

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.
The heads of the nation's largest environmental organizations--often at odds on the best strategy for combating climate change--released a letter today calling on President Obama to block the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would span from the tar sands of Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. (1)
The heads of the nation's largest environmental organizations--often at odds on the best strategy for combating climate change--released a letter today calling on President Obama to block the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would span from the tar sands of Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. (1)
As another 56 people headed to jail today in the largest civil disobedience protests in the environmental movement's recent history (2), the leaders of groups as diverse as Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund told the president, "there is not an inch of daylight between our policy position on the Keystone XL pipeline, and those of the protesters being arrested daily outside the White House."
"On an issue as complicated as climate, there will often be disagreements over tactics and goals--just recall the differences over the Senate climate bill this time last year," said Bill McKibben, one of the organizers of the protests for tarsandsaction.org. "But there are some projects so obviously dangerous that they unify everyone, and the Keystone XL pipeline is the best example yet."
The leaders of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the Rainforest Action Network also made it clear they counted on President Obama to take decisive action to block the pipeline. "We expect nothing less," they said, describing the pipeline battle as "perhaps the biggest climate test you face between now and the election" and adding that denying the permit would trigger a "surge of enthusiasm from the green base that supported you so strongly in the last election."
In their letter, the leaders cited dangers to the climate, the risks of disastrous spills and leaks, and the economic damage that will come from continued dependence on fossil fuel in their letter, concluding, "this is a terrible project."
The civil disobedience protests--now in their fifth day, and scheduled to last through September 3--played some role in the leaders' decision to take a stand, though many of the organizations do not themselves engage in such protest.
"I have worked in the environmental movement since the first earth day in 1970, and this is reminding me of the spirit and unity we had back then. We are all together on this," said Gus Speth, a founder of the NRDC in the 1970s and head of the Council on Environmental Quality under President Carter, who was among those arrested last Saturday and spent two nights in DC's Central Cell Block.
"For those of us out there in front of the White House, the best thing about this ringing statement is that the administration won't be able to play one group off against another by making small concessions here and there," said McKibben. "They've all shown that there is one way to demonstrate to the environmental base that the rhetoric of Obama's 2008 campaign is still meaningful--and that's to veto this pipeline. Since he can do it without even consulting Congress, this is one case where we'll be able to see exactly how willing he is to match the rhetoric of his 2008 campaign."
1. The text of the letter follows:
Dear President Obama:
Many of the organizations we head do not engage in civil disobedience; some do. Regardless, speaking as individuals, we want to let you know that there is not an inch of daylight between our policy position on the Keystone Pipeline and those of the very civil protesters being arrested daily outside the White House. This is a terrible project-many of the country's leading climate scientists have explained why in their letter last month to you. It risks many of our national treasures to leaks and spills. And it reduces incentives to make the transition to job-creating clean fuels.
You have a clear shot to deny the permit, without any interference from Congress. It's perhaps the biggest climate test you face between now and the election. If you block it, you will trigger a surge of enthusiasm from the green base that supported you so strongly in the last election. We expect nothing less.
Sincerely,
Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund
Michael Brune, Sierra Club
Frances Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council
Phil Radford, Greenpeace
Larry Schweiger, National Wildlife Federation
Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth
Rebecca Tarbotton, Rainforest Action Network
May Boeve, 350.org
Gene Karpinski, League of Conservation Voters
Margie Alt, Environment America
2. To date, 275 people have been arrested at the White House protesting the Keystone XL pipeline.
Tar Sands Action is a program of Peaceful Uprising, which is a project of International Humanities Center a 501(c)(3) charitable trust.
The president has stacked a planning commission with three of his staffers, but organizers hailed a "huge victory" Thursday after the panel delayed a vote following an outpouring of public opposition.
President Donald Trump has gone to significant lengths to ensure the 90,000-square-foot, $400 million ballroom he wants to replace the East Wing of the White House with is constructed swiftly—appointing his own associates and staffers to key commissions that must approve the project.
But even under the leadership of chairman Will Scharf, Trump's former personal lawyer and the White House staff secretary, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) on Thursday was forced to delay a planned vote on approving the ballroom until April 2—unable to ignore tens of thousands of public comments that have poured in denouncing the proposed ballroom as well as a parade of dozens of people who showed up at the commission's meeting to express opposition.
Scharf “cited the expected length of testimony from the more than 100 people who had signed up to say what they thought of the project, which he said might require the meeting to stretch into Friday," reported the Washington Post.
A longtime architect, David Scott Parker, told the panel that he had "grave concerns" about the exaggerated size of the planned ballroom, which "is nearly three times the original White House, in violation of classical architecture principles mandating balance.”
