

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.
Julia Olson, 415-786-4825, julia@ourchildrenstrust.org
This week youth in D.C. head to Capital Hill to hand deliver one request to members of Congress: "Give us viable climate recovery plans." These actions come two weeks after a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Federal Governments' motion to transfer venue in a climate change lawsuit brought by youth plaintiffs. The hearing for the motion for a preliminary injunction was originally scheduled for December 15 in San Francisco, but has been moved to Washington, D.C. because of the national significance of the case.

Alec Loorz, lead plaintiff on the federal lawsuit, and Co-Founder of the organization Kids vs. Global Warming, says, "We filed this case in San Francisco, because most of the plaintiffs are on the west coast. Now they are moving us to D.C. where the leaders in charge of our future value money more than our survival. We are holding these leaders accountable for their lack of action and we are also trying to stop the fossil fuel industry from intervening in our case. Youth fighting for a livable future vs. the most powerful industry in the world. This is an easy choice. This is an historic moment."
The decision to move the case to D.C. is the latest development in a case against six federal agencies tasked with addressing threats to human health, welfare and the environment, with government defendants including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, and the Department of Interior. The lawsuit was brought to address government inaction in responding to the ever-increasing effects of the climate crisis, and to ask the judiciary to compel action consistent with the best available science.
The case asks the third branch of government to use its authority to require the agencies to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent further increases in United States carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and to begin to rapidly reduce emissions by 6 percent per year, which an international consensus of climate experts agree is necessary to halt catastrophic climate change. Top climate experts agree we are fast approaching a climate "tipping point" that will result in massive species extinction and threats to public health, national security, and global food and water supplies.
On October 31, the federal government responded to the lawsuit and the plaintiffs' request for preliminary relief (essentially, a "fast track" procedure to avoid any further damage to the atmosphere) by denying the plaintiffs' claims that federal government is a trustee of Public Trust resources, including the atmosphere, and their duty to protect those natural resources. The National Association of Manufacturers, representing the fossil fuel industry, has sought to intervene in the case and also filed a brief opposing the youth plaintiffs.
The youth filed the federal case on May 4, along with parallel legal actions in 49 states and in the District of Columbia. These actions are unlike any climate change litigation to date. They are based on the long established Public Trust Doctrine that requires the government to protect and maintain certain shared natural resources, including water and northwest salmon runs, for the health and survival of everyone, including youth and future generations. The legal actions were filed with the help of a nationwide team of top legal experts, assembled by the nonprofit organization Our Children's Trust. Never before has the Public Trust Doctrine been applied to the atmosphere, much less on a national scale and on behalf of youth, who have the most to lose if climate change is not addressed in time. A former general counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency has called the "Atmospheric Trust Litigation" strategy "creative" and "outside the box thinking." (Seehttps://www.eenews.net/tv/2011/05/25/)
Today marks the release of the third installment of the Trust Film Series, produced by Our Children's Trust, the iMatter Campaign and Witness. The latest film captures the life of Alaska native, Nelson Kanuk, and highlights the multiple ways in which he and his family are affected by climate change in the small village of Kipnuk, Alaska. Last month Nelson's family had to take shelter in a nearby school due to the severe storms that shook the western half of the state. The recent storm in Alaska is not the first time the Kanuk family has seen the effects of climate change firsthand. Due to extreme flooding and warmer temperatures, ice sheets from the Bearing Sea have broken apart and moved swiftly into the village of Kipnuk and permafrost melt is causing massive land erosion.
"It scares me. This year we lost eight feet of land. We only have another 40 feet before the bank of the river reaches our house, and if it continues to erode at this rate, we will have to move our house to another location," says Nelson, "I'm asking the government to help me and my family."
Nelson and John Thiebes, a young farmer and a plaintiff in Montana, wrote Holiday letters to every member of Congress asking them to watch their films, share their stories and stand behind them by developing Climate Recovery Plans next year. Youth in D.C. will be hand delivering their letters and films to Congress tomorrow, just in time for the holidays.
