

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.

David
Lerner, Riptide Communications 212.260.5000
Today, the parties in Wiwa v. Shell agreed to settle human
rights claims charging the Royal Dutch/Shell company, its Nigerian subsidiary,
Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC or Shell Nigeria), and the former
head of its Nigerian operation, Brian Anderson, with complicity in the torture,
killing, and other abuses of Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiwa and other non-violent
Nigerian activists in the mid-1990s in the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta.
The settlement, whose
terms are public, provides a total of $15.5 million. These funds will
compensate the 10 plaintiffs, who include family members of the deceased
victims; establish a Trust intended to benefit the Ogoni people; and cover a
portion of plaintiffs' legal fees and costs. The settlement is only on
behalf of the individual plaintiffs for their individual claims. It does
not resolve outstanding issues between Shell and the Ogoni people, and the
plaintiffs did not negotiate on behalf of the Ogoni people.
Plaintiff Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr.,
the son of Ken Saro-Wiwa explained, "In reaching this settlement, we were
very much aware that we are not the only Ogonis who have suffered in our
struggle with Shell, which is why we insisted on creating the Kiisi
Trust." The Kiisi Trust-Kiisi means "Progress"
in the plaintiffs' Ogoni language-will allow for initiatives in
Ogoni for educational endowments, skills development, agricultural development,
women's programs, small enterprise support, and adult literacy.
Judith Chomsky, cooperating attorney with
the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and of the attorneys who initiated
the lawsuit, stated, "The fortitude shown by our clients in the 13-year
struggle to hold Shell accountable has helped establish a principle that goes
beyond Shell and Nigeria-that
corporations, no matter how powerful, will be held to universal human rights
standards."
Added Jennie Green, the CCR staff attorney who
initiated the lawsuit in 1996, "This was one of the first cases to charge
a multinational corporation with human rights violations, and this settlement
confirms that multinational corporations can no longer act with the impunity
they once enjoyed."
Wiwa v. Royal Dutch
Petroleum, Wiwa v. SPDC, and Wiwa
v. Anderson are three lawsuits filed by CCR, co-counsel EarthRights
International (ERI), and private law firms on behalf of relatives of murdered
Ogoni activists and other injured Ogonis who were fighting for human rights and
environmental justice in their homeland. Plaintiffs charged Royal Dutch
Shell, Shell Nigeria, and Anderson with complicity in extrajudicial killing,
crimes against humanity, torture, and other human rights claims.
Plaintiffs in the case
include the relatives of the executed activists Ken Saro-Wiwa, John Kpuinen,
Saturday Doobee, Daniel Gbokoo, Felix Nuate, and Dr. Barinem Kiobel. Dr.
Owens Wiwa, Ken Saro-Wiwa's brother, and Michael Tema Vizor brought
claims for the torture and detention that resulted in their exile from Nigeria.
Further claims were brought by Karalolo Kogbara, who lost her arm, and on
behalf of Uebari N-nah, who was killed in attacks on Ogoni civilians.
Anthony
DiCaprio, an attorney who has worked on the case for many
years, commented, "Throughout this very long process, I have been humbled
by our clients' unwavering courage and resilience. Their satisfaction
with the result that we have been able to achieve is extremely
gratifying."
Human rights attorney Paul Hoffman, trial counsel in the Wiwa cases and partner at the law firm of
Schonbrun, De Simone, Seplow, Harris and Hoffman, noted, "This settlement
is only a first step towards the resolution of still outstanding issues between
Shell and the Ogoni people."
Oil
operations in Nigeria
have been chief among Shell's assets for many decades. Critics charge
that Shell's aim for the lowest possible production cost, without regard
for the resulting damage to the surrounding people and land, has wreaked havoc
on local communities and the environment, including the still on-going practice
of gas flaring. In the early 1990s, the Ogoni, led by Ken Saro-Wiwa and
the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, began organized, non-violent
protests against Shell's practices. Shell grew increasingly concerned
with the heightened international prominence of the Ogoni movement and made payments
to security forces that they knew to be engaging in human rights violations
against the local communities. The military government violently
repressed the demonstrations, arrested Ogoni activists, and falsely accused
nine Ogoni activists of murder and bribed witnesses to give fake
testimony. The nine, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, were denied a fair trial
and then hanged on November 10, 1995.
