February, 13 2013, 12:57pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-2500, kfried(at)fwwatch(dot)org
Natural Gas Holds No Key to Our Clean Energy Future
Statement of Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter on behalf of Americans Against Fracking
WASHINGTON
"President Obama was right to proclaim the importance of speeding our transition to a clean energy future last night in his State of the Union Address, but natural gas has no place in that plan. The so-called natural gas boom he described is only locking us into further dependence on dirty, polluting fossil fuels, while destroying our communities and the resources on which they thrive.
"While it is encouraging to hear President Obama declare his commitment to combatting climate change, natural gas will only perpetuate this vexing issue. Extracting, transporting and burning natural gas all contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and worsen global climate change. In addition to the carbon dioxide emitted from burning natural gas, significant amounts of methane leak as new wells are fracked and as natural gas is transported. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, about 33 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide over 100 years, and about 70 to 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide over 20 years according to a 2009 study published in Science. New evidence, including data from researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, indicates that the oil and gas industry and the Environmental Protection Agency have drastically underestimated the extent of methane emissions from drilling and fracking operations.
"President Obama needs to stand up for American communities, not the special interests of the oil and gas industry. He must reject natural gas, as well as plans to export additional supplies overseas. It is true that we need to reinvest in American communities and bolster our green energy infrastructure, but natural gas is not the bridge to a future lit by clean energy. It is, as many have said, a bridge to nowhere.
"Controlling our own energy future means investing in energies that sustain our communities, not the financial needs of the oil and gas industry."
Americans Against Fracking is composed of the following groups: www.americansagainstfracking.org/members. For more information about Americans Against Fracking, visit www.AmericansAgainstFracking.org.
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) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Postal Service Whistleblower Warns Trump Assault on Mail-In Voting Could ‘Derail the Midterm Elections’
An anonymous federal official warned of a "high likelihood that the new ballot mail verification processes will result in major disruptions in mail ballots ever getting delivered to voters."
Sep 01, 2026
An anonymous federal official warned in a whistleblower disclosure submitted to members of the US Congress that the Postal Service's haphazard implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order on mail-in voting could "derail the midterm elections" by preventing potentially millions of American voters from receiving ballots.
The disclosure was released in full on Tuesday by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who included the document in a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner—Trump's pick to lead USPS. Blumenthal said the whistleblower's account provides "disturbing details about USPS’ seemingly illegal plot to interfere in November’s midterms."
The new disclosure raises "significant concerns" about the Postal Service's "secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed process" for establishing "an entirely new and untested set of IT systems" in compliance with Trump's March executive order, which is at the center of high-stakes legal fights just weeks before the November midterms.
Trump's USPS directives have been blocked in federal court, but the administration is trying to get them reinstated ahead of the midterm contests—and the whistleblower complaint suggests the administration may be violating court orders by continuing to work on the new systems. Mail-in voting for the midterms is officially set to begin this week.
Described in the disclosure as the "Portal," the new Postal Service IT systems "will govern the delivery of ballots to voters as soon as the 2026 mid-term federal elections and beyond." The whistleblower raises "grave concerns" that the Trump administration has "hidden the high likelihood that the new ballot mail verification processes will result in major disruptions in mail ballots ever getting delivered to voters."
"As presently designed, if even one bar code on one single ballot in a bulk-mailing of 10,000 ballots fails to properly scan during the verification process, the entire batch is rejected and sent back to the state—effectively stopping the ballots from being mailed to voters," the disclosure states. "The whistleblower is particularly concerned that the Portal (where the bar codes are stored) will almost certainly have significant operating problems when released to the public, due to the rushed IT development; this will contribute to failures in the verification process."
The whistleblower filing notes warnings that the Portal system could "completely crash" during rollout and quoted descriptions from IT workers at the Postal Service who described the entire process as "a shit show."
Theme throughout Whistleblower disclosure is how USPS IT work is complete mess, likely to "completely crash."
