

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.
Roger Kim/APEN: 510-599-9393
Greg Karras/CBE: 415-902-2666
Henry Clark/WCTC: 510-232-3427
Will Rostov/Earthjustice: 510-550-6725
Environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit today challenging the
Richmond (CA) City Council's approval of Chevron's refinery expansion
project.
At issue is an environmental review that concealed that the project
would result in much higher levels of air pollution and increased risks
of catastrophic accidents and oil spills. Communities in Richmond,
particularly low-income and communities of color, are severely
overburdened with industrial pollution-related health problems,
including high rates of asthma and cancer. Chevron's refinery is the
largest industrial polluter in the region.
The expansion would allow heavier and dirtier crude oil to be processed
at the Richmond refinery, which would increase releases of mercury,
selenium, toxic sulfur compounds, and greenhouse gases. The Richmond
City Council approved the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
Conditional Use Permit for Chevron's expansion plans failing to
acknowledge the fact that the expansion would allow Chevron to refine
dirtier and more polluting oil were not disclosed, analyzed, or
mitigated by the EIR.
"Chevron's project would lock in a fundamental switch to dirtier oil
refining that increases toxic and climate-poisoning pollution
drastically when avoiding these impacts is feasible," said Greg Karras,
a senior scientist with Communities for a Better Environment (CBE).
"The City violated the community's right to know about and act on this
information," he said.
"The City Council failed its legal and moral obligation to protect our
health," said Richmond resident Torm Nompraseurt, of the Asian Pacific
Environmental Network. "Those dangerous chemicals are going to endanger
me, my family, and my neighbors but the City didn't even look at what
Chevron is really going to be doing."
Hundreds of residents jammed the City Council hearings in July
demanding the City Council limit the refinery from processing dirtier
crude oils and re-do the Environmental Impact Report that failed to
analyze the project Chevron actually plans to build.
Instead, Chevron made a multi-million dollar offer in exchange for
project approval with weakened environmental protections and less
public review of future refinery projects. Chevron valued its offer at
about $61 million. City and Chevron officials negotiated a proposed
contract to execute the deal without public input, and presented it at
the City Council's hearing on the project without the public notice
required by state open government laws. The Council accepted the deal
and approved the project without completing the environmental review
needed to identify, analyze, and lessen or avoid its significant
environmental impacts.
"Chevron must stop its toxic assault on poor people of color in
Richmond. The City Council is selling out our community, but our health
is not for sale," said Henry Clark, executive director of the West
County Toxics Coalition. "We will fight this until we achieve
environmental justice."
"The California Environmental Quality Act requires government agencies
to look before they leap by analyzing and mitigating all significant
environmental impacts" said Will Rostov, an attorney for Earthjustice,
who represents the environmental justice groups in court. "The City's
environmental review fails in its most basic purpose."
A poll conducted by David Binder Research indicated that an
overwhelming majority (73 percent) of Richmond voters opposed the
approval of the Chevron expansion until the environmental and health
impacts of refining heavier crude oil were fully reviewed in a revised
Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, 75 percent of Richmond
voters said it was very or extremely important that any projects or
funding between Chevron and the City Council be determined in an open
public process.
The lawsuit was filed today in Contra Costa County Superior Court on
behalf of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN), Communities
for a Better Environment (CBE), and the West County Toxics Coalition by
attorneys from Earthjustice and CBE.
Read the poll results on the Chevron refinery expansion by David Binder Research (PDF): https://www.apen4ej.org/download/BinderRichmondChevronPollAPEN.pdf
Link to Petition: https://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/richmond-complaint.pdf
“Donald Trump poses a direct threat to our Constitution and to the rule of law," said one of the impeachment campaign's leaders.
The legal advocacy organization Free Speech for People on Thursday published a full-page advertisement in The New York Times highlighting the more than 1 million people who have endorsed the group's petition to impeach and remove President Donald Trump from office.
