

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.
Shelley Vinyard, Environment America (202) 461-2465
Liz Judge, Earthjustice, (202) 797-5237
Jan Goldman-Carter, National Wildlife Federation, (202) 797-6894
Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action, (202) 895-0420 x. 109
Suzanne Struglinski, Natural Resources Defense Council, (202) 289-2387
Trey Pollard, Sierra Club, (202) 495-3058
Amy Kober, American Rivers, (503) 708-1145
Lea Brumfield, League of Conservation Voters, (202) 454-4559
Jay Campbell, Hart Research Associates, (202) 234-5570
A new poll [PDF] commissioned by the nation's leading environmentalists and sportsmen organizations in key Great Lakes and Rocky Mountain states shows that the public overwhelmingly supports an Obama administration proposal to restore protections for America's rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
A new poll [PDF] commissioned by the nation's leading environmentalists and sportsmen organizations in key Great Lakes and Rocky Mountain states shows that the public overwhelmingly supports an Obama administration proposal to restore protections for America's rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
The poll confirms that - across party lines and in all age groups - voters demand clean water for safe drinking water and oppose the pollution of places where their families fish and swim. This poll comes at a time when the Obama administration is set to finalize its Clean Water Act guidance, yet the House majority is preparing to ignore the will of the public and instead continue dirty water politics.
Three-quarters (75%) of the likely voters surveyed in Ohio and nearly seven in ten
(67%) Colorado respondents support the President's proposal to restore clean water safeguards, with support strong across political affiliations.
The poll was released as the U.S. House of Representatives is poised to vote on the House Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 5325) next week. The bill includes a provision to block the President from restoring critical clean water protections. However, the poll's findings indicate that blocking those protections could be a political dead end for many in Congress. Two-thirds of Ohioans and Coloradoans (66%) say they would feel more favorable toward their Representative if he or she supported the restoration of clean water protections, including more than 60% of independents in both states.
"The voters' message is clear: we want our water to be clean and safe and we support restoring Clean Water Act protections to achieve this," said Jay Campbell, Vice President for Hart Research Associates. "Their support is extraordinary in both its depth and its breadth. Given the contentiousness we see on nearly every issue, when you have an idea that large majorities of Republicans, independents, and Democrats all agree on you know you have something that is both good policy and good politics."
The poll was conducted in urban, suburban, and rural areas in Colorado and Ohio. Major findings of the poll include:
(The full summary of the poll's findings can be found here [PDF].)
"From fishing in the Great Lakes to kayaking on the Colorado River, this poll is further proof that protecting our waterways is enormously popular and important," said Margie Alt, Executive Director of Environment America. "Unfortunately many of the waterways we love and cherish still are inadequately protected. It's time for President Obama to stand up for our waterways and finalize these critical protections."
"We have no time to waste if we hope to protect our valuable streams and wetlands and the billions of dollars in economic activity that hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation around our nation's waterways generate every year," said National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger.
"Rivers and streams supply most of our drinking water. Their protection is vital to the health of our families and communities," said Wm. Robert Irvin, President of American Rivers. "It is time for Congress and the administration to restore clean water protections that benefit our public health, economy, wildlife, and recreation. If we want healthy communities, we need healthy rivers."
"These findings make one thing clear: The American people expect our elected leaders to protect our rivers, streams, and drinking water - and they'll remember who took their side on this issue," said Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. "It's time Congress listened, stopped the obstructions, and acted quickly to restore these critical protections that keep our waterways and our families healthy."
"It is no surprise that Americans overwhelmingly support protecting our nation's waterways," said the League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski. "It is past time that our elected officials act to protect the network of rivers and streams that provide safe drinking water to millions and safe areas for fishing and swimming."
"The streams and wetlands at issue here are vital parts of our nation's water infrastructure because they filter pollution, prevent floods and affect the drinking water of over 117 million Americans. Clarifying protection for these vulnerable water bodies is an important step forward," said Clean Water Action President Robert Wendelgass.
"Preventing pollution of the nation's waters will better protect Americans' health," said Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC. "People want safe places to swim and fish. They want reliable drinking water supplies and natural barriers against flooding. This poll shows that they expect leaders in Washington to support policies that safeguard our waters. That's true in Colorado and Ohio, and it's true all across our country."
"Our waters are where our families swim, fish, and where we get our drinking water, so it's no surprise that this poll shows that Americans are overwhelmingly demanding strong clean water protections," said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel of Earthjustice. "For the American people, unlike our Congress, politics vanish when it comes to protecting their communities' waterways, because Americans want safe, swimmable, fishable, drinkable waters for themselves and their families."
The findings of this poll echo the immense public support these protections have consistently enjoyed across the country, from more than 200,000 concerned citizens, more than 450 elected officials, hundreds of sportsmen organizations, more than 140 local farmers, dozens of recreational businesses, and many more.
The poll was commissioned by American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Clean Water Network, Earthjustice, Environment America, the Izaak Walton League of America, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Waterkeeper Alliance.
American Rivers is the only national organization standing up for healthy rivers so our communities can thrive. Through national advocacy, innovative solutions and our growing network of strategic partners, we protect and promote our rivers as valuable assets that are vital to our health, safety and quality of life. Founded in 1973, American Rivers has more than 65,000 members and supporters nationwide, with offices in Washington, DC and the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, California and Northwest regions.
Iran's chief negotiator accused the Trump administration of giving the Israeli government a "green light" to continue attacking Lebanon and undermining diplomatic talks.
Update:
US President Donald Trump, Pakistan's prime minister, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry said Sunday that the US and Iran have reached an agreement on a framework to end the war that Trump launched in late February.
Iran's deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, said the terms of the deal will be made public after the memorandum of understanding is signed on Friday in Switzerland. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif wrote on social media that "both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon."