"Workers have described the election ballot mail development process as 'a sh*t show."
Raises stakes enormously on any state officials thinking to go along with this. pic.twitter.com/e8GrLYxu1W
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) September 1, 2026
Libby Liu, the CEO of Whistleblower Aid—a nonprofit representing the anonymous federal official—said in a statement that "the whistleblower’s service to our nation is warning the public that their ability to vote is in serious jeopardy."
"We are crossing the Rubicon of American elections," said Liu. “This dangerously defective mail-in ballot process could disenfranchise millions of voters, ensnaring ballots in red tape under the guise of solving a non-existent problem. People in states that rely heavily on vote-by-mail will have a more difficult time making their voices heard in our challenged democracy this November."
The USPS whistleblower also provided their account to the House Oversight Committee. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement Tuesday morning that the official's account makes clear that "Trump's attack on vote-by-mail for the 2026 election is more serious than previously understood."
"This new secret tracking system at the US Postal Service is faulty, untested, and threatens to totally disrupt ballot delivery for millions of American citizens," said Garcia. "We are fighting in court to protect the right to vote by mail for all and will continue to investigate. This unconstitutional and dangerous power grab must be permanently and immediately blocked."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bari Weiss Personally Involved in CBS News Hit Piece on Abdul El-Sayed: Report
"They took a small nugget of news, forced it into something much larger, and messed up," said one CBS News staffer.
Sep 01, 2026
A Tuesday report from Status claims that CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss was personally involved with a widely criticized story that linked Democratic US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The CBS piece, which was published on Monday, drew criticism from Democratic lawmakers and progressive journalists for saying that El-Sayed "may be facing the risk of renewed scrutiny and fresh political attack" due to past innocuous statements he'd made about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
According to Status' sources, Weiss "personally directed" that the story's headline be changed to "specifically mention that El-Sayed, who is vying to become the first Muslim American senator, had deleted tweets referencing" the attacks.
The two deleted posts highlighted in the story were far from scandalous, however. In the first post, El-Sayed called on Americans to unite in a common purpose to combat the Covid-19 pandemic just as they came together after the 2001 attacks, and in the second one he drew attention not just to the victims who died on 9/11, but to all the people who died afterward as a result of the US War on Terror.
Status also reported that Weiss "praised the story during the network's daily editorial meeting Monday, signaling her support for the piece to the entire network."
Weiss' endorsement of the El-Sayed story came despite the fact that senior staffers at CBS raised concerns about it with the network's standards department, Status added.
“They took a small nugget of news, forced it into something much larger, and messed up,” one staffer said.
Another staffer told Status that the story is "shameful" due to its "overt" racism.
One anonymous CBS News staffer similarly told Zeteo media columnist Justin Baragona on Monday that the Weiss-endorsed story was “trash” and “horribly Islamophobic.”
Weiss was installed as CBS editor-in-chief last year after David Ellison, the son of billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison, a megadonor to President Donald Trump, acquired network parent company Paramount.
In that time, CBS ratings have collapsed to record lows and Weiss has overseen a mass purge of reporters and staffers at the network's legendary news program "60 Minutes."
Veteran "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley, who was fired by CBS earlier this year, subsequently accused the Weiss-led management team of instructing him to "inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Far From the Last Word': Campaigners Urge Appeal After Judge Blocks New York Climate Superfund Law
“If allowed to stand, this wrongheaded ruling would shift $75 billion in planned climate-resilience funding from major fossil fuel polluters onto New York taxpayers,” said one advocate.
Sep 01, 2026
Climate advocates on Monday called on New York Attorney General Letitia James to appeal a ruling by a federal judge that found the state's superfund law, aimed at holding fossil fuel companies accountable for the weather disasters they cause, was unenforceable—"a bad decision," as campaigner Jamie Henn said, "based off a controversial ruling."
