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.

Kelly Trout (in Washington, D.C.), 202-222-0722, ktrout@foe.org
Bill Waren (in Chicago), wwaren@foe.org
As representatives from the United States and eight other Pacific countries gathered behind closed doors in a Chicago hotel to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, environmental, public health, family farm, labor and consumer organizations gathered today to demand a fair deal or no deal through a week of protests, teach-ins and advocacy.
"If corporate lobbyists get their way, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact will be a clone of the failed NAFTA model, empowering multinational corporations to run roughshod over environmental and public health protections," said Bill Waren, trade policy analyst for Friends of the Earth U.S.
"NAFTA-style investment provisions would let big oil, mining, tobacco and agribusiness companies avoid accountability to national governments or courts for the environmental destruction and social injustices wrought by their investment projects," added Waren. "The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, and its investment chapter in particular, must not be based on the failed and patently unfair model of the North American Free Trade Agreement."
NAFTA-style investment agreements grant expansive new rights to foreign investors to sue governments before international tribunals for the cost of complying with environmental and other public interest regulations.
One current tribunal case involves the Pacific Rim corporation, which sued the government of El Salvador in 2009 through an international investment tribunal authorized by the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The company wanted to mine for gold using dangerous cyanide leach methods that threatened the water supply of poor communities. After communities fought back and the Salvadoran government adopted new environmental safeguards, Pacific Rim sued the Salvadoran government for millions of dollars in compensation.
"It flies in the face of democracy to give corporations the right to squeeze millions of dollars out of governments for doing nothing more than enforcing laws to protect the public. Friends of the Earth strongly urges President Obama's negotiators and those from the eight other Pacific nations meeting in Chicago to reject the NAFTA model for trade agreements and investment chapters in particular," said Waren.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400"The repeal of these protections will mean more asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and premature deaths," said more than two dozen environmental and health groups.
A coalition of more than two dozen environmental and health groups sued the Trump administration on Monday for repealing Environmental Protection Agency rules that curbed dangerous chemical pollution from coal-fired power plants.
As part of President Donald Trump's efforts to dramatically expand the use of coal, the EPA last month finalized the repeal of the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which tightened existing restrictions on the emission of mercury, lead, and other brain-damaging chemicals from power plants.
Coal emits more planet-heating carbon dioxide per unit than any other fossil fuel. Coal plants also release a slew of other chemicals that can cause numerous health complications, including asthma, lung cancer, and respiratory infections.
The EPA says coal-fired power plants are also the single largest source of airborne mercury emissions, which can impair cognitive development, especially in young children.
MATS was created in 2012 to counter these effects and proved quite successful. Within six years of its enactment by the EPA, the amount of toxic mercury being emitted into the atmosphere from energy plants had declined by 90%, according to an agency report.
The Trump EPA has not repealed MATS entirely. Instead, it has targeted amendments enacted by the Biden administration in 2024 that lowered caps on mercury emissions, as well as on other toxic chemicals such as nickel and arsenic.
The EPA has also repealed rules requiring constant monitoring of toxic chemical emissions. Instead of installing expensive systems to track their outputs 24/7, plants can revert to conducting occasional checks.
The repeal came after the administration had already given dozens of coal plants a two-year exemption from the standards last April, even though, according to the agency, 93% were already on track to meet the requirements.
According to an analysis of EPA data by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) last month, sulfur dioxide pollution from coal plants increased by 18% last year, with those exempt from the rules surging almost twice as much as those not exempt.
The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, argues that the Trump administration's actions violate the Clean Air Act, ignore the scientific record, and endanger communities living near power plants.
The suit is backed by groups including the NRDC, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Lung Association.
"The repeal of these protections will mean more asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and premature deaths," the groups said in a statement challenging the repeal. "This administration is not just rolling back rules, it is eliminating the monitoring infrastructure needed to know what is coming out of these smokestacks in the first place."
"It is allowing coal plants to spew out more neurotoxic mercury into our air and food supply, while simultaneously keeping the communities most at risk in the dark about how serious that threat is," they said. "This is a betrayal of the EPA’s core mission.”
The Committee to Protect Journalists regional director called the killing part of “a disturbing pattern” of “Israel accusing journalists of being active combatants and terrorists without providing credible evidence.”
An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson has admitted that the military posted a "photoshopped" image of a Lebanese journalist killed in an airstrike in order to portray him as a Hezbollah operative.
On Saturday, three journalists—Ali Shuaib, a veteran correspondent for Al-Manar TV; Fatima Ftouni of the Al Mayadeen channel; and her brother, cameraman Mohammad Ftouni—were killed when four precision missiles hit their car on the Jezzine Road in Southern Lebanon. Several other reporters were injured in the attack.
According to Al Jazeera, the vehicle was clearly marked "press."
In the following hours, the IDF's official social media account posted that it had "ELIMINATED" Shuaib in the attack.
"For years, Ali Hassan Shuaib operated as a Hezbollah Radwan Force terrorist under the guise of a journalist," the post read. "Turns out the 'press vest' was just a cover for terror."