The memorandum of understanding is expected to extend the current ceasefire agreement by 60 days while detailed negotiations take place.
Gharibabadi said the start of the 60-day negotiations will be contingent on the US lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports, "ending the state of war and military operations," and "releasing Iran's frozen funds."
Earlier:
The Israeli military bombed the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday just as Iranian and US officials voiced optimism that a diplomatic agreement is in reach, prompting accusations that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to derail the negotiations.
Israel's strikes reportedly targeted a five-story apartment building, killing at least three people, according to Lebanese authorities. Netanyahu said the bombing was a response to Hezbollah rocket fire into northern Israel.
The latest bombing of Beirut came hours after US President Donald Trump said he expected a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to be signed as early as Sunday, potentially setting the stage for negotiations to end the illegal war Trump started in late February. Iranian officials have pushed back on the US president's claim that the MOU will be signed Sunday, but Iran's foreign minister said Friday that an agreement had "never been closer."
The Associated Press reported Sunday that Israel's new strikes on Beirut "threatened to hamper negotiations over a deal, which in its current form is a deep disappointment to Israel’s government."
"The last time Israel struck the Beirut suburbs a week ago, it set off the most serious escalation of fighting between Iran and Israel since the tenuous ceasefire took hold April 7," AP added.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote on social media that "as a US-Iranian deal seems like it might be closer, Israel predictably bombs the Beirut suburbs, evidently hoping to sabotage the deal."
"Why does Trump put up with this and continue to arm and fund such obstructionism?" Roth asked.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran's chief negotiator and speaker of parliament, said Israel's strikes indicate that the US "either does not have the will or the ability to fulfill its obligations."
"You cannot gain concessions by giving [Israel] a green light," he added. "The good cop, bad cop routine has become old. If you do not have the will or the ability to fulfill your commitments, then there is no basis for talking about continuing down this path."
As the US & Iran reportedly near a deal that includes ending the war in Lebanon, Israel is attacking Beirut again.
Either Trump can't restrain Netanyahu, or the deal is already being violated before it's signed.
Either way, it undermines the deal's value for Iran. pic.twitter.com/v08c21i7wa
— Sina Toossi (@SinaToossi) June 14, 2026
While the MOU that's reportedly under consideration has not been released in full, its broad outlines have been reported in media outlets and divulged by Iranian and US officials in recent days. Reuters reported Sunday that "a final draft of the memorandum of understanding with the US covered a range of issues, from Tehran’s nuclear work to reopening the Strait of Hormuz and US waivers on oil sanctions, with a final deal to be discussed in the 60 days following agreement by the two sides."
Under the MOU, Iran would immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the US would end its illegal blockade of Iranian ports, according to Reuters. The US would also agree to waive oil sanctions on Iran and release $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets, while Iran would agree to "maintain the current status of its nuclear program, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities."
Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, said in a television interview on Friday that the MOU's proposed 60-day ceasefire extension would include Lebanon.
Axios reported that Netanyahu has "found himself in the dark" as US-Iran negotiations have progressed in recent days, "calling allies close to the Trump administration to try and gather information."
Following Sunday's strike on Beirut, Trump told Axios' Barak Ravid that Netanyahu "has no fucking judgment."
"I passed this message on to him—that I am very unhappy with the attack in Beirut," said Trump, whose administration has approved billions of dollars worth of weapons sales to the Israeli government.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned that "Israel will do more sabotage unless Trump imposes a cost on Israel."
"Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing and is judging that an attack on Beirut—rather than southern Lebanon—is exactly what's needed to derail the pending US-Iran deal," Parsi argued.
"Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing."
Elon Musk's vault to trillionaire status following the public debut of his rocket company SpaceX came on the heels of an analysis showing the devastating impact of his destruction of the US Agency for International Development on millions of people in countries facing or on the brink of famine.
The analysis, authored by Council on Foreign Relations expert and longtime aid worker Sam Vigersky, noted that Musk's targeting of USAID during his tenure as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) resulted in the transfer of the Food for Peace program to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), an agency "without international humanitarian or disaster-response expertise."
Vigersky found that the USDA this year chose just seven countries to receive American grain under the Food for Peace program: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, El Salvador, and Rwanda. The latter two countries, Vigersky noted, "do not meet an emergency threshold" for assistance.
"Meanwhile, the country facing the largest hunger crisis in the world—Sudan—did not make the list. Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing. In fact, more than 40% of Sudan’s community kitchens, a lifeline for the displaced, have closed in the past six months as funding dried up, according to Islamic Relief," Vigersky reported. "Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Yemen were also passed over. Millions of people in those countries live one step from famine, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the UN-backed monitoring system that uses a standardized five-point scale (five being famine) to measure the severity of food insecurity."
Experts assessing the global impact of USAID's decimation at the hands of billionaire US President Donald Trump and the world's first trillionaire, who bragged publicly about "feeding USAID into the wood chipper," estimate that hundreds of thousands of people have already died as a result of the large-scale loss of humanitarian assistance—and millions more will die in the coming years if swift action is not taken to restore aid.
"The impacts of the cuts were immediate and tragic," Nicholas Enrich, a former USAID employee who became a whistleblower, wrote in The Boston Globe on Friday. "Health clinics and emergency ambulance services shuttered overnight. Clinical trials were deserted. Thousands of healthcare workers lost their jobs. Lifesaving food and medicine was left to expire in warehouses. According to conservative estimates, in the year since USAID was dismantled, 750,000 people have died as a result of the cuts. For the first time in a generation, more children died in one year — 2025—than in the previous year."
Oxfam has estimated that a 10% tax on Musk's $1 trillion fortune would generate enough revenue to end extreme poverty worldwide for a year.
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.