Henn, co-founder of 350.org and director of Fossil Free Media, said that "a cabal of Big Oil lawyers, Republican attorneys general, and Trump administration stooges just convinced a federal judge to strike down" the law, which was signed in 2024 by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and would require oil and gas companies in New York to contribute about $3 billion annually—$75 billion total—to a superfund starting in 2028.
That sum would be divided among the companies according to their greenhouse gas emissions, which cause planetary heating and the hurricanes, flooding, and other extreme weather disasters that are associated with it.
Companies that have been found responsible for at least 1 billion tons of fossil fuel emissions between 2000-18 would be required to contribute to the fund, which would be used to rebuild infrastructure and help communities adapt to more frequent extreme weather events.
Chief Judge Brenda Sannes of the US District Court for the Northern District of New York ruled that a federal appeals court's earlier decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., in which the city's lawsuit against oil companies for climate damages was thrown out, was relevant to the Climate Change Superfund Act.
Sannes, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, also said in her ruling that the state law is not authorized by the Clean Air Act and is preempted by federal law.
Henn said that after 22 Republican states joined industry groups and the US Chamber of Commerce in suing over the law, the judge "fell for Big Oil's argument that because of a precedent set by a controversial ruling involving the City of New York, the superfund program was preempted by the Clean Air Act."
"But that's bogus," said Henn. "The superfund program does nothing to regulate future emissions, it's just asking polluters to pay for a small share of the damages caused by their past pollution."
A judge in Vermont is expected to rule soon on the state's superfund law, which was the first in the nation. Sixteen states in all have proposed similar laws.
"This is far from the last word on the legality of climate superfund bills," said Henn.
Maya Golden-Krasner, deputy director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, urged other states to "move forward with fair legislation that makes polluters pay for their damage."
"With the Trump administration gutting climate protections," she said, the campaign for superfund laws in states including California "is gaining momentum every day" despite the legal setback.
“If allowed to stand, this wrongheaded ruling would shift $75 billion in planned climate-resilience funding from major fossil fuel polluters onto New York taxpayers,” said Golden-Krasner.
Henn also said that the push to hold fossil fuel giants accountable for the damages their emissions cause "isn't going away."
"Eighty percent of voters think the fossil fuel industry should pay their fair share of climate damages," said Henn. "As disasters increase (and oil profits keep skyrocketing), the call to make polluters pay will only grow louder."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analyst Warns New Pentagon Plan for Iran Would Amount to 'Permanent State of War'
"Make no mistake," said Trita Parsi, "to periodically bomb a country is to fight a forever war."
Sep 01, 2026
The US Defense Department is reportedly considering a new strategy for Iran that would entail bombing the country "periodically" in an effort to keep ship traffic flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, a plan that one analyst said would amount to the kind of forever war that President Donald Trump once vowed to avoid.
"During previous administrations, Israel tried to sell war with Iran to the US and conceded that military strikes would not knock out Iran’s nuclear program, but would require 'periodic' return to kinetic action to keep the program in check," Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote late Monday. "The US rejected the plan precisely because it didn’t want to be in a permanent state of war with Iran. Now, Trump’s secretary of war is pushing for it."
Parsi's comments came in response to new reporting by Axios indicating that Trump administration officials are weighing a plan under which US forces would "strike Iran periodically in order to keep moving dozens of oil tankers out of the Gulf relatively safely every day."
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth supports the plan, unnamed US officials told the outlet.
Axios' reporting followed a Washington Post story detailing US military leaders' warning that "prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is unsustainable," increasing the likelihood of more limited strikes—though without a clearly defined timeline.
On Monday, Trump threatened to hit Iran "hard" in response to the country's retaliatory attacks on American military installations in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. The Iranian attacks followed a US bombing campaign on Larak Island, marking the first military exchange in weeks as the costly and unpopular war—which Trump said would last just weeks—drags on with no end in sight.
Iran pledged to respond "dozens of times greater" to future US attacks, warning that "no target in the region is beyond Tehran’s reach."
