

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.
Christopher Lancette, The Wilderness Society (202) 429-2692
Shannon Andrea, National Parks Conservation Association, (202) 454-3371
Kelly Trout, Friends of the Earth, (202) 222-0722
Jessica Brand, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-0239
As President Obama calls for fiscal restraint in domestic
spending, a coalition of conservation and wildlife organizations echoed
the call and released a "Green Budget" report today outlining what
Congress can do to create jobs while strengthening key environmental
programs -- including cutting wasteful spending by nearly $20 billion
per year. (Click here to see a short video about the need to invest in a green economy, find full report, obtain photos, etc.)
"We heard President Obama and we recognize the need for the federal
government to tighten its belt, which is why we're calling on Congress
and the administration to eliminate wasteful spending," said William H.
Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society - one of 34 organizations
that sent 2011 spending recommendations to Congress in the form of its
"Green Budget". "The president and Congress have some tough decisions
to make but we believe sound economic and environmental policy go
hand-in-hand. So while frugality is key, we must continue to invest in
the kind of environmental initiatives that create jobs and protect our
natural resources."
The wide-ranging spending cuts indentified would save billions of
dollars per year by ending tax breaks and other giveaways to the oil
and gas industry and other big polluters that are enjoying
record-breaking profits. For example, closing the loophole that lets
big corporations write off oil and gas production would save $13.3
billion over nine years. Cutting taxpayer subsidies for dangerous and
expensive new nuclear technologies would save more than $220 million in
2011 alone. Congress could also save billions in subsidies to corporate
agribusinesses that destroy land and pollute our water and instead
invest in cost-effective programs like conservation, nutrition and
deficit reduction. The savings outlined in the Green Budget are just a
sampling of the ways our tax dollars subsidize pollution and could
instead be invested in environmental protection and clean, renewable
energy.
"Last September, President Obama pledged to end subsidies to fossil
fuels," said Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica. "The Green
Budget provides him a way to start delivering on that promise. There's
no reason billions of our taxpayer dollars should be going to
ExxonMobil and other polluting corporations. Eliminating these
giveaways will unleash resources we can use to build clean energy jobs
and a stable, healthy future for our country."
The organizations producing the Green Budget believe the money saved
by eliminating wasteful spending can be used to invest in creating a
green economy - one that creates jobs and protects natural resources.
Their plan details what federal agency funding is needed to sustain
clean air and water, protect lands, oceans and wildlife, and solve
energy and transportation problems. They're also quick to remind
Congress and the administration of the vital economic role public lands
play in the economy: The Outdoor Industry Foundation estimates that
outdoor recreation -- hunting, fishing, hiking, skiing, and similar
activities -- contribute $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy and
supports 6.5 million jobs across the country. A study by the National
Parks and Conservation Association, meanwhile, found that $13 billion
flows annually into gateway towns, creating 250,000 private sector jobs.
Key recommendations from the Green Budget:
Lands and Wildlife: After years of budget cuts, more funds are
needed to aid the National Wildlife Refuge System, National Park
System, National Forests and land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. All are faced with critical backlogs on projects needed to
preserve and maintain existing sites and stop environmental damage
they're experiencing.
"We look to Congress and the Administration to provide funding for
our national parks and public lands that the American people deserve,"
said National Parks Conservation Association President Tom Kiernan,
whose organization estimates that every federal dollar invested in
national parks generates at least four dollars economic value to the
public. "By investing in our national parks and public lands, we can
improve the experiences of visitors, benefit local economies, and
protect our national heritage for our children and grandchildren."
Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen shared that sentiment.
"Wildlife refuges provide around $1.7 billion in revenue annually,
thanks to the 40 million people who visit these spots each year" he
said. "Protecting these treasures is not only vital to our natural
heritage, it is a sound economic investment that creates jobs and
stimulates local economies."
Oceans: Congress should invest in our oceans including supporting
programs that protect our coasts, responsibly manage fisheries,
conserve marine wildlife, sustain coastal economies and observe and
predict climate change. Additionally, Congress should support the Ocean
Policy Task Force President Obama formed in June 2009 to develop a
national ocean policy and coastal and marine spatial planning
framework. That plan will develop recommendations for better managing
U.S. oceans, which are now under the domain of 140 laws and implemented
by 20 federal agencies.
Health, Air & Water: Congress should strengthen the
Environmental Protection Agency's ability to reduce toxins in our air
and water. Regulatory programs should be enhanced, and investments in
the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund should be
increased.
Education: Congress should support greater environmental education
efforts. "As America moves toward a clean energy economy, Congress must
make significant investments in environmental and sustainability
education," said Patrick Fitzgerald, director of education advocacy at
the National Wildlife Federation. "By better educating our citizens and
workforce, we will create the human capital America needs to strengthen
our economy, achieve energy independence, and secure a clean energy
future."
Energy: Congress should invest in programs that can increase the
amount of energy generated by wind and solar technologies. It should
also continue to prioritize the Building Technologies Program that
yields great energy savings from a variety of energy efficient building
techniques. Congress should also expand the scope of the Energy
Efficient and Conservation Block Grant Program, which encourages states
and large communities to invest in initiatives such as retrofitting
existing buildings and facilities with energy efficient technologies.
"We need to put our fiscal house in order to remain the world's
leading economy," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural
Resources Defense Council. "We also need to lead, not lag, in
developing the clean energy and conservation technologies that will
strengthen our economy at home, make us more competitive abroad and
position American workers for success in the fast-growing global market
for wind, solar and other renewable power sources. The Green Budget
supports these vital goals by increasing investment in environmental
priorities while marking wasteful programs that should be cut or
eliminated to save taxpayers money. It strikes the right balance. It
deserves our support."
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."