

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.

We commend the independent expert for her thorough review of the challenges to ensuring the human right to water and sanitation in the United States, and support her call for a national water and sanitation policy and plan of action. To fully realize and sustain the human right to water and sanitation, it is essential that the U.S. engage in a process of policy reform and harmonization to put human rights and marginalized groups first, address gaps in regulation and implementation, minimize inequality and de facto discrimination, protect water resources, and bolster data collection and rural water quality oversight. We support communities that have been impacted by corporate usurpation of water resources, including water bottling, and look to the U.S. government to ensure that these unjust and unsustainable practices are stopped.
The report recognizes the need for adequate investment in planning and implementation, which in the U.S. includes a serious need for federal funding increases for infrastructure. Lack of adequate financing is a major contributing factor to U.S. water and sewer system failures. Since 1978, the portion of municipal sewer infrastructure funded by the federal government has declined dramatically from 78 percent to 3 percent. States and localities have been unable to fill this shortfall, leading to extensive deterioration of essential infrastructure. This steady cutback in federal funding has also forced utilities to raise rates dramatically, endangering the human right to water and sanitation especially for low income communities. For example, Washington, D.C. needs a $3.8 billion investment over the next ten years, and without adequate federal support, the city raised rates 17 percent in 2010. With nearly 18 percent of D.C. residents living in poverty in 2009, these escalating water rates could restrict people's access to safe drinking water.
We are concerned that instead of prioritizing the human right to water and sanitation and dedicating needed federal funding, parts of the U.S. government are increasingly promoting "market solutions" such as "full cost pricing" in ways that undermine these human rights for the most marginalized. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is now advocating for full cost pricing, backed by private corporations that stand to gain from higher water rates and reliance on ratepayers for investments. In the past, these aggressive rate increases have resulted in residents being unable to pay, and having their water cut off. This is a troubling trend that threatens the human right to water in both urban and rural communities and will exacerbate the de facto discrimination highlighted in the Rapporteur's report.
Water privatization in the U.S. has too often led to human rights violations, and has consistently undermined democratic water governance, accountability, and transparency. While privatization and the right to water may not be theoretically mutually exclusive the Rapporteur's report shows some examples of how the myriad forms of privatization have violated the human right to water through cutoffs, price hikes, contamination, corporate withholding of information or misleading the public, and failing to fulfil obligations. Additionally, these practices disproportionately impact low income communities and those with fixed incomes.
For example, in 2004, Aqua America took over the water and wastewater system in Neuse River Village, N.C. Within a year, Aqua America had cut off water service to more than half of the 130 households. Dozens of families were forced to fill jugs of water at their neighbours' faucets for daily cleaning and cooking, use the nearby woods as a bathroom, and some were evicted from their homes. Many families were paying more for water than for rent.
In another case in Toms River, N.J., a federal and state investigation linked drinking water served by United Water Toms River, an investor owned water utility, to childhood cancer. The state later determined that United Water was also manipulating drinking water tests to conceal potential quality violations. These cases exemplify the broader problems with water privatization in the U.S. and the need for better regulation and government oversight.
U.S. foreign assistance should also support the progressive realization of the human right to water and sanitation in other countries. Greater transparency and disclosure, as well as civil society and public involvement is needed in setting priorities for foreign aid to ensure that, for example, the strategy and criteria USAID is developing to target areas of greatest need emphasize community ownership of water and sanitation projects, non-profit structures and locally-sourced technologies.
Finally, U.S. engagement with international financial institutions should be designed to promote and support the human right to water and sanitation. The World Bank Group remains the "largest external source of financing for water management in developing countries", but continues to push water privatization and corporatization on governments through advisory and technical services, direct investments that empower transnational water corporations, restructuring public utilities, and even through donor conditionalities. Restructuring often means forcing borrowing countries to adopt cost-recovery regulations that increase household tariffs and lay the groundwork for corporate takeover.
In particular, the IFC plays a key role in not only directly purchasing equity shares in water transnationals, but also advising governments to procure their services. We found that from 2000 to 2008, 80 percent of the IFC's water loans went to the four largest transnational water corporations, further exacerbating power and resource inequalities between the private and the public sector.
Currently, many states lack the capacity to adequately protect and fulfil the human right to water and sanitation, making it both easier and more dangerous for them to succumb to the pressures of transnational corporations, IFIs, and donors, by delegating their key duties to the private sector.