"The invading US military has no choice but to leave the region," the general staff of Iran's armed forces said in a statement on Monday.
In his analysis, Parsi called the shifting US strategy "quite stunning," noting that "only a week ago, [Treasury Secretary] Scott Bessent said sanctions would make military action unnecessary."
"Six days later, the US bombed Iran again," Parsi observed. "And now, Axios reveals that all along, the Pentagon was preparing a plan for 'periodic' bombings of Iran to prevent it from suppressing traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. What does this tell us? First, the administration is apparently giving up on solving the issue militarily, economically, or diplomatically. Instead, permanent warfare is needed to manage the problem."
"Make no mistake," Parsi continued, "to periodically bomb a country is to fight a forever war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Pharma Deals Called Distraction From 'Failed Plan to Lower US Drug Prices'
"Lasting relief requires transparent, enforceable measures that lower drug prices and hold big drug companies accountable," said one critic.
Aug 31, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Monday announced nine more agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers intended to lower prescription drug prices nationwide, bringing the total to 26, but patient advocates responded skeptically.
The administration previously struck "most favored nation" (MFN) deals with 17 large drug manufacturers. The new ones with midsized companies—Alcon, Astellas Pharma, BeOne Medicines, BridgeBio, CSL, Kyowa Kirin, Sun Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and UCB—mean that 89% of the branded drug market is subject to an agreement, according to a White House fact sheet.
"It has been nearly a year since Trump announced his first secret MFN deal with Pfizer, and he has almost nothing to show for it," Peter Maybarduk, Access to Medicines director at the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a Monday statement. "The new deals are a distraction from the administration's failed plan to lower US drug prices to the levels paid in other wealthy countries."
Earlier this month, Public Citizen released an analysis of Trump's policies to cut drug costs, including MFN deals. Maybarduk said at the time that "Trump has three kinds of drug pricing policy: fake, exaggerated, and not-real-yet, probably-won't-happen."
Following Monday's agreements, the campaigner argued that "a more serious approach would build international reference pricing into Medicare drug price negotiation. Instead, Trump is cozying up to Big Pharma and keeping American drug prices high."
"There still is no evidence that any pharma company has followed through on prior commitments to the Trump administration to launch new drugs at MFN price points," he explained. "Uptake of TrumpRx, which may cause consumers to overpay on medicines, has been lackluster."
TrumpRx is a government-operated website that helps patients find discounted prices and coupons for certain medications—and, as the Public Citizen analysis highlighted, the only part of the president's MFN program that is fully underway.
"The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not announced any state participants in a pilot to test MFN-based prices in Medicaid," Maybarduk noted. "And CMS has failed to issue final rules to test MFN-pricing in Medicare, while simultaneously excluding almost all drug companies from these programs."
Public Citizen said it plans to immediately file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the texts of these "farce" deals—a pledge that came just days after US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) highlighted that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has failed to publicize initial 17 agreements, despite agreeing to do so during an April hearing.
Like Public Citizen, the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs was critical of the new deals, with CEO Merith Basey pointing out that "for decades, drug companies have been charging Americans at least four times more for brand-name medicines than people in other high-income nations."
"Patients need systemic reforms that will lower drug prices, rather than short-term, voluntary agreements whose terms remain secret," she asserted. "The deals announced today focus on Medicaid, where steep discounts already exist, and even then, states can choose whether to participate. Lasting relief requires transparent, enforceable measures that lower drug prices and hold big drug companies accountable."
As the industry trade publication Fierce Pharma reported, the large companies behind the initial deals "made a combination of drug pricing commitments and domestic investment pledges to win temporary immunity from the Trump administration's drug import tariffs," and "individual company press releases Monday, like UCB's, suggest that tariff immunity is still very much part of the MFN equation."
Although Trump's tried taking credit for a recent drop in medication costs, with the White House X account claiming Monday that he's "leveled the playing field, and made prescription drugs more affordable than ever for the American people," as Common Dreams reported earlier this month, experts have cited the Biden administration's policy allowing Medicare to directly negotiate some prices.