Free Speech for People's (FSFP) campaign—which also includes billboard trucks and projections in Washington, DC—comes ahead of the third wave of "No Kings" demonstrations, which are set to take place Saturday in thousands of locations across the United States.
“On March 28, 2026, the people will rise up," said FSFP digital organizing strategist Jax Foley. "The No Kings 3 protest is projected to be the largest mass comobilization in US history, with over 3,000 actions planned worldwide. People across this country are organizing, mobilizing, defending their communities, and demanding accountability.”
➡️ Over 1 million signatures.➡️ 27 current grounds.➡️ 1 lawless administration.Join our nationwide movement calling on Members of Congress to honor their oaths of office by impeaching and removing Donald Trump now. #ImpeachTrump
[image or embed]
— Free Speech For People (@fsfp.bsky.social) March 26, 2026 at 6:24 AM
No Kings 3 comes amid Trump's attacks on the rule of law and constitutional rights at home and escalating militarism abroad as the president has bombed seven countries since returning to office—and 10 or possibly even 11 over the course of his two terms—while backing Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.
“Donald Trump poses a direct threat to our Constitution and to the rule of law,” FSFP president and co-founder John Bonifaz said in a statement. “The constitutional remedy of impeachment exists precisely for moments like this when a president abuses power, defies the law, and attacks democracy itself. Congress must act.”
FSFP's petition, which was launched on the day of Trump's second inauguration, urges Congress to "take action to defend our republic and Constitution" by impeaching the president again. As of Thursday afternoon, the petition had over 1,070,000 signatures and is more than halfway to its goal of 2 million signers.
“For more than a year, FSFP’s team of lawyers, election security experts, and grassroots organizers have been tirelessly and fiercely leading the campaign to impeach and remove Trump and key administration officials,” Foley said. “We have heard from people across the United States who are with us in the call for no kings, no tyrants, and the immediate impeachment and removal of Trump and his coconspirators. Put the power back in the hands of We The People."
Trump is the only US president to be impeached twice—once in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of justice and again in 2021 for incitement of insurrection. A majority of senators voted to acquit Trump in 2019; a majority—but not the requisite two-thirds—voted to convict in 2021. Both chambers of Congress are now narrowly controlled by Trump's GOP.
"The congressional power of impeachment is designed to address this tyrannical threat to our democracy," FSFP said in the New York Times ad. "Members of Congress must abide by their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and impeach and remove Trump from office."
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "We must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
Amid calls for Congress to "do something—before it is too late," a pair of US House Democrats on Thursday introduced the Prevent an Unconstitutional War in Cuba Act to block President Donald Trump from using any federal funds to take military action against the island nation without congressional authorization.
The proposal from Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, comes after Trump ramped up the United States' decades-long economic blockade, cutting off Cuba from Venezuelan oil. The fuel shortage has led to island-wide blackouts, and disrupted everything from healthcare to transportation. As Jayapal put it earlier this month, the "cruel and failing policy... has caused incredible harm to the Cuban people."
Trump has also repeatedly threatened a US takeover of Cuba. His other misadventures abroad—such as joining Israel in waging war on Iran without authorization from Congress, bombing boats allegedly being used to smuggle drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, and abducting President Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela in an operation that killed dozens of Venezuelans and Cubans—have fueled fears that he may act on those threats, as Jayapal signaled in a Thursday statement.
“Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba. These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want," she said. "Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied. Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
The bill's prohibition on funding military action against Cuba does not apply to any use of force that is consistent with the section of the War Powers Act that empowers the president to respond to a "national emergency" created by an attack on the United States or its armed forces. In January, Trump notably signed an executive order declaring a national emergency with respect to Cuba and authorized new tariffs on imports from countries that supply oil to the island.
As with Iran pre-war, the Trump administration is currently engaged in negotiations with the Cuban government. Those talks are being led by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a son of Cuban immigrants and longtime supporter of regime change in the country, who said earlier this month that "the embargo is tied to political change on the island... They're in a lot of trouble, and the people in charge, they don't know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge."
Predictions over whether Trump will actually bomb or invade Cuba, which is located just 90 miles south of Florida, remain mixed.
