

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.

Darcey Rakestraw, Food & Water Watch, 202-683-2467, DRakestraw@fwwatch.org
Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch, 202-683-2457, RBindell@fwwatch.org
Several organizations held a press conference outside of the Federal District Court in Baltimore this morning to call attention to Perdue's unjust treatment of its farmers and the public health and environmental effects of factory farm runoff, as highlighted by a case that goes to trial today. The case brought by Waterkeeper Alliance against Perdue and one of its contract growers, the Hudsons, seeks to put a stop to the pollution found pouring off the farm and hold Perdue liable for the discharges.
Several organizations held a press conference outside of the Federal District Court in Baltimore this morning to call attention to Perdue's unjust treatment of its farmers and the public health and environmental effects of factory farm runoff, as highlighted by a case that goes to trial today. The case brought by Waterkeeper Alliance against Perdue and one of its contract growers, the Hudsons, seeks to put a stop to the pollution found pouring off the farm and hold Perdue liable for the discharges. Throughout the nearly three years of litigation, activists said Perdue has been using the Hudsons as "human shields," hiding behind its farmers instead of taking responsibility for the waste that its factory farming operations produce.
"When this case was filed in 2010 Perdue was enjoying $4.6 billion in sales while Alan Hudson was driving a school bus to make ends meet," said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "If Perdue really cared about farmers like the Hudsons, they've had the opportunity for almost three years now to stand up and say 'this is our waste and our problem'. Instead, they've chosen to once more hide behind the false guise of the family farmer and hold the Hudsons out as the only ones responsible for the mess created by Perdue's own industrial chicken empire. Perdue owns the chickens, the feed, and the profits. The Hudsons, apparently, own Perdue's waste--and Perdue is fighting hard to keep it that way."
Responsibility for the waste from the highly integrated meat production systems that now dominate our chicken, beef and pork industry remains a central question as this case goes to trial. A single Perdue farm generates hundreds of tons of animal manure a year, far beyond what can ever be properly and responsibly used by contract growers like the Hudsons to fertilize crops. As a result of all this excess waste, the Bay and other waterways around the country are being impacted by damaging amounts of nutrients and other pollutants.
"Perdue's abuse of contract farmers goes beyond their refusal to take responsibility for their own waste," says Hauter. "It goes to unconscionable contracts, economic inequity, inappropriate uses of drugs and horrendous working conditions. Perdue and the other mega-meat companies are the biggest threat to family farming in the United States and around the world."
Kathy Ozer, Director of the National Family Farm Coalition, stated, "This case highlights the power of a company such as Perdue and the vulnerability of growers. We have spent many years working to shift that relationship and it is exactly why this case is so important. There is no reason why Perdue, which exerts total control over the day to day operations, the chicks and the feed, is not responsible for the environmental costs."
"Pollution from industrial poultry operations can harm human health, in addition to causing environmental problems," said Jillian P. Fry, Project Director for
Public Health & Sustainable Aquaculture at the Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "This method of food production produces massive amounts of concentrated waste and relies on routine use of antibiotics and other drugs, resulting in contamination of air, water, soil and the actual birds. This can lead to a range of public health issues for surrounding communities and consumers. The court case beginning today has the potential to increase corporate and producer responsibility for these issues, which could lead to positive changes in poultry production and reduce associated public health effects."
"Chicken manure is one of the largest pollution sources in the Chesapeake, contributing to the dead zones we see every summer in up to one third of the Bay," said Megan Cronin, Clean Water Advocate with Environment Maryland. "We are never going to have a clean Bay if we don't take agriculture pollution seriously and if we don't hold corporate agribusiness accountable. This is a local treasure that we all share, we can't let the mess of the few lead to a loss for so many. "
Food & Water Watch revealed last year that the site SaveFarmFamilies.org, a site that suggests the suit was brought by overzealous, out-of-state environmentalists was registered by Perdue Inc. Earlier this year, Food & Water Watch released secret emails between Governor Martin O'Malley and Perdue's General Counsel, Herb Frerichs, which showed an unusually close relationship. The day that Governor O'Malley released a letter to the Maryland Law Clinic denouncing the merits of the ongoing litigation, he received an email from Frerichs that simply said, "Very nice." Subsequently, the Baltimore Sun reported that around the time these emails began, Perdue began shifting its political giving from the Republican Governor's Association to the Democratic Governor's Association--which O'Malley heads.
"Perdue has tried to fool the public into thinking that the environmentalists are the villains here," said Hauter. "But astroturfing won't change the fact that they will continue to pollute the bay while letting their contract farmers take all the blame. Meanwhile, Governor O'Malley continues to prop up the poultry industry despite the fact that all Maryland agriculture combined contributes only 0.35% to the state's Gross Domestic Product, with chicken contributing only a fraction of that number. We don't need cozy relationships--we need real gutsy leadership to force polluting operations to stop killing the bay."
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."