As Trump has touted his MFN deals, critics of the United States' for-profit healthcare system have in recent months renewed calls for shifting to Medicare for All—which new research shows would save over 114,000 lives and $1 trillion each year—and other healthcare reforms, including breaking up industry giants, capping drug prices, strengthening antitrust enforcement, and expanding the sector's workforce.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Split Supreme Court Allows Trump Ballroom Construction That Chief Justice Calls 'Likely Unlawful'
"The White House belongs to the people, but Trump consistently acts like it belongs to him alone," said one watchdog, calling out the court's majority for allowing construction on "this illegal project."
Aug 31, 2026
US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently let construction on President Donald Trump's White House ballroom continue in a temporary solo decision, but on Monday he sided with the three liberals against the five right-wingers who allowed the project to proceed during a legal battle.
The Trump administration sought intervention from the nation's top court after the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a district judge's ruling that halted above-ground construction but permitted work on an underground bunker and other "national security facilities." Roberts then paused the appellate decision but also sought a review from all justices.
The five justices behind the majority's Monday decision, including Trump's three appointees, concluded the administration "is likely to prevail" in showing that the National Trust for Historic Preservation—which is challenging parts of the widely contested project that's already destroyed the East Wing of the White House—lacks standing.
"This court has not found standing in circumstances like these before. To the contrary, we have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury under Article III," the majority wrote, referring to the portion of the US Constitution that addresses the judicial system.
"The government has also established that it will likely suffer irreparable harm from the district court's injunction and that the balance of the equities tips in its favor," the majority added in its unsigned order, which signaled that the merits of the case should continue to be examined by lower courts.
Meanwhile, writing for himself and the liberal justices, Roberts said that the construction "is likely unlawful," given that Congress has not passed legislation authorizing the project, and pointed to the trust's executive committee member Alison K. Hoagland.
"As a Capitol Hill resident, Hoagland regularly visits the White House to take in the historic building's beauty and to appreciate its symbolism. By overshadowing the traditional White House, Hoagland explains, the new ballroom will detract from the building's
message of republican simplicity and thereby worsen her viewing experience," he wrote. "Hoagland's injury suffices for standing."
The high court's majority "misconceives the plaintiff's injury, allowing the executive's likely infringement of the legislature's power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue," Roberts added. "Today's decision is no victory for the separation of powers."
The president cheered the majority's decision, writing on his Truth Social platform:
I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat. We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C. When completed in the Summer of 2028, the magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex will be something that the entire Country is very proud of. The Project, despite the baseless lawsuit brought by the so-called National Trust for Historic Preservation of the United States, which is not in any way affiliated with the United States Government, is under budget and ahead of schedule. The Ballroom is totally funded by Great Patriots and Corporations and, therefore, is a Gift — At no cost to the American Taxpayer.
Critics continued to condemn the project after the decision, with US Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) stressing on Bluesky that "the president's vanity project does nothing to benefit anyone but Donald J. Trump himself."
"Not a penny to lower your costs," the senator reminded Americans. "This has been a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars from the start."
Jon Golinger, democracy advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "in light of this disappointing decision by the court, the next Congress must make investigating Trump's illegal ballroom project and everyone involved with funding and facilitating it a top priority."
Both chambers of Congress are narrowly controlled by Trump's Republican Party, and some GOP lawmakers even tried to boost the project. However, Democrats are aiming to reclaim majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives in the November midterm elections—and if they succeed, they could probe the ballroom and various other concerns from his second presidency.
"Trump suffers from a crippling case of 'palace-envy' and who knows what national treasure he'll demolish next to try to build himself another gold-plated monument," warned Golinger. "For now, we will keep digging into and exposing Trump's ballroom funding schemes, through which he raked in millions from corporations with billions in government contracts and anonymous donors with unknown agendas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'There Is Absolutely No Justification': Bessent, Rubio Urged to End Sanctions Impacting Iranian Students
"There is no world in which the US preventing young Iranians from taking English proficiency tests leads to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and yet that appears to be the rationale for this cruel new policy.”