Said Agnieszka Fryszman, co-counsel with the law
firm of Cohen Millstein Sellers & Toll, "The case has been pending
for many years, and this settlement puts an end to what would likely
have been yet another long round of appeals."
Marco Simons, ERI Legal Director, stated,
"The courts repeatedly rejected Shell's efforts to dismiss this
case, setting important legal precedents for the continued prosecution of
corporations in breach of international law. This reinforces the
plaintiffs' demands that corporations such as Shell safeguard human
rights and the environment."
For complete documentation of the legal briefs and further background
information, click here
or visit www.ccrjustice.org, www.earthrights.org, and www.sdshh.com.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza... Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector," said one critic.
A US congressional committee on Thursday rejected an amendment to strip a provision from next year's Pentagon funding bill aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli militaries under the guise of reducing aid.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to strike Section 224—which would establish a formal "United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative"—from the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. The proposed NDAA authorizes $1.15 trillion in baseline military spending, while the Trump administration’s full defense request seeks an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in armed forces and related funding for the coming fiscal year.
Section 224 would require the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology cooperation.
In Thursday's voice vote, members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) from both parties rejected the amendment to remove Section 2024 from the NDAA, with only Khanna and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) backing the measure.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—has called Section 224 "my plan."
While proponents of Section 224 contend that the measure would reduce US taxpayer funding for Israel, Khanna argued that the provision amounts to a blank check for a country that most Americans oppose sending more aid to.
“The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do," the congressman said Thursday while promoting his amendment. "The entire country of Israel has a GDP that is less than a single town in my district, yet somehow Netanyahu thinks he could tell the American people what we should do."
“I am for Team America," Khanna added. "I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that's what [President] Donald Trump ran on. That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”
In a letter to Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)—who is not on the HASC—Netanyahu said he is "heartened" by Section 224's plan to “develop a new Memorandum of Understanding with the United States government” that will reduce “US financial military assistance over the next decade” and replace it with “a new framework of joint defense cooperation, codevelopment, coproduction, and mutual investment."
The US has provided more than $20 billion in armed aid to Israel during the Biden and Trump administrations since Netanyahu launched the genocidal war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. The current 10-year Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel, signed in 2016 during former President Barack Obama's tenure, provided Israel with $38 billion in US military aid and expires in 2028.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—who has partnered with Khanna on introducing or supporting war powers resolutions aimed at curbing Trump's ability to wage unconstitutional wars in countries including Yemen, Venezuela, and Iran—said last month that if Section 224 made it out of committee, he would work with Khanna to "offer an amendment to strip it from the bill on the floor."
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is urging Americans to contact their members of Congress to tell them to reject Section 224.
"This is not 'America First.' It is Israel First," ADC argues on its website. "The resolution language attached to this proposal gives it away: it expresses support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s initiative to transition the US–Israel relationship toward mutual defense cooperation and joint economic investment. This language turns Congress into a vehicle for advancing Netanyahu’s agenda and asks the American people to treat it as their own national security policy."
"Section 224 would move US support for Israel away from the more transparent foreign aid framework and into a maze of Pentagon procurement, licensing, data-sharing, and backdoor deals that are harder for Congress, taxpayers, and future administrations to monitor, cap, condition, or unwind," the group continued. "Concerns of undefined 'network integration' and 'data fusion' should alarm every American who cares about sovereignty, privacy, civil liberties, and democratic oversight."
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, exporting surveillance technologies used against activists and journalists around the world, marketing military technology tested on Palestinians, and carrying out terrorist attacks as seen in the cell phone [bombings] in Lebanon, Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector and making accountability harder than ever," ADC added.
In an opinion piece published this week by Common Dreams, Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote that "lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel’s military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in the region."
"This unprecedented level of US-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of US military assistance," Freeman said.
"Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion."
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries helped Republicans tank Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s war powers resolution to limit US military involvement in Lebanon on Thursday, holding up the effort to curb the conflict for at least another several weeks.