In conclusion, we urge the U.S. government to:
We urge the Human Rights Council Working Group on Transnational Business, etc to:
A PDF of this statement (with citations) is here (pdd)
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525"It's impossible to overstate how much of what ICE is doing on the ground reflects this completely preposterous conflation of hostile speech and hostile conduct," commented one legal expert.
A court filing released late on Monday alleged that US Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino said that merely making what he called "hyperbolic comments" about immigration enforcement operations, including President Donald Trump's "Operation Midway Blitz" in Chicago, was enough to justify being arrested.
As reported by the Chicago Sun-Times on Tuesday, attorneys representing several Chicago-based media organizations who are suing to restrict federal immigration agents' use of force in their city claimed that Bovino said during a sworn deposition that "he has instructed his officers to arrest protesters who make hyperbolic comments in the heat of political demonstrations."
The attorneys also said in the court document that Russell Hott, the field director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Chicago, said during his deposition that he did not agree that it would be "unconstitutional to arrest people" simply for expressing opposition to his agency's current mass deportation operation in the Windy City.
This section of the filing caught the attention of Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, who said it appeared federal immigration officials are straightforwardly violating the First Amendment right to peacefully protest.
"It's impossible to overstate how much of what ICE is doing on the ground reflects this completely preposterous conflation of hostile speech and hostile conduct," he wrote in a post on Bluesky. "The First Amendment protects—or, at least, is supposed to protect—the former up and until it's a 'true threat,' which none of this is."
Elsewhere in the filing, the plaintiffs' attorneys alleged that Bovino said during testimony that he had "interacted with many violent rioters and individuals" at the ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, which in recent weeks has become the focal point of local protests. Additionally, the attorneys wrote, Bovino would "not admit he has ever seen protesters who were not violent rioters."
The attorneys commented that "by Bovino's logic, anyone who shows up to protest is presumptively violent or assaultive and he can 'go hard' against them."
The case involving the Chicago media organizations and federal immigration enforcement officials is currently being overseen by US District Court Judge Sara Ellis, who last month issued a temporary restraining order that barred federal officers from using riot control weapons “on members of the press, protestors, or religious practitioners who are not posing an immediate threat to the safety of a law enforcement officer or others.”
Federal immigration officials have been employing increasingly aggressive and violent tactics in the Chicago area in recent weeks, including attacking a journalist and a protesting priest with pepper balls outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility; slamming a congressional candidate to the ground; dragging US citizens, including children, out of their homes during a raid in the middle of the night; and fatally shooting a man during a traffic stop.
A hearing on whether to make permanent Ellis’ restraining order which strictly limits the use of riot control munitions has been set for November 5.
“If Trump had any shred of humanity in him, he would do whatever was necessary to prevent hunger and suffering in the country he claims to love," said one critic.
In apparent open defiance of two federal court rulings, President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration will not fund a key federal nutritional aid program until after the Republican government shutdown ends, leaving millions of families even more vulnerable to hunger at a time of crisis-level food insecurity.
In a post on his TruthSocial network, Trump took aim at both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the administration of former President Joe Biden.
"SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden’s disastrous term in office (Due to the fact that they were haphazardly 'handed' to anyone for the asking, as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of SNAP!), will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!" the president wrote. "Thank you for your attention to this matter."
"Trump's message to 42 million Americans: Eat dirt."
Responding to the president's post, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media, "After a judge ordered Donald Trump to make SNAP payments, the wannabe king declared he will defy a court order and won't help people afford groceries."
"Trump's message to 42 million Americans: Eat dirt," she added.
Trump is now saying he will only pay SNAP benefits once the Republican shutdown is over, despite a federal court order.As a result, 42 million kids, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities could go hungry. This is illegal, immoral, and absolutely cruel.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Ted Lieu (@reptedlieu.bsky.social) November 4, 2025 at 8:49 AM
Seemingly contradicting Trump's claim, the White House said later Tuesday that the administration is complying with one of the court orders.
Data from the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office have shown that approximately 70% or more of working-age, non-disabled adults receiving Medicaid and SNAP benefits work full-time—defined as 35 hours or more per week.