Aug 31, 2026
A leading grassroots advocacy group for the rights of Iranian Americans called on the Trump administration Monday to rescind the recent message it sent when it announced new sanctions against ordinary Iranians—"that the US is at war with the Iranian people"—and to ensure that "humanitarian, educational, and cultural" entities are exempt from the sanctions.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) wrote to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, warning of the "escalating harm caused by the imminent suspension of long-standing general licenses that had enabled American universities, educational testing and assessment organizations, and other entities to provide educational opportunities to Iranian nationals."
The group appealed to Bessent and Rubio following reports that the Education Testing Service, which administers the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), has suspended testing in Iran following the sanctions. The Duolingo English Test, developed by the language course platform Duolingo, has also been made unavailable in Iran and for students with Iranian IDs.
Despite the fact that President Donald Trump's new sanctions, called "Operation Economic Outcast," are purported to target the Iranian government as it restricts access to the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the US-Israeli war against Iran, the policy changes have "no conceivable impact on the Iranian government," wrote NIAC president Jamal Abdi.
"Instead, it is already being felt by American entities and Iranian students," Abdi wrote. "Iranian students have been barred from taking key exams required for academic studies by US organizations."
Abdi called on the administration to immediately reinstate 31 CFR § 560.544, which authorizes "certain educational activities by US persons in third countries," and Iran General License G, which authorizes educational exchanges.
“The Trump administration would be wise to bolster the limited educational, humanitarian, and cultural channels that exist between ordinary Iranians and the United States, rather than send a message that the US is at war with the Iranian people.”
"For years, Iran was among the nations with the highest demand for TOEFL examinations," he wrote. "Regrettably, the severing of these key global educational testing platforms will create major hurdles for Iranian nationals pursuing international education."
The administration's policy changes leave Iranian students facing "overlapping barriers to studying in the United States: a travel ban preventing Iranians from securing US visas, alongside sanctions restricting access to English proficiency exams, educational services, and enrollment in US universities," said NIAC.
“There is no world in which the US preventing young Iranians from taking English proficiency tests leads to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and yet that appears to be the rationale for this cruel new policy,” said Abdi in a statement. “The Trump administration would be wise to bolster the limited educational, humanitarian, and cultural channels that exist between ordinary Iranians and the United States, rather than send a message that the US is at war with the Iranian people.”
Abdi also urged Bessent and Rubio to reverse the suspension of licenses for Iranian Americans to send remittances to family members in Iran and those that allow sports matches between Iran and the US. The latter suspension, he wrote, "carries significant risk of complicating the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles and reflects poorly on the US as a host nation while yielding no discernible benefit."
The exemptions that have been suspended by the White House, said Abdi, "were first established over a decade ago to resolve harmful unintended consequences of US sanctions, such as cutting ordinary Iranians off from academic opportunities."
"Now, it appears that these have become very much intended consequences aimed at the Iranian people, which is a self-defeating message for the US to send to Iranians and the world,” Abdi continued. “There is absolutely no justification for this."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawmakers, Journalists Rip CBS News Over 'Insane, Blatantly Racist Headline' on Abdul El-Sayed
"The Bari Weiss project... is to revive post-9/11 Islamophobia in mainstream politics," said one critic.
Aug 31, 2026
Several Democratic lawmakers on Monday slammed CBS News for publishing a news analysis linking Democratic US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The CBS story claimed that El-Sayed "may be facing the risk of renewed scrutiny and fresh political attack" ahead of the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which killed over 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
The piece cited two deleted El-Sayed social media posts to make its case: One in which he called on Americans to unite in a common purpose to combat the Covid-19 pandemic just as they came together after the 2001 attacks, and another where he drew attention not just to the victims who died on 9/11, but to all the people who died afterward as a result of the US War on Terror.
