

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.

Jessica Lass, 310-434-2300
A backroom agreement between the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the Long Beach Harbor Commission could illegally reverse efforts to improve air quality in communities surrounding the Port of Long Beach, according to a lawsuit filed last week by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Sierra Club.
"You can't cut the public out of the conversation when you're talking about the air they breathe and the health consequences they face," said David Pettit, director of NRDC's Southern California Clean Air Program. "This deal puts the wolf in charge of the henhouse -- with a likely result of dirtier air for local communities. Industry cannot be allowed to dictate clean air efforts and rollback the Port's clean air advancements."
The new agreement gives the ATA authority to oversee future updates to the clean trucks program at the Port of Long Beach even if the Port is acting to protect public health and safety. The arrangement requires the Port of Long Beach to receive ATA's approval before making changes to the clean trucks program or risk the ATA filing a lawsuit.
"The problems posed to blighted communities and the environment are far greater than the simple issue of tailpipe emissions that this settlement tries to cover," Tom Politeo, spokesperson for the Sierra Club. "The superficial agreement is far more about a subsidy that buys shiny new trucks for the industry than of the reforms needed to establish environmental justice. It is protectionist to a floundering status quo at the cost of suffering residents, workers and the environment."
This private agreement, entered into on October 19, 2009, violates Long Beach Municipal Code and state law, which require public involvement and an environmental review. The NRDC lawsuit calls for a legally-required state environmental study of the agreement that includes public comment before it can move forward.
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are serviced by roughly 17,000 trucks, which are responsible for tons of diesel pollution in the Los Angeles region contributing to hundreds of premature deaths and chronic heart and lung diseases.
Under the new deal, the Port cannot stop trucking companies from using dirty trucks that fail to meet environmental and safety standards. The Port cannot deny a trucking company port access even if it commits large scale or repeated violations of federal, state, municipal, or port environmental, safety or security standards-unless the company's motor carrier license is revoked by federal or state authorities. Additionally, the agreement does not include requirements that would result in environmental benefits, including enforcement provisions, environmental maintenance requirements, financial capability requirements, and auditing provisions.
"This agreement repeatedly violates the public's trust," said Pettit. "Long Beach residents deserve transparency and honesty that the Port can easily provide if it simply complies with the law and completes a basic environmental assessment on the agreement."
The Long Beach Harbor Commission has repeatedly denied requests to examine potentially adverse health impacts under the new agreement as required under the California Environmental Quality Act and entered into the agreement without public approval by the Long Beach City Council.
Clean Truck Program Background:
In spring of 2008, the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles adopted clean trucks programs to modernize port trucking, reduce pollution and provide the ports with greater oversight over port trucking operations. The clean trucks program is comprised of three components: (1) a progressive truck ban that phases out older, dirtier trucks from port service over five years; (2) a fee assessed on cargo containers moved by truck that will be used to help subsidize the purchase of newer, cleaner trucks that comply with the progressive truck ban; and (3) concession agreements that require any trucking company dispatching trucks hauling cargo to or from the ports to become a concessionaire and adhere to obligations outlined within the concession agreement.
In July 2008, the ATA sued the Cities and Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles claiming that the concession agreement component of both ports' respective clean trucks programs is illegal under federal law. Los Angeles and Long Beach argued in response that the concession agreement is a valid exercise of the ports' authority as landlords and necessary to ensure that trucking companies meet critical environmental, safety and security standards that further the ports' business objectives.
Throughout the litigation, Long Beach maintained, up until the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners abruptly settled with ATA, that its concession agreement allowed the Port to hold an identifiable, financially-responsible entity accountable for compliance with the clean trucks program, and that the concession model produced environmental benefits. Now, Long Beach has abandoned its earlier position and entered into a new agreement behind closed doors that gives the ATA veto power over the port's and the city's ability to protect local residents.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700Iran's first vice president called the attack a new "symbol of Trump's madness and ignorance."
A wave of US-Israeli airstrikes on Monday hit and extensively damaged Sharif University of Technology, a leading Iranian educational institution that is widely known as "the MIT of Iran" and seen as one of the world's top engineering schools.
The attack on the Tehran university—one of dozens of education sites bombed by the US and Israel since they launched their war on Iran in late February—sparked outrage inside Iran and around the world. Mohammad Reza Aref, an engineer currently serving as Iran's first vice president, said the attack on Sharif University "is a symbol of [US President Donald] Trump's madness and ignorance."
"He fails to understand that Iran's knowledge is not embedded in concrete to be destroyed by bombs; the true fortress is the will of our professors and elites," Aref wrote. "No barbarity in history has ever been able to strip science from the Iranian people. Science is rooted in our souls, and this fortress will not crumble."
The National Iranian American Council called the bombing "another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war."
"This was a center of learning, not a military target," the group wrote on social media, highlighting video footage showing a building in ruins. "The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in Iran is deeply disturbing and will only deepen insecurity for the US and Israel. End this war."
US Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the lone Iranian American in Congress, noted that Sharif University has "produced a huge number of engineers who’ve gone on to Silicon Valley and founded some of the most successful American tech companies."
"Why are we bombing a university in a city of 10 million people?" Ansari asked.
Another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war: U.S.-Israeli strikes have bombed one of the world’s most prestigious universities in Sharif University of Technology in Tehran. This was a center of learning, not a military target. The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in… pic.twitter.com/GE6J8WhgMC
— NIAC (@NIACouncil) April 6, 2026
Al Jazeera's Tohid Asadi reported from Tehran that the university was "severely hit, with extensive damage reported in the compound's mosque and laboratories."