Rebecca Miller, executive director of the DC Preservation League, told the commission—which also includes two other White House staffers, deputy chief of staff James Blair and chief statistician Stuart Levenbach—that the proposed ballroom "is disproportionately large and impersonal and will detract from the dignified atmosphere that has characterized presidential events for centuries,” while Kyle Rowan, who described himself as an "ordinary citizen," had a succinct criticism.
“It’s ugly,” Rowan told the commissioners. “It’s too much.”
Just one speaker out of 30 expressed approval of the project.
The critics who arrived at the commission's meeting in person represented just a fraction of the criticism that has inundated officials since the panel began collecting public comments on the proposed ballroom.
More than 35,000 comments were sent in, and a New York Times artificial intelligence-powered analysis of the responses found that 98% of them were negative. The Post also used AI to determine that more than 97% of the comments were critical, and measured that finding against a sampling of comments that were manually checked.
Some of the remarks alluded to Trump's plan to fund the ballroom construction through private donations, which he has insisted will benefit taxpayers—but which Democratic lawmakers and government watchdogs have warned is an example of blatant corruption, as companies with billions of dollars in federal contracts, including Amazon, Google, and Palantir, are among the donors.
"I am sick that Trump has torn down the East Wing of the People’s House, our house, and plans to build a monstrosity ballroom funded by not 'We the People' but by corrupt, out of touch, unaccountable to anyone, billionaires. It is beyond sickening," wrote a commenter named Donna Smith.
Julie Mason added that the ballroom plan has "opened the door to excessive corruption by the president and his billionaire backers through quid pro quo," and a South Carolina resident named Barbara Bryant added that the "financing of the project is perhaps its most troubling aspect."
"The $400 million private corporate donation scheme is a blatant attempt to evade congressional oversight," Bryant wrote. "By allowing corporations with active business before the government to fund a presidential vanity project, the administration has created a fertile ground for corruption, turning a national landmark into a billboard for private interests."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed without evidence on Thursday that the public comments "are clearly stemming from an organized campaign of Trump-deranged liberals who clearly have no style or taste."
"It’s a shame that some people in this country are so debilitated with Trump derangement syndrome, they can’t even recognize or respect beauty when they see it," said Leavitt.
An Economist-YouGov poll taken last month found that 58% of Americans opposed tearing down the East Wing to build the ballroom, while just 25% supported it.
The public comments echoed those of protesters who assembled outside the NCPC's offices on Thursday at a demonstration organized by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. The group has closely followed Trump's decision to staff the commission with his own administration officials and the "myriad of conflicts of interest concerns" that have arisen as wealthy corporations have lined up to fund the ballroom.
Jon Golinger, a democracy advocate for Public Citizen who testified at the NCPC meeting Thursday, noted that one federal judge had accused the Trump administration of erecting a "Rube Goldberg contraption" to collect donations from "corporations, billionaires, and an unknown number of secret donors" while evading "congressional and public oversight and [shielding] the donors and recipients of the money from scrutiny."
“According to news reports, the expectation is that those names will be etched on the White House as part of the ballroom's brick or stone," said Golinger. "It is outrageous that the Trump administration would engrave the names of corporations with government contracts who gave them checks on the White House like a big tacky advertising billboard. I urge NCPC to explicitly prohibit them from doing so.”
At the meeting, Golinger condemned Trump's decision to stack the commission with his own staffers and said Scharf, Blair, and Levenbach lack the legally required experience in city or regional planning to sit on the panel.
“The fix is in for this project and this vote,” said Golinger.
Scharf argued he is qualified for the position due to his past work in the Missouri governor's office.
At the protest, Golinger said the commission's decision to delay the vote on the ballroom was a "huge victory," considering Trump has filled the commission with his "cronies."
"Public pressure has mattered," he said. "It's not the end of the fight, no doubt they're going to come back and try to ram it through next time, but this [delay] isn't something I even conceived."
"Both practically and politically, a vote to fund the war is a vote for the war—a war Americans cannot afford and do not want."
Democratic members of Congress are facing renewed pressure to oppose any Trump administration funding requests to help bankroll its illegal, open-ended war on Iran after congressional Republicans—along with a handful of pro-war Democrats—voted this week to defeat efforts to end the assault, which is costing US taxpayers roughly $1 billion per day.
In a statement after House Republicans and four Democrats voted down an Iran war powers resolution late Thursday, the ACLU implored Congress "to use its funding authority to block all supplemental funding requests for war funding from the Department of Defense while President Trump is engaging in this unconstitutional war."