El-Sayed defended the latter post in an interview with CBS News.
"My point is just to say that what happened on 9/11 is a disaster," El-Sayed said. "It was a terrible attack on our country and our responsibility is also to think about how do we build an America where we are protecting our servicemen and women from being asked to fight wars we have no business fighting that ultimately end up doing harm to people. And we're seeing that right now."
Critics slammed the CBS analysis, which they said unfairly tarred El-Sayed—a Muslim and son of Egyptian immigrants who has repeatedly faced Islamophobic and racist attacks—as a terrorist sympathizer even as he has consistently denounced the 9/11 attacks.
"What an insane, blatantly racist headline," wrote Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) in a social media post. "Unreal."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) also slammed the CBS story as "racist," adding that "targeting Abdul like this is intentional and coordinated."
The Nation's Jeet Heer argued that the CBS News piece reflected the change in management the network has undergone ever since owner David Ellison put Bari Weiss in charge of it.
"To be clear the Bari Weiss project... is to revive post-9/11 Islamophobia in mainstream politics," wrote Heer. "These are profoundly illiberal people, who should be combated not just by the left and progressives but anyone committed to civil equality."
Responding to the network's post promoting the article on the platform X, Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan asked CBS News if it ever considered that "it's super offensive and disgusting and Islamophobic to do a tweet about the potential first-ever Muslim Democratic senator which begins by referencing 9/11?"
Adam Johnson, host of the Citations Needed podcast, highlighted the El-Sayed social media posts flagged by CBS and argued that the network is trying "to scandalize perfectly sensible and humane comments."
Progressive commentator Wajahat Ali said that he's seen a lot of mainstream media articles attacking El-Sayed, but concluded that "this one takes the cake for being so exquisitely racist."
According to Zeteo media columnist Justin Baragona, one anonymous CBS News staffer is also raising concerns about the El-Sayed story, which they called "trash" and "horribly Islamophobic."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Court Lets US Abortion Pill Access Continue—Until Trump FDA Finishes Review Condemned as 'Sham'
A federal judge opted not to rule on a lawsuit seeking to overturn FDA approval of mifepristone until the FDA completes a review that has been described as a political pretext to restrict abortion.
Aug 31, 2026
Access to the abortion drug mifepristone will remain unchanged in the US for now after a federal district judge on Sunday paused a lawsuit aimed at overturning the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the medication. But he left the door open for the Trump administration to restrict access to the drug.
US District Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas refused the manufacturer's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Texas and Florida seeking to overturn FDA approval of mifepristone altogether. But the judge accepted the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) motion to stay the case until December 1, or until the FDA completes a "review" of the drug that it will use to determine whether access to it should be tightened.
That FDA review, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been criticized as a politicized effort to create a pretext for the anti-abortion Trump administration to restrict abortion pill access, including in states where the procedure is legal.
Nearly 700,000 people use mifepristone per year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which has found it to be the method for the majority of US abortions in recent years.
Receiving it through the mail via out-of-state telehealth providers has become a go-to method for those in states with bans on terminating a pregnancy. The drug has been used by around 7.5 million people since it was first approved in 2000.
The FDA's own current webpage states that its periodic reviews of mifepristone have “not identified any new safety concerns” and that the drug is safe when used as directed. Prior FDA reviews have found that hospitalization occurs in only 0.04-0.6% of all medication abortions.
Despite the lack of any clearly identified risk, the Trump FDA has said that the ongoing review could lead to “substantive changes" to the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for the drug, leading some to argue that it is a "sham" meant to create a scientific justification for the administration's goal of restricting abortion.
"Ensuring legal access to mifepristone in the long term is vital to women’s healthcare and reproductive freedom," said Evan Masingill, the CEO of GenBioPro, which manufactures generic mifepristone and sued to defend the FDA's approval of its product.