"This season offers time for reflection, time with family and sparks of hope for the days to come. After much reflection, I'm proud to be standing up and fighting for a healthy future for my generation and for those to come. I hope the Government makes the right choice. I hope actions are taken now, before it's too late," says Nelson.
Our Children's Trust is a nonprofit focused on protecting earth's natural systems for current and future generations. We are here to empower and support youth as they stand up for their lawful inheritance: a healthy planet. We are mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers. We are adults, part of the ruling generation, and we care about the future of our children--and their children's children. www.ourchildrenstrust.org/
iMatter is a youth-led campaign of the nonprofit group, Kids vs Global Warming, that is focused on mobilizing and empowering youth to lead the way to a sustainable and just world. We are teens and moms and young activists committed to raising the voices of the youngest generation to issue a wake-up call to live, lead and govern as if our future matters. www.imattercampaign.org/
WITNESSis the global pioneer in the use of video to expose human rights abuses. We empower people to transform personal stories of abuse into powerful tools for justice, promoting public engagement and policy change. Founded in 1992, WITNESS has partnered with more than 300 human rights groups in over 80 countries, trained over 3,000 human rights defenders, developed widely-used training materials and tools, and supported the inclusion of video in more than 100 campaigns, increasing their visibility and impact. Videos made by WITNESS and our partners have told dozens of critical human rights stories, and have galvanized grassroots communities, judges, activists, media, and decision-makers at local, national and international levels to action.www.witness.org
"This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless," said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.
President Donald Trump's Agriculture Department on Saturday threatened to penalize states that don't "immediately undo" steps taken to pay out full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November following a Supreme Court order that temporarily allowed the administration to withhold billions of dollars of aid.
In a memo, the US Department of Agriculture warned that "failure to comply" with the administration's directive "may result in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the federal share of state administrative costs and holding states liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that it appears the Trump administration is "demanding that food assistance be taken away from the households that have already received it."
"They would rather go door to door, taking away people's food, than do the right thing and fully fund SNAP for November so that struggling veterans, seniors, and children can keep food on the table," said Craig.
The USDA memo came after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that had required the Trump administration to distribute SNAP funds in full amid the ongoing government shutdown. SNAP is funded by the federal government and administered by states.
The administration took steps to comply with the district court order while also appealing it, sparking widespread confusion. Some states, including Massachusetts and California, moved quickly to distribute full benefits late last week. Some reported waking up Friday with full benefits in their accounts.
"In the dead of night, the Trump administration ordered states to stop issuing SNAP benefits," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in response to the Saturday USDA memo. "This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless."
Under the Trump administration's plan to only partially fund SNAP benefits for November, the average recipient will see a 61% cut to aid and millions will see their benefits reduced to zero, according to one analysis.
Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, stressed in a statement that "the Trump administration all along has had both the power and the authority to ensure that SNAP benefits continued uninterrupted, but chose not to act and to actively fight against providing this essential support."
"Meanwhile, millions of Americans already struggling to make ends meet have been left scrambling to feed their families," said FitzSimons. "Families and states are experiencing undue stress and anxiety with confusing messages coming from the administration. The Trump administration’s decision to continue to fight against providing SNAP benefits furthers the unprecedented humanitarian crisis driven by the loss of the nation’s most important and effective anti-hunger program."
"Trump said he’d leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.
Congressional Republicans are reportedly trying to insert anti-abortion language into government funding legislation as the shutdown continues, with the GOP and President Donald Trump digging in against a clean extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as insurance premiums surge.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, sounded the alarm on Saturday about what he characterized as the latest Republican sneak attack on reproductive rights.
"Republicans said they might vote to lower Americans’ healthcare costs, but only if we agree to include a backdoor national abortion ban," Wyden said in remarks on the Senate floor.
The senator was referring to a reported GOP demand that any extension of ACA subsidies must include language that bars the tax credits from being used to purchase plans that cover abortion care.