"Without Congress authorizing additional funds, the military will simply run out of money to spend on the war," the group added.
The Trump administration is reportedly crafting a $50 billion supplemental funding request aimed at financing its war, which has killed more than 1,000 Iranians and counting. Politico reported Thursday that Republicans are "debating whether to attach wildfire aid and $15 billion in tariff relief for farmers" to the supplemental funding measure in an effort to attract Democratic support.
The National Priorities Project (NPP) has noted that $50 billion would be enough to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for a year, restore federal nutrition assistance to millions who are set to lose it due to the Trump-GOP budget law, and expand Medicaid to nearly 2 million people.
"The question isn’t whether the money exists—it's what we choose to spend it on," NPP's Alliyah Lusuegro and Lindsay Koshgarian wrote Thursday. "There’s never been a better time to call your members of Congress. We need to oppose this war before it’s too late."
"Any member of Congress who rubber stamps another dime for this war of choice should expect to hear from our members."
Some Senate Democrats—including Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee—have not ruled out voting for a possible supplemental funding bill for the Pentagon, even as the annual US military budget cleared $1 trillion.
“We have to look at what they need,” Reed said earlier this week. “Some of it might be to fill in critical issues and other theaters of war they’ve taken things from.”
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told HuffPost that she "would like to understand the goals of the war before I decide how I feel about the funding of the war."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Thursday that "both practically and politically, a vote to fund the war is a vote for the war—a war Americans cannot afford and do not want."
The progressive advocacy group MoveOn said its members "consider a vote for the supplemental a vote in favor of Donald Trump's war."
"Any member of Congress who rubber stamps another dime for this war of choice should expect to hear from our members," the group added.
To break the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate, Republicans would need at least seven Democrats to cross the aisle.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) expressed emphatic opposition to the floated supplemental funding bill in a social media post on Thursday.
"I’m a hell no on funding for Trump’s illegal, disastrous Iran War," Murphy wrote.
“Month after month, the data shows Donald Trump’s economy is failing American families.”
President Donald Trump's self-proclaimed "greatest" economy in history took another major blow on Friday as the US Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that the American economy lost 92,000 jobs in February.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, described the report as "dismal," while noting that the US economy as a whole has actually lost jobs since Trump announced his "liberation day" global tariffs in April 2025.
"Total job gains since from May 2025 to February 2026 are now -19,000," she wrote. "Companies are not hiring in the face of all of these headwinds and uncertainty. And even healthcare is starting to slow down."
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers argued that "the economic story just changed dramatically" because of the jobs report, which also showed downward revisions to the estimated jobs created in December and January.
"Recession questions are back on the menu," he said.
Mike Konczal, senior director of policy and research at the Economic Security Project, zeroed in on the surprise loss of healthcare jobs in February as particularly concerning given that healthcare has been the lone industry to consistently add jobs in recent months.
"This is the first month in years where healthcare jobs went negative, really changing the dynamic," he said. "Cuts to Medicaid, cuts to ACA... suddenly the thing that was 187% of private jobs since liberation day, holding it together, may be giving out?"
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said that the terrible jobs report was a direct reflection of Trump's economic mismanagement.
"Month after month, the data shows Donald Trump’s economy is failing American families," Boyle said. "The job market is weakening, costs remain high, and Trump’s illegal tariff taxes continue to hurt businesses and workers. Trump and his allies in Congress know their agenda isn’t working. Instead of helping working families, they are pushing more tariff taxes and more tax breaks for billionaires. It is clear Republicans in Washington simply do not care about working families."
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, declared that "the deterioration in the labor market is visible from space," and pinned the blame on "Trump’s reckless economic agenda."
"As the president piles on blanket tariffs and oil prices soar," Jacquez said, "today's report confirms he's sent the economy straight into a stagflation spiral."
University of Pennsylvania economist Heather Boushey said weakness in the US economy had been evident for several months, although Friday's jobs report showed the largest job losses of any month during Trump's second term.
"Today's data should not come as a shock as there have been signs of weakening in the US labor market for quite some time," she said. "The Trump administration’s focus on undermining the US economy rather than investing in America may be coming home to roost."
Daniel Hornung, policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, said that the bad jobs report will make things even harder for the US Federal Reserve when it comes to making interest rate cut decisions.
"This morning’s report... comes at a difficult moment, with inflation still above target and an oil price shock threatening to raise inflation further," Hornung said. "The report complicates the Fed’s efforts to keep both unemployment and inflation low, and it makes it difficult for the [Trump] administration to argue heading into the midterms that their policies are leading to the kind of growth or improvement in living standards that they’ve long promised."