Despite Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushing deeper, with more than 3,500 people killed and 1.2 million displaced since early March, the Michigan Democrat's resolution was defeated in a 324-92 vote, with a large number in her own party joining Jeffries (D-NY) and the Republican majority against it.
In a joint statement shortly ahead of the vote on Tlaib's resolution, House Minority Leader Jeffries of New York, along with Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said: “We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah." The statement included no mention of Israel.
The lawmakers said they’d support a different resolution introduced by Tlaib on Wednesday, which was crafted in tandem with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That resolution likewise required President Donald Trump to remove US forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of passage. But it also added the caveat that it could not be construed to "prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Jeffries, Clark, and Aguilar said, "There are no US servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon."
However, supporters of Tlaib's original measure have noted that the US military is heavily involved in Israel's actions in the country without having boots on the ground.
"The US is actively cooperating with Israel on coordinating strikes, intelligence sharing, and planning, including Trump green-lighting major attacks on Lebanon multiple times," Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams.
While the resolution's passage wouldn't "end US involvement overnight," she said, "it fundamentally changes the landscape of accountability" by giving opponents of US collaboration a legal mechanism to conduct oversight.
And while the resolution would not cut off US military aid to Israel, Abou-Elias said Israel could continue its occupation "only for a limited period of time" without US assistance.
"Israel would be absorbing losses while also draining its broader manpower and firepower reserves," she said. "At some point, the cost-benefit of continuing their occupation without US support would shift."
Because war powers resolutions are privileged, they can be forced to a vote even without approval from the Republican majority.
However, committees are given 15 days to act before a resolution is forced onto the floor, followed by three days for a House vote. This means it could take until June 21 for the new version to pass. The Senate would also have to pass it, and it would then take another week to go into effect.
"The people of Lebanon can't wait another month for Congress to act," Tlaib said on social media following news that the proposal would be voted down. "Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion. Congress must pass today's Lebanon war powers resolution."
Abou-Elias said that despite the setback, Tlaib's introduction of the measure was not a wasted effort.
"Even if the resolution doesn't pass today, the vote forces every representative on record on the US participation in the attacks on Lebanon," she said. "That alone has value."
Though resolution failed, proponents of the measure championed the 92 lawmakers who did vote in favor.
“Congress’s failure to act has thus far enabled multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon and war crimes against Lebanese civilians,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, in a statement. “Tonight’s vote demonstrated that a growing block of members of Congress are beginning to listen to their constituents. Americans don’t want the US involved in atrocities against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, or anyone. This vote is just the beginning, and we will continue to organize until all of Congress acts to end these atrocities.”
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said US Rep. Shontel Brown.
Rep. Shontel Brown on Thursday confronted US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins for her past boasts about kicking millions of Americans off food assistance.
During a House Agriculture Committee hearing, Brown grilled Rollins for saying it was "good news" that 4.5 million fewer people are now enrolled in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) than before President Donald Trump took office last year.
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Brown. "Families and children are not leaving the SNAP program because they are doing better."
Rep. @ShontelMBrown: Recently, you described it as good news that roughly 4.5 million people have been moved off SNAP. The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. They are not doing better--
Rollins: They are. pic.twitter.com/qcB2WlAHLv
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 4, 2026
"They are," Rollins replied, without citing any evidence.
"They are being forced off because of eligibility changes, new administrative barriers, and states preparing for the enormous cost shift that they know is coming," Brown shot back. "And you know this. So I'm really struggling to understand why you think pulling the rug out from under children, seniors, veterans, and families that have fallen on hard times [is] good news."
Rollins then baselessly claimed that all of the people who had been removed from SNAP had been added to the program fraudulently, including "200,000 dead people."
The Associated Press last month published a fact check that examined a similar Rollins claim about the number of people removed from food assistance over the last year, and determined that the most likely culprit were changes made to the program by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a 2025 budget law that slashed funding to SNAP by $186 billion over a decade.
"What we’ve seen in terms of the data is that the trend in participation declines seems to be related to the program being harder to access,” Roger Figueroa, an assistant professor at Cornell University, explained to the AP.