaps massive profits."
"We cannot afford to leave the pesticide issue unresolved," the group said. "We need real solutions now to support farmers in transitioning away from toxic chemicals."
The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) said the commission's decision—which still has to be ratified by the College of Commissioners in the coming weeks—was made to benefit large "agribusiness interests" and not people struggling to run small farms.
"The European Commission just took a decision that is harmful to farmers and their families, as the first victims of pesticide use," said Martin Dermine, PAN Europe executive director. "Pesticide pollution is a huge problem that has to be tackled. It pollutes our waters, harms our health, and destroys the biodiversity that we depend on. It destroys fertile soil and endangers food production in the long run. We have to move towards a healthy and sustainable form of agriculture quickly, doing nothing is not an option in the light of the biodiversity crisis we're in."
"Thousands of scientists and millions of citizens have urged E.U. politicians to take urgent action," he added. "Not answering citizens' demands goes against democracy and only favors agribusiness."
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. |
With agricultural business owners continuing protests across France, Greece, Spain, and other European countries, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen angered public health and biodiversity groups Tuesday as she announced the body would withdraw its proposed law to sharply cut the amount of chemical pesticides used in the European Union—a capitulation, said one journalist, to "landowners."
Brussels-based Arthur Neslen, who has reported for The Guardian and Politico, called von der Leyen's announcement "shocking, cowardly, and dishonest" as she withdrew the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR).
The proposal was first introduced in 2022 and was aimed at slashing pesticide use in half by 2030 and banning pesticide products in areas including urban green spaces and protected sites under the Natura 2000 program, as well as promoting the use of sustainable alternatives.
With farmers staging protests across the E.U. in recent days, complaining over the high cost of maintaining agricultural businesses in Europe, von der Leyen said the SUR had become "polarizing."
Last week, the commission provoked an outcry from environmental advocates when it announced it would allow farmers to delay implementation of a rule requiring them to set aside some of their land to promote biodiversity.
Now, said critics on Tuesday, the commission's decision regarding SUR would further contribute to biodiversity loss as well as water and soil pollution and potential health impacts for people and wildlife.
Reducing European farmers' "dependency on pesticides is not only short-sighted, but a major disservice to public health," said Anne Stauffer, deputy director of the Health and Environment Alliance. "Those most vulnerable, including children, farmers, and farming communities, will continue to pay the price for the E.U.'s inaction."
Grace O'Sullivan, a member of European Parliament representing Ireland, noted that pesticides will continue to be permitted "in nature reserves, city parks, even playgrounds."
In her speech, von der Leyen said farmers "deserve to be listened to" as they face drought and other effects of the climate crisis, higher costs of living, and other factors that make agriculture more expensive.
"Only if our farmers can live off the land will they invest in the future. And only if we achieve our climate and environmental goals together, will farmers be able to continue to make a living," the commission president said.
Friends of the Earth said the "translation" of von der Leyen's comments was "farmers will keep on being poisoned and nature degraded, while the pesticide industry reaps massive profits."
"We cannot afford to leave the pesticide issue unresolved," the group said. "We need real solutions now to support farmers in transitioning away from toxic chemicals."
The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) said the commission's decision—which still has to be ratified by the College of Commissioners in the coming weeks—was made to benefit large "agribusiness interests" and not people struggling to run small farms.
"The European Commission just took a decision that is harmful to farmers and their families, as the first victims of pesticide use," said Martin Dermine, PAN Europe executive director. "Pesticide pollution is a huge problem that has to be tackled. It pollutes our waters, harms our health, and destroys the biodiversity that we depend on. It destroys fertile soil and endangers food production in the long run. We have to move towards a healthy and sustainable form of agriculture quickly, doing nothing is not an option in the light of the biodiversity crisis we're in."
"Thousands of scientists and millions of citizens have urged E.U. politicians to take urgent action," he added. "Not answering citizens' demands goes against democracy and only favors agribusiness."
With agricultural business owners continuing protests across France, Greece, Spain, and other European countries, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen angered public health and biodiversity groups Tuesday as she announced the body would withdraw its proposed law to sharply cut the amount of chemical pesticides used in the European Union—a capitulation, said one journalist, to "landowners."
Brussels-based Arthur Neslen, who has reported for The Guardian and Politico, called von der Leyen's announcement "shocking, cowardly, and dishonest" as she withdrew the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR).
The proposal was first introduced in 2022 and was aimed at slashing pesticide use in half by 2030 and banning pesticide products in areas including urban green spaces and protected sites under the Natura 2000 program, as well as promoting the use of sustainable alternatives.
With farmers staging protests across the E.U. in recent days, complaining over the high cost of maintaining agricultural businesses in Europe, von der Leyen said the SUR had become "polarizing."
Last week, the commission provoked an outcry from environmental advocates when it announced it would allow farmers to delay implementation of a rule requiring them to set aside some of their land to promote biodiversity.
Now, said critics on Tuesday, the commission's decision regarding SUR would further contribute to biodiversity loss as well as water and soil pollution and potential health impacts for people and wildlife.
Reducing European farmers' "dependency on pesticides is not only short-sighted, but a major disservice to public health," said Anne Stauffer, deputy director of the Health and Environment Alliance. "Those most vulnerable, including children, farmers, and farming communities, will continue to pay the price for the E.U.'s inaction."
Grace O'Sullivan, a member of European Parliament representing Ireland, noted that pesticides will continue to be permitted "in nature reserves, city parks, even playgrounds."
In her speech, von der Leyen said farmers "deserve to be listened to" as they face drought and other effects of the climate crisis, higher costs of living, and other factors that make agriculture more expensive.
"Only if our farmers can live off the land will they invest in the future. And only if we achieve our climate and environmental goals together, will farmers be able to continue to make a living," the commission president said.
Friends of the Earth said the "translation" of von der Leyen's comments was "farmers will keep on being poisoned and nature degraded, while the pesticide industry reaps massive profits."
"We cannot afford to leave the pesticide issue unresolved," the group said. "We need real solutions now to support farmers in transitioning away from toxic chemicals."
The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) said the commission's decision—which still has to be ratified by the College of Commissioners in the coming weeks—was made to benefit large "agribusiness interests" and not people struggling to run small farms.
"The European Commission just took a decision that is harmful to farmers and their families, as the first victims of pesticide use," said Martin Dermine, PAN Europe executive director. "Pesticide pollution is a huge problem that has to be tackled. It pollutes our waters, harms our health, and destroys the biodiversity that we depend on. It destroys fertile soil and endangers food production in the long run. We have to move towards a healthy and sustainable form of agriculture quickly, doing nothing is not an option in the light of the biodiversity crisis we're in."
"Thousands of scientists and millions of citizens have urged E.U. politicians to take urgent action," he added. "Not answering citizens' demands goes against democracy and only favors agribusiness."
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."