

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 federal court has ruled
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must close a loophole
that -- for more than 25 years -- has made it easy for mining
companies, coal ash dumps, and a host of other polluting industries to
skip out on costly cleanups by declaring bankruptcy. The case concerned
EPA's failure to issue "financial assurances" standards that ensure
that polluting industries will always remain financially able to clean
up dangerous spills and other contaminated sites.
Attorneys Lisa Evans and Jan Hasselman with the public interest law
firm Earthjustice represented the Sierra Club and environmental groups
in New Mexico, Nevada, and Idaho in the case, decided late yesterday by
U.S. District Judge William Alsup, based in San Francisco.
Environmental advocates hailed the decision as a victory that paves
the way for new federal rules that would require hardrock and phosphate
mine operators, metal finishers, wood treatment facilities, and other
industries to post bonds covering the cost of potential future
cleanups.
"By not promulgating financial assurance requirements, EPA has
allowed companies that otherwise might not have been able to operate
and produce hazardous waste to potentially shift the responsibility for
cleaning up hazardous waste to taxpayers," Judge Alsup wrote in the
decision. The undisputed evidence before the Court demonstrated that
such financial assurance requirements result in better environmental
protection and faster and more thorough cleanups.
When the Superfund law was passed in 1980, lawmakers gave EPA three
years to start putting financial assurance regulations in place. More
than 25 years later, these regulations remain unwritten. Under the
terms of the decision, EPA has until May 4 to identify the industries
that will be first subject to these financial assurance requirements.
"This victory paves the way for the new administration to correct a
longstanding environmental problem while saving taxpayers billions of
dollars at the same time," said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman,
who argued the case before Judge Alsup. "New standards will push
companies that deal with toxic substances towards more responsible
practices."
Perhaps the industries most impacted by the decision are hardrock
and phosphate mining. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ranks
the mining industry as the nation's top toxic polluter, reporting more
toxic releases annually than any other industry. The industry generates
more than 2 billion pounds of toxic waste each year and has polluted
more than 40 percent of western watershed headwaters. Without financial
assurance regulations, it has been easy for mine operators to walk away
from sites contaminated with cyanide, lead, arsenic, mercury and other
toxins, and they have done so time after time.
In 2004, the EPA reported that 63 hardrock mining sites were listed
as Superfund sites on the agency's National Priority List (NPL), EPA's
list of the most contaminated Superfund sites, with an estimated
cleanup cost of $7.8 billion. Of that, $2.4 billion was expected to
come from taxpayers. Another 93 mining sites were being eyed for
inclusion on the Superfund NPL list.
One of those Superfund sites is the Molycorp/Chevron molybdenum mine
near Questa, New Mexico. The Taos-based organization Amigos Bravos has
long called for Molycorp to take responsibility for the toxins it
released during the mine's 40-year history, contaminating the Red River
and nearby groundwater aquifers. In 2002, after much of the damage was
already done, the company agreed to set aside $152 million for cleanup.
But total cleanup costs could reach $400 million, and observers wonder
if the scale of destruction would have been less if Molycorp knew at
the outset it would be held responsible.
"This victory will encourage mine operators to act more responsibly,
hopefully preventing future problems in New Mexico," said Brian
Shields, executive director of Amigos Bravos. "Now that companies know
that they are responsible for cleaning up after themselves, there's a
strong incentive for them to improve their waste management practices."
Perhaps the most far-reaching example of irresponsible mining
operations is Asarco, which declared bankruptcy in 2005. The
century-old mining and smelting company left behind 94 Superfund sites
in 21 states, with a total cleanup cost estimated at more than $1
billion, far more than the $62 million trust the company set aside for
cleanup.
In Idaho, Asarco is among mining companies responsible for
contamination spread across the 1,500-square-mile Coeur d'Alene River
basin. Cleanup work is likely to last for generations. EPA has
estimated the cost of the first 30 years at $359 million.
The Idaho Conservation League is also watching prospective cleanup
costs mount from 17 contaminated sites caused by phosphate mining.
"We're heartened by this victory and hope that it will help relieve
taxpayers of a financial burden and keep our rivers and streams clean,"
said Justin Hayes, Program Director of the Idaho Conservation League.