"I think once Donald Trump gets an economic agreement that opens the island to US business, he will have fulfilled his transactional aims in Cuba. I don't think he cares about political transition. He doesn't seem to care about it in Venezuela," American University professor and Back Channel to Cuba coauthor William LeoGrande told USA Today this week. "And so, I think once there's an economic agreement that's to the advantage of the United States and US businesses, the president will move on to the next thing."
Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan Robinson, who's reported on the Nuestra América Convoy from Havana this week, declared on Wednesday that "they WILL run the Venezuela playbook on Cuba."
"They want a Republican donor imperial viceroy who will privatize the Cuban healthcare and school systems, and hand all the waterfront property to developers, with the Cuban people serving as cheap labor building a playground for Miami's rich," said Robinson.
Meeks—who is facing pressure to force a vote on his Iran war powers resolution—said Thursday that "Cuba is not for Donald Trump to take, and today we stand firm against the illegal use of the US military to pursue turning Cuba into another playground for Trump's chaotic adventurism."
"Such a reckless course would risk American lives, cost taxpayers billions, and, in all likelihood, leave the underlying political and economic conditions unchanged," he said. "The United States cannot bomb Cuba out of economic collapse or political repression—lasting change must come through empowering the Cuban people, not doubling down on a failed approach that disproportionately harms them."
The new bill is backed by Democratic Reps. Gabe Amo (RI), Joaquin Castro (Texas), Sara Jacobs (Calif.), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Melanie Stansbury (NM), Dina Titus (Nev.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Nydia Velázquez (NY). However, like legislation aimed at stopping Trump's boat strikes, aggression toward Venezuela, and war on Iran, it is unlikely to be passed by the GOP-controlled Congress.
Still, earlier this week, Velázquez also introduced a war powers resolution to prevent US involvement in military hostilities against the island. She said in a statement that "Donald Trump's belligerent foreign policy is creating new wars and conflicts across the world."
"This administration's foreign policy is totally out of control and is putting countless American and foreign lives at risk," Velázquez warned. "Trump's military blockade, his threats, and his track record this term show that Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and stop another disastrous war before it's too late."
"If there is nothing to hide, then why won’t Donald Trump Jr. explain to this committee why, just months after becoming a partner, his firm’s financial stake grew substantially following the single largest loan ever issued by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital?"
A Democratic member of the US House is calling out her Republican colleagues after they thwarted her attempt to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. to answer questions related to his financial stake in a company that scored a suspiciously timed $620 million loan from the US Department of Defense last year.
Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) on Wednesday tried to force the House Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee to vote on subpoenaing Trump Jr. to testify about his venture capital firm's investment in Vulcan Elements, a startup that specializes in producing rare-earth magnets used in drones, radars, and other pieces of military equipment.
According to CNBC, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), the subcommittee chairman, moved the committee into an hour-long recess immediately after Dexter motioned to subpoena the president's eldest son. After returning from the recess, Republicans on the subcommittee voted to table the resolution.
Dexter, however, vowed that this wasn't the end of the story.
"If there is nothing to hide," she said, "then why won’t Donald Trump Jr. explain to this committee why, just months after becoming a partner, his firm’s financial stake grew substantially following the single largest loan ever issued by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital? This is the oligarchy on full display, and I’m committed to ending corruption."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Resources Committee, told CNBC that investigations into Trump Jr. potentially using his father's presidency to enrich himself are "not going away."
"You can do these moves, but you cannot hide, you cannot dodge accountability," Huffman emphasized.
The Financial Times reported in December that 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm founded by pro-Trump donors in 2023 that brought Trump Jr. in as a partner in 2024, bought an equity stake in Vulcan Elements, months before it was awarded the $620 million loan by the Pentagon.
Revelations about the Vulcan Elements contract came just weeks after the Florida-based drone startup Unusual Machines, in which Trump Jr. has held a $4 million stake, received a contract from the US Army to manufacture 3,500 drone motors.