But as the health policy organization KFF has noted, the ACA already has "specific language that applies Hyde Amendment restrictions to the use of premium tax credits, limiting them to using federal funds to pay for abortions only in cases that endanger the life of the woman or that are a result of rape or incest."
"The ACA also explicitly allows states to bar all plans participating in the state marketplace from covering abortions, which 25 states have done since the ACA was signed into law in 2010," according to KFF.
Wyden said Saturday—which marked day 39 of the shutdown—that "Republicans are spinning a tale that the government is funding abortion."
"It's not," Wyden continued. "What Republicans are talking about putting on the table amounts to nothing short of a backdoor national abortion ban. Under this plan, Republicans could weaponize federal funding for any organization that does anything related to women’s reproductive healthcare. They could also weaponize the tax code by revoking non-profit status for these organizations."
"The possibilities are endless, but the results are the same: a complete and total restriction on abortion, courtesy of Republicans," the senator added. "Trump said he'd leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along."
The GOP effort to attach anti-abortion provisions to government funding legislation adds yet another hurdle in negotiations to end the shutdown, which the Trump administration has used to throttle federal nutrition assistance and accelerate its purge of the federal workforce.
Trump is also pushing a proposal that would differently distribute federal funds that would have otherwise gone toward the enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
"It sounds like it could be a plan for health accounts that could be used for insurance that doesn’t cover preexisting conditions, which could create a death spiral in ACA plans that do," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy.
US Sen. Chris Murphy said Saturday that the GOP's rejection of Democrats' compromise proposal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits for a year in exchange for reopening the federal government shows that the Republican Party is "absolutely committed to raising your costs."
" Republicans are refusing to negotiate," Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a video posted to social media, arguing that President Donald Trump and the GOP's continued stonewalling is "further confirmation" that Republicans are uninterested in preventing disastrous premium increases.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," the senator added.
An update on the shutdown.
Senate Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate. House Republicans refuse to even show up to DC.
Democrats just made a new reasonable compromise offer. And if Republicans reject it, it's proof of how determined they are to raise health premiums. pic.twitter.com/JUBPMMXKC7
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 8, 2025
More than 20 million Americans who purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplace receive enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't act. So far, the Republican leadership in the Senate has only offered to hold a vote on the ACA subsidies, with no guarantee of the outcome, in exchange for Democratic votes to reopen the government.
People across the country are already seeing their premiums surge, and if the subsidies are allowed to lapse, costs are expected to rise further and millions will likely go uninsured.
“Clearly, the GOP didn’t learn their lesson after the shellacking they got in Tuesday’s elections,” said Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse. “They would rather keep the government shut down, depriving Americans of their paychecks and food assistance, than let working families keep the healthcare tax credits they need to afford lifesaving coverage. Good luck explaining that to the American people."
In a post to his social media platform on Saturday, Trump made clear that he remains opposed to extending the ACA tax credits, calling on Republicans to instead send money that would have been used for the subsidies "directly to the people so that they can purchase their own, much better healthcare."
Trump provided no details on how such a plan would work. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who was at the center of the largest healthcare fraud case in US history, declared that he is "writing the bill now," suggesting that the funds would go to "HSA-style accounts."
Democrats immediately panned the idea.
"This is, unsurprisingly, nonsensical," said Murphy. "Is he suggesting eliminating health insurance and giving people a few thousand dollars instead? And then when they get a cancer diagnosis they just go bankrupt? He is so unserious. That's why we are shut down and Americans know it."
Polling data released Thursday by the health policy group KFF showed that nearly three-quarters of the US public wants Congress to extend the ACA subsidies
"More than half (55%) of those who purchase their own health insurance say Democrats should refuse to approve a budget that does not include an extension for ACA subsidies," KFF found. "Notably, past KFF polls have shown that nearly half of adults enrolled in ACA marketplace plans identify as Republican or lean Republican."