In Nevada, 27 mining companies had declared bankruptcy as of July
2000, creating some of the country's highest potential taxpayer
liability.
"This victory comes at a crucial time for communities impacted by
Nevada's mining industry," said John Hadder, executive director of
Great Basin Resource Watch. "The gold mine bankruptcies from the 1990s
left our state riddled with contaminated sites. But from now on, we
hope to benefit from the stronger protections brought by this court
win."
Another industry potentially impacted by the decision are coal-fired
power plants, responsible for generating 131 million tons of toxic coal
ash per year. The industry has been in the spotlight in the wake of
immense toxic spills at two Tennessee Valley Authority sites. When coal
ash is dumped in mines and waste ponds, financial assurance for cleanup
is rarely required.
"We hope that the municipal utilities and coops that now own most of
the Peabody Prairie State Energy power plant in downstate Illinois take
notice of this decision," said Kathy Andria, Waste & Recycling
chair of the Illinois chapter of Sierra Club. Prairie State plans to
dump 60 million tons of coal combustion waste on a 4,000-acre site of
old strip-mined land near farms and homes. "After the recent disasters
in Tennessee and Alabama, we want to make sure Peabody and its partners
have the cash to pay for any problems that could arise in the future.
More importantly, we hope that cash will serve as an incentive for them
to act responsibly to keep surrounding communities and water resources
safe."
Read the decision (PDF)
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460Kat Abughazaleh, the progressive candidate for Illinois' 9th Congressional District, said the Israel lobby's attempt "to split the vote" between progressive candidates "has never been seen before."
With just days until the Democratic primary for Illinois’ 9th Congressional District, Chicago voters found their social media feeds blanketed with an ad praising a candidate considered well out of the running in Tuesday’s race.
"Bushra Amiwala is the real deal, fighting for real economic justice," concludes the 30-second commercial, which touts the 28-year-old activist's backing of Medicare for All, student loan forgiveness, and other policies aimed at economic justice.
As it came to light that a political action committee associated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was behind the ad, Amiwala said she "could not be more disgusted" by the campaign.
“Let me be clear,” she said. “We don’t want it, we didn’t ask for it, and we’re demanding they stop.”
The ad boosting Amiwala was part of a $100,000 spending blitz by the Chicago Progressive Partnership, which The New York Times describes as "a super PAC that has disclosed few details about its backers but shares vendors with groups linked to [AIPAC]."
The pro-Israel lobbying group is not throwing resources behind Amiwala, a fierce defender of Palestinian rights, to boost her campaign, but to sap the momentum of Kat Abughazaleh, a progressive candidate who has surged to within arm's length of leading the race in the weeks ahead of the March 17 primary.
AIPAC has spent more than $1 million trying to stop Abughazaleh, a 26-year-old Palestinian-American journalist and media analyst, from taking the seat held by the retiring incumbent Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat.
Abughazaleh, whose grandparents fled Jerusalem during the 1948 Nakba, has called Israel's US-backed military campaign in Gaza a "genocide," and has called for the conditioning of military aid to Israel—including funds for its Iron Dome defense system—on an end to its human rights violations.
She has also opposed laws criminalizing participation in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to pressure Israel to change its conduct using economic means.
The most recent poll, from March 9-10, shows Abughazaleh trailing just four points behind frontrunner Daniel Biss, the Democratic mayor of Evanston, Illinois.
Though he recently has described AIPAC as "toxic" and has called for the conditioning of some "offensive" aid to Israel, Biss described BDS as a tactic "used to advance antisemitic ideology" and said he supports the "special relationship" between the US and Israel in a January blog post.
He has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of creating a "humanitarian catastrophe" in Gaza, but has stopped short of using the word "genocide."
AIPAC, meanwhile, has thrown more than $4.6 million behind an even more pro-Israel candidate, state Sen. Laura Fine (D-9), who during the race has firmly supported full military funding for the country "without additional conditions," even after its military campaign has killed at least 72,000 people in Gaza and independent estimates show even higher death tolls.
Biss has also become a target of $1.5 million in spending from another AIPAC-aligned group, Elect Chicago Women, which has run ads attacking him over a vote to cut Medicaid and for having broken his pledge to serve a full term as mayor before seeking higher office.