The post, which has more than 2.1 million views on X as of Monday, featured a split image showing Shuaib in a press outfit on one side and in a Hezbollah military uniform on the other.
But according to Fox News' chief foreign correspondent, Trey Yingst, the network later asked the IDF about the photo's source. They were told: "Unfortunately, there isn't really a picture of it. It was photoshopped."
On Monday, Israel issued another statement claiming that Mohammad Ftouni was "an additional terrorist in Hezbollah's military wing, who also operated under the guise of a journalist."
But when asked for evidence to confirm this by the Agence France-Presse, it provided none, with a spokesperson saying, "What we have is what we can state."
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) regional director Sara Qudah called the killings part of "a disturbing pattern in this war and in the decades prior [of] Israel accusing journalists of being active combatants and terrorists without providing credible evidence."
Israel accused Shuaib of "consistently working to expose the locations of IDF troops operating in southern Lebanon and along the border, and maintain[ing] continuous contact with other terrorists in the Radwan Force unit in particular, and within the terror organization in general.”
American journalist Ryan Grim, the co-founder of Drop Site News, said: "The Israeli statement itself says that his 'crime' was reporting on troop locations and communicating with sources in Hezbollah. That is called war reporting."
According to a report last month by CPJ, a record 129 journalists were killed in 2025, and Israel was responsible for two-thirds of the worldwide total.
The vast majority of those killed have been Palestinian journalists in Gaza—at least 261 of whom have been killed since October 7, 2023—according to a running tally by the International Federation of Journalists. At least 11 journalists have also been killed in Lebanon since 2023.
In addition to Shuaib and the Ftounis, two others have been killed since Israel's latest onslaught in Lebanon after Hezbollah retaliated against US-Israeli attacks on Iran. Israeli attacks have also resulted in the deaths of photojournalist Hussain Hamood and journalist Mohammed Sherri this month.
An investigation last year by +972 and the Israeli outlet Local Call revealed that the IDF has an informal unit known as the "Legitimization Cell,” which seeks to find tenuous links between journalists and militant groups to justify assassinating them.
As one source explained, the cell's members seek out reporters they believe are “smearing [Israel’s] name in front of the world" by reporting evidence of the country's conduct.
While Al-Manar is the official news outlet for Hezbollah and Al Mayadeen is considered to be closely tied with the militia, Qudah noted that under international law, "journalists are not legitimate targets, regardless of the outlet they work for.”
In less than a month, Israeli attacks in Lebanon have killed more than 1,100 people, including at least 121 children, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry.
Many pieces of civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, schools, and residential buildings—have been attacked, and Israel has issued forced evacuation orders that have led more than 1 million people to be displaced from their homes.
On the same day that the three journalists were attacked, the World Health Organization reported that nine paramedics were killed across southern Lebanon in a series of attacks on healthcare infrastructure.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said that by attacking civilian workers carrying out their professional duties, Israel has violated “the most basic rules of international law."
He called it “a blatant crime that violates all norms and treaties under which journalists are granted international protection during armed conflicts."
"This data is a wake-up call for anyone claiming to speak for the American Jewish community while beating the drums of war," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street.
Two separate polls released Monday show that a majority of American Jews oppose the US-Israeli war on Iran as the assault drags on into its fifth week, with increasingly dire regional and global consequences.
The surveys were published by the liberal advocacy group J Street and the Jewish Electorate Institute (JEI), a research organization. Both polls of Jewish Americans showed majority opposition—60% and 55%, respectively—to the US-Israeli war on Iran.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's president, said in a statement that "this data is a wake-up call for anyone claiming to speak for the American Jewish community while beating the drums of war."
"Most American Jews see this war for what it is: A reckless, unforced error by a president who has no clear, achievable goals or an exit strategy," said Ben-Ami. "This poll proves that the ‘pro-Israel’ position is the pro-peace position—and that means stopping this war before more lives are lost."
J Street's poll shows that 77% of Jewish Americans don't think US President Donald Trump "has a clear plan and mission for the war." In JEI's survey, 41% of those who expressed opposition to the Iran war said they were against US military action because "we should not go to war without clear provocation and clear objectives."
Jim Gerstein, principal at GBAO Strategies—which conducted the poll on behalf of J Street—said that American Jews "have clearly formed views on the war in Iran."
"A large majority opposes the war, and they do not think Trump has a plan and mission in Iran," said Gerstein. "Jewish voters hold overwhelmingly negative views of both Trump and Netanyahu—Jewish opposition to the war and those leading it is unmistakable."
The surveys mark the latest evidence of widespread US public opposition to the war on Iran. Nearly 60% of American voters overall believe that, one month in, the war has "gone too far," according to a poll released last week, and around 70% oppose a ground invasion of Iran as Trump deploys thousands of troops to the Middle East.
The opposition to the war among Jewish Americans stands in stark contrast to the strong support among Jewish Israelis. The Israel Democracy Institute released a poll on Friday showing that 78% of Jewish Israelis support the assault on Iran.