Vira Ameli, an Iranian global health researcher and lecturer at the University of Oxford, decried the US-Israeli strike on Sharif University, where she spent time as a postdoctoral fellow.
"To wake to the news of this war crime, at a distance and unable to return, is difficult to articulate," Ameli wrote. "And yet history has made one thing clear: Iran is not a country undone by bombardment."
Iranian authorities say US-Israeli attacks have hit at least 30 of the nation's universities, including the Isfahan University of Technology and the Iran University of Science and Technology. The US and Israel have justified some of the attacks by claiming the universities were involved in military-related activities.
"Would American and Israeli leaders consider their own equivalent institutions fair game? Of course not," journalist Natasha Lennard wrote in a column for The Intercept last week. "By stated US and Israeli rationale, however, were Iran able to launch airstrikes on American soil, direct ties to the U.S. and Israeli military-industrial complex would make valid targets of at least the University of California, Berkeley; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Johns Hopkins University, among dozens of other schools."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said "bare due diligence" would have exposed ICE officers' falsehoods.
Video footage obtained by The New York Times has exposed lies told by two federal immigration enforcement agents about the circumstances leading up to a non-fatal shooting in Minneapolis that occurred on January 14.
According to a Monday report from the Times, the video directly contradicts claims made by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials that they were attacked by assailants armed with a shovel and a broom for around three minutes before the agents opened fire and wounded one of the attackers.
"Instead, the confrontation depicted in the video lasts about 12 seconds and shows two men struggling with the agent," reported the Times. "It shows no sustained attack with a shovel."
Federal prosecutors had initially pursued assault charges against Venezuelan national Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was shot in the leg by the ICE officers during the January confrontation, and fellow Venezuelan national Alfredo Aljorna.
However, the government abruptly dropped charges against the two men in February, and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons acknowledged that two federal officers appear “to have made untruthful statements” about the incident.
The Times noted that the government had access to the video of the shooting hours after it took place.
However, one source told the paper that prosecutors didn't watch the video until three weeks after they filed charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna, and instead relied on "the ICE agent’s statement and an FBI agent’s affidavit describing the footage."
This revelation prompted a rebuke from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who told the Times that "bare due diligence would have shown that the agents were lying."
Trump administration officials have come under fire in recent weeks for lying about shootings involving federal immigration officials, such as when former US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem falsely claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was aiming “to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement."
In reality, video footage showed Pretti never drew his handgun during his confrontation with federal immigration officers, while also clearly showing that officers disarmed him before they opened fire.
Noem also falsely claimed that slain ICE observer Renee Good had attempted "an act of domestic terrorism" by trying to run over a federal immigration officer with her car, even though footage clearly showed Good turning her vehicle away from the officer in an attempt to get away from the scene.
"This is an express public incitement for war crimes and crimes against humanity—and, I would say, for genocide," said a spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry.
Iranian officials on Monday warned US President Donald Trump that his name will be "etched in history as a supreme war criminal" if he follows through with his threat to wage total war on Iran's civilian infrastructure, including bridges and power plants.
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, wrote on social media following Trump's Easter-morning outburst that "threats to attack power plants and bridges (civilian infrastructure) constitute war crimes under Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 (Article 52)."
"The president of the United States, in his capacity as the highest-ranking official of his country, has openly threatened to commit war crimes—an act that entails his individual criminal responsibility before the International Criminal Court and any competent national court," Gharibabadi added, vowing that Iran "will deliver a decisive, immediate, and regret-inducing response" to any attack.
Esmail Baghaei, a spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said Trump's threats are "an indication of a criminal mindset."
"This is an express public incitement for war crimes and crimes against humanity—and, I would say, for genocide," Baghaei said in an interview on Sunday. "Threatening to attack a country's critical infrastructure, energy sector, it would mean that you want to put at risk the whole population."
Absolute bombshell. Iran's Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei accuses the Trump administration of a criminal mindset and public incitement for genocide. Threatening a nation's critical infrastructure puts the entire population at risk. The White House has completely abandoned morality. pic.twitter.com/HcBZGZho5p
— Furkan Gözükara (@FurkanGozukara) April 5, 2026
The US and Israel have already done significant damage to Iran's civilian infrastructure. The country's deputy health minister said Monday that more than 360 healthcare, education, and research centers have been hit by US-Israeli strikes, and dozens of medics have been killed since the bombing began on February 28.
But Trump on Sunday threatened an indiscriminate assault, telling Fox News that if the Iranians "don't make a deal and fast," he is "considering blowing everything up and taking the oil."
"You're going to see bridges and power plants dropping all over their country," the president said, setting a new deadline of 8 pm ET for the complete reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump's remarks came after he published a deranged post on his Truth Social platform demanding that Iran "open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell."
Analysts and lawmakers in the US echoed Iranian officials' warnings that Trump's threatened attacks would constitute war crimes.
"Trump's advisers are telling him to hit civilian sites because it will cause unrest and potentially topple the regime. But just think about the insanity of this plan: kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to cause a national panic," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote. "Bombing to induce political panic IS A WAR CRIME."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said that "any lawmaker who votes for supplemental funding for the war on Iran or against war powers resolutions to end it will be fully complicit in the war crimes threatened here, as well as those already committed by this unhinged and unfit Commander in Chief."
The US president's renewed threats came amid reports of a diplomatic effort, mediated in part by Pakistan, to enact a 45-day ceasefire to provide space for a lasting resolution to the war.
Axios reported that the talks are seen as "the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states."