The 9th District is one of four Democratic primaries across Illinois where AIPAC and aligned groups have spent more than $15.8 million combined to support pro-Israel candidates, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings analyzed by the group AIPAC Tracker.
Like in Illinois-9, these groups have shied away from making their connections with AIPAC known—as Democratic voters overwhelmingly distrust its branding—and have attacked their opponents on issues not related to Israel and often from the left.
AIPAC has already attempted this tactic in New Jersey's 11th district, where it backfired tremendously last month: Rather than helping a right-wing candidate, the group's attack ads claiming that the liberal Zionist former Rep. Tom Malinowsky supported US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) led votes to flow to Analilia Mejía, a progressive endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who ultimately emerged victorious.
"Massive outside spending from corporate PACs and groups like AIPAC has long been used to overwhelm grassroots candidates and distort the democratic process, reflecting the priorities of wealthy donors rather than everyday voters," Joseph Geevarghese, the executive director of the progressive group Our Revolution, told Common Dreams. "But recent races show that strategy does not always deliver the results these interests expect. From New Jersey’s 11th district to North Carolina, where Nida Allam came within a fraction of a percent of victory, voters are increasingly questioning the flood of outside money in their elections."
Nevertheless, AIPAC is using the same playbook in Illinois.
Axios noted that last week, the Chicago Progressive Partnership began targeting tech entrepreneur Junaid Ahmed, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Justice Democrat-backed candidate in Illinois' 8th district, not for his outspoken criticisms of Israel but for his large personal fortune and his investments in Tesla, which it used to tie him to its CEO Elon Musk, a strong supporter of President Donald Trump.
Abughazaleh has been hit with similar attacks claiming she'd received funds from "right-wing donors" and criticizing her support for Republican Marco Rubio in the 2016 presidential election, when she was in high school.
CAMPAIGN UPDATE: 2 DAYS LEFT!!!💥 Endorsed by Rep. Rashida Tlaib!!💥 AIPAC getting desperate!!💥 Doorknocking all over the district!!💥 Phonebanking all afternoon!!💥 Donate at katforillinois.com — we have to buy + print more literature bc we’ve had so many volunteers!!
[image or embed]
— Kat Abughazaleh (@katmabu.bsky.social) March 15, 2026 at 12:21 PM
In the final days of the campaign, Abughazaleh has described AIPAC's tactics against her as a sign of "desperation" in the face of growing "Abughamania."
With Fine largely out of the running, she said the group has pivoted toward "the only horse left they could have in this race: Mayor Daniel Biss."
Abughazaleh described the group's sudden launch of ads supporting Amiwala "to try to split the vote" as something that "has never been seen before."
On Sunday, Abughazaleh won a key endorsement, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian-American in Congress. She also has the backing of another leading progressive figure in Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), as well as the Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement.
“AIPAC’s guiding principle when buying elections: Just lie,” said Justice Democrats in response to a report on AIPAC’s tactics to divide left-wing voters. “Spend millions to lie about who you are, lie about who you’re supporting, lie about your agenda. They know that they are so toxic and their policies are so unpopular that being truthful would lose them every election.”
"The Pentagon's law of war manual states unequivocally that such statements are war crimes," said a legal scholar who previously worked in the Pentagon's office of general counsel.
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth's statement last week that "no quarter" will be given to "our enemies" in Iran—a declaration, in military parlance, that surrendering combatants will be executed rather than taken prisoner—constituted a clear violation of international law and a war crime.
The International Committee of the Red Cross explains that "the prohibition on declaring that no quarter will be given is a longstanding rule of customary international law already recognized in the Lieber Code, the Brussels Declaration, and the Oxford Manual and codified in the Hague Regulations." The Hague Convention of 1907, to which the US is a party, says it is "especially forbidden" to "declare that no quarter will be given."
During a press conference on Friday, Hegseth said that US forces attacking Iran "will keep pushing, keep advancing; no quarter, no mercy for our enemies."
Hegseth's statement sparked alarm among legal experts and members of Congress, particularly in the context of the Pentagon chief's ongoing efforts to loosen legal oversight of American forces and roll back rules aimed at protecting civilians.