On Friday, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled against the US Department of Agriculture’s refusal to pay at least part of the $8 billion in SNAP benefits—also known as food stamps—to rightful beneficiaries in November via a contingency fund established by Congress.
The administration responded to the rulings by saying it would only fund around 50% of the total monthly benefits, while warning of likely payment delays.
Plaintiffs in the Rhode Island case—represented by Democracy Forward and the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island—subsequently filed an emergency request seeking a court order compelling Trump and his administration to comply with Friday's order.
“The Trump-Vance administration continues to play politics with people’s lives through failing to ensure SNAP payments are expeditiously available," Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement Tuesday. "This is immoral and unlawful."
"The political posturing should stop now," Perryman added. "The administration needs to fully fund SNAP benefits so people can eat, today. We should not need to go to court to force the administration to provide food all people are entitled to in this country, but here we are—back in court to demand that the administration acts consistent with the judge’s order."
Alejandra Gomez, executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), said ahead of a planned Tuesday press conference: “It took two court orders and mounting public pressure for the Trump administration to fund SNAP assistance partially, which is not good enough. Arizona families in need deserve better."
“December SNAP benefits are not guaranteed, and every day that Congress fails to act, children will go hungry, food banks run dry, and working families will pay the price," she added. "It is time to end the shutdown, fund healthcare and SNAP.”
Now in its 35th day, the ongoing federal government shutdown is tied for the longest in US history. Vulnerable people—already reeling from record cuts to social programs to pay for tax breaks for billionaires and corporations under the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by Trump in July—are feeling even more pain, at a time when more than 47 million Americans, including 1 in 5 children, are living in food insecure households.
"I did not receive any benefits at all... And they said there is no promise of even getting any type of benefits for November," Danielle Rodriguez, a single mother in Pennsylvania who lost $400 in monthly SNAP aid, told MSNBC's Ana Cabrera Monday.
"'Mommy, do you want my piggybank money to help with groceries?'"
"Unfortunately, I've had to reach out to my utility companies and stuff like that to go on payments to use some of my bill money to buy groceries for me and my kids," she continued.
"It's very stressful being a single mom of two kids. I have a 9-year-old, and she is offering her piggybank money," Rodriguez added. "And she's like, 'Mommy, do you want my piggybank money to help with groceries?' And it's sad to hear my child say that to me because I'm mom—I'm supposed to do everything. I'm supposed to be their protector."
Mitch Jones, managing director of policy and litigation at Food & Water Watch, said in a statement: “At a time when rampant corporate consolidation has driven grocery prices sky-high, Trump continues to choose cruelty over the rule of law. He must abide by recent court orders and immediately release SNAP aid to the millions of low-income American families suddenly hanging on the precipice of an unconscionable hunger crisis."
“If Trump had any shred of humanity in him, he would do whatever was necessary to prevent hunger and suffering in the country he claims to love," Jones added.
Update: This piece has been updated with the White House's statement of compliance with one of the court orders.
"Years of grossly insufficient action from richer nations and continued climate deception and obstruction by fossil fuel interests are directly responsible for bringing us here," one expert said.
A United Nations assessment released Tuesday—less than a week before the UN Climate Change Conference summit in Brazil—warns that countries' latest pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement could push global temperatures to 2.3-2.5°C above preindustrial levels, up to a full degree beyond the treaty's primary goal.
A decade after that agreement was finalized, only about a third of state parties submitted new plans, officially called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), for the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target.
While the updated NDCs—if fully implemented—would be a slight improvement on the 2.6-2.8°C projection in last year's report, the more ambitious Paris target is to limit global temperature rise this century to 1.5°C. Already, the world is beginning to experience what that looks like: Last year was the hottest on record and the first in which the global average temperature exceeded 1.5°C, relative to preindustrial times.
As with those findings, UNEP's report sparked calls for bold action at COP30 in Belém next week, including from UN Secretary-General António Guterres. He noted that "scientists tell us that a temporary overshoot above 1.5°C is now inevitable—starting, at the latest, in the early 2030s. And the path to a livable future gets steeper by the day."
"1.5°C by the end of the century remains our North Star. And the science is clear: This goal is still within reach."
"But this is no reason to surrender," Guterres argued. "It's a reason to step up and speed up. 1.5°C by the end of the century remains our North Star. And the science is clear: This goal is still within reach. But only if we meaningfully increase our ambition."
UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen also stressed that while inadequate climate policies have created the conditions in which now "we still need unprecedented emissions cuts in an increasingly tight window, with an increasingly challenging geopolitical backdrop," reaching the Paris goal "is still possible—just."
"Proven solutions already exist. From the rapid growth in cheap renewable energy to tackling methane emissions, we know what needs to be done," she said. "Now is the time for countries to go all in and invest in their future with ambitious climate action—action that delivers faster economic growth, better human health, more jobs, energy security, and resilience."
NEW – UNEP: New country climate plans ‘barely move needle’ on expected warming | @ayeshatandon.carbonbrief.org @ceciliakeating.carbonbrief.org @unep.org Read here: buff.ly/U0XaME9
[image or embed]
— Carbon Brief (@carbonbrief.org) November 4, 2025 at 9:03 AM
Climate campaigners responded with similar statements. Savio Carvalho, head of regions at the global advocacy group 350.org, said that "this report confirms what millions already feel in their daily lives: Governments are still failing to deliver on their promises. The window to keep 1.5°C within reach is closing fast, but it is not yet gone."
"All eyes are now on Belém," Carvalho declared. "COP30 must be a turning point, where leaders stop making excuses, phase out fossil fuels, and scale up renewable energy in a way that is fast, fair, and equitable."
Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said that "this report's findings, confirming that a crucial science-based benchmark for limiting dangerous climate change is about to be breached, are alarming, enraging, and heartbreaking."
"Years of grossly insufficient action from richer nations and continued climate deception and obstruction by fossil fuel interests are directly responsible for bringing us here," she highlighted. "World leaders still have the power to act decisively to sharply rein in heat-trapping emissions and any other choice would be an unconscionable dereliction of their responsibility to humanity."
Cleetus—a regular attendee of the annual UN climate talks who will be at COP30, unlike President Donald Trump's administration—continued:
Costly and deadly climate impacts are already widespread and will worsen with every fraction of a degree, harming people's health and well-being, as well as the economy. Policymakers must seize the opportunity now to accelerate deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency—solutions that are plentiful, clean, and affordable—and transition away from polluting fossil fuels. Protecting people, livelihoods, and ecosystems by helping them adapt to climate hazards is also critical as higher temperatures unleash rapidly worsening heat, floods, storms, wildfires, drought, and sea-level rise.
Ambitious climate action can cut energy costs, improve public health, and create a myriad of economic opportunities. Richer, high-emitting countries' continued failure to tackle the challenge head-on is undermining the well-being of their own people and is a monumental injustice toward lower-income countries that have contributed the least to this problem yet bear the most acute harms. It’s past time for wealthy countries to heed the latest science and pay up for their role in fueling the climate crisis. With alarms blaring, the upcoming UN climate talks must be a turning point in global climate action. Powerful politicians and billionaires who willfully ignore urgent realities and continue to delay, distract, or lie about climate change will have to answer to our children and grandchildren.
Jean Su, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Energy Justice Program, also plans to attend COP30.
"This report shows Earth's livable future hanging in the balance while Trump tells climate diplomacy to go to hell," she said. "The US exit from Paris threatens to cancel out any climate gains from other countries. The rise of petro-authoritarianism in the US shouldn't be an excuse for other countries to backpedal on their own commitments. This report sends alarm bells to rich countries with a conscience to exercise real leadership and lead a fossil fuel phaseout to protect us all."
The UNEP report was released on the same day that the German environmental rights group Urgewald published its Global Oil and Gas Exit List, which shows that a green transition is being undercut by fossil fuel extraction and production.
Other publications put out in the lead-up to COP30 include an Oxfam International report showing that the wealthiest people on the planet are disproportionately fueling the climate emergency, as well as a UN Food and Agriculture Organization analysis warning that human-induced land degradation "is undermining agricultural productivity and threatening ecosystem health worldwide."
There have also been mounting demands for specific action, such as Greenpeace and 350.org urging governments to pay for climate action in part by taxing the ultrarich, and an open letter signed by advocacy organizations, activists, policymakers, artists, and experts urging world leaders to prioritize health during discussions in Brazil next week.
As Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday, COP30 Special Envoy for Health Ethel Maciel said that "this letter sends an unequivocal message that health is an essential component of climate action."