"'No quarter' isn’t some wannabe tough guy line—it means something," said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy officer. "An order to give no quarter would mean to take no prisoners and kill them instead. That would violate the law of armed conflict. It would be an illegal order. It would also put American service members at greater risk. Pete Hegseth should know better than to throw around terms like this."
Oona Hathaway, a legal scholar and former special counsel to the Pentagon's general counsel, wrote in response to Hegseth's remarks that "declaring that no quarter will be given unequivocally violates international humanitarian law."
"Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime," Hathaway added.
Daniel Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and judge advocate—a profession that Hegseth has treated with contempt—wrote a "hypothetical legal memorandum" advising the Pentagon chief to "publicly retract" his "no quarter" statement, warning that it "may expose you to criminal liability under 18 USC 2441(c)(2), and expose any subordinate servicemembers who carry it out to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as 18 USC 2441(c)(2)."
Maurer continued:
Given that “no quarter” is a clear violation of the Hague Convention IV and, as a consequence, U.S. federal law, we recommend the following immediate actions:
a. Publicly retract the comments and disavow any intention to induce, inspire, counsel, encourage, incite, order, threaten, tolerate, or give “no quarter” to Iranian combatants.
b. Communicate through the chain-of-command conducting Operation Epic Fury that “no quarter” is a war crime that will be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or 18 USC § 2441.
Hegseth's declaration of "no quarter" conflicts with US President Donald Trump's statement late last month announcing the illegal war on Iran, which is now in its third week with no end in sight.
Urging Iranian soldiers to lay down their arms, Trump pledged, "We'll give you immunity."
Ryan Goodman, founding co-editor-in-chief of the digital law and policy journal Just Security, told Axios that Hegseth is "putting the American military on a track to lawlessness in which we will lose more and more allies." Goodman noted that in the wake of the Second World War, the US prosecuted senior German military officials for refusing quarter to enemy soldiers.
"The best thing Secretary Hegseth can do for the country and for the US military is to say he misspoke and to retract the statement," said Goodman, who previously worked in the Defense Department's office of general counsel. "The Pentagon's law of war manual states unequivocally that such statements are war crimes."
"What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful US Navy cannot do?" said one German official.
US allies are giving President Donald Trump the cold shoulder after he demanded that they send their militaries to help him reopen and secure the Strait of Hormuz, which has been shut down by the Iranian government in response to US and Israeli attacks.
Reuters chief national security correspondent Phil Stewart collected reactions from several US allies to Trump's demands in a Monday social media post, and they show little appetite for helping the president out of the jam he created when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran more than two weeks ago.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius spoke bluntly about his country's unwillingness to get involved in what has become a regional conflict in the Middle East that has sent global energy prices soaring and is threatening to upend the global economy.
"What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful US Navy cannot do?" Pistorius asked. "This is not our war, we have not started it."
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated flatly that his nation would not be "drawn into the wider Iran war," and insisted that only a diplomatic solution could ease the crisis.
"We are working with others to come up with a credible plan for the Strait of Hormuz to ensure that we can reopen shipping and passage through the Strait," he said. "Let me be clear, that won't be and it's never been envisioned to be a NATO mission."
Catherine King, a member of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's cabinet, said there were no plans to have the Australian military participate in Trump's efforts to reopen the strait.
"We won't be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz," King said. "We know how incredibly important that is, but that's not something that we've been asked or that we're contributing to."
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi didn't completely rule out sending escort ships to help oil tankers navigate the strait, but she emphasized there are no plans to do so at the moment.
"We have not made any decisions whatsoever about dispatching escort ships," said Takaichi. "We are continuing to examine what Japan can do independently and what can be done within the legal framework."
Trump started publicly calling on US allies to assist in reopening the strait in a Saturday Truth Social post, in which he said "hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated."
Trump repeated his demands to US allies while talking with reporters on Air Force One on Sunday, arguing that getting the strait reopened was in the interest of all nations.
"Really, I'm demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory, because it is their territory," Trump said. "You could make the case that maybe we shouldn't be there at all, because we don't need it. We have a lot of oil."