"We expect the FDA’s review of mifepristone to not contradict the decision they made in 2023 that reaffirmed our product is safe and effective," Masingill said.
The US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that lower courts could not block the FDA's 2023 decision, under the Biden administration, to lift in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone following the overturning of Roe v. Wade the previous year. The in-person requirement was lifted following a 2021 FDA review that deemed the rules unnecessary.
The Supreme Court has previously blocked individual anti-abortion doctors from bringing lawsuits against the FDA, ruling that they did not have standing to claim personal injury.
But Texas and Florida have sought to get around this by suing as states, and so far, courts have allowed them to do so. The conservative 5th Circuit accepted a similar argument from Louisiana earlier this year.
However, O'Connor—an appointee of former President George W. Bush—did not rule on the merits of whether the states' claims against the FDA were correct.
But even if that lawsuit fails, the Trump administration could dramatically curtail access to mifepristone by reinstating in-person dispensing requirements, placing new limits on which pharmacies can dispense the drug, and adding new requirements for prescribers and patients.
“The FDA has affirmed time and again that mifepristone is safe and effective,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the drugmaker. “Far-right, anti-science extremists may be pressuring the Trump-Vance administration to reach a different, ideologically-driven outcome, but we will continue to represent our clients to hold the FDA to the same science-based standards it has long applied to protect people’s ability to access effective, evidence-based healthcare, including protecting access to medication abortion.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Ocean Temperatures Rise, Coral Reefs Face Closing Window for Recovery From Climate Damage
Persistent marine heatwaves are causing a "staircase of decline that becomes harder to reverse with every bleaching event," said one scientist.
Aug 31, 2026
The destruction of coral reef cover, cataloged in the largest global assessment of the reefs ever completed, was distressing to scientists, with the world's reefs declining by nearly 10% between 2020-24, compared with 1980-2009.
The authors of the report released Monday by Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), however, emphasized that coral bleaching events driven by ocean heating was not the most worrisome finding of the analysis—but rather, the fact oceans have become so warm that stressed reefs have less and less time to recover.
Historically, coral bleaching events—in which changes in conditions such as ocean temperatures and pollution cause coral to expel its symbiotic algae and become completely white and more vulnerable to mortality—have taken place about once in a decade, giving the reefs years to recover.
Now, the reefs are “lucky to get five or six years,” as water temperatures are remaining high and making it more difficult to regain hard coral cover, explained Manuel González Rivero of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the lead author of the report, titled “Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2025.”
“After decades of studying coral reefs, what concerns me most isn’t the current loss of hard coral cover; it’s that we’re steadily eroding the conditions they need to recover,” said González Rivero. “Climate change is driving more frequent and severe marine heatwaves, but local pressures such as poor water quality, overfishing, and coastal development are making reefs even less able to withstand them."
The study compiled 21.1 million observations from 36,886 reef sites across 124 countries and territories, drawing on more than 40 years of data from across the globe.
But scientists cautioned that because the research did not include the most recent and intense global bleaching event, which lasted from 2023-25, it may not provide a full picture of the danger coral reefs are in—as well as the coastal communities they help protect and the thousands of marine species they serve as a habitat for.
Carlos Duarte, a marine scientist at the Coral Research and Development Accelerator Platform, told The New York Times that this year's El Niño warming trend is likely to cause another global bleaching event next year, which reefs will likely struggle to recover from as ocean temperatures have been recorded as getting hotter and hotter in recent years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has projected that the Earth will lose 70-90% of its coral reef cover if the planet gets 1.5°C hotter than its preindustrial level.
"For many reefs affected by the unprecedented marine heatwaves in 2024, this year’s El Niño likely means they’ll have had little more than a year to begin recovering before being hit again," said González Rivero. "This is creating a staircase of decline that becomes harder to reverse with every bleaching event.“
The report emphasizes that reefs have maintained their ability to regain hard coral cover "when disturbances are reduced and sufficient recovery time is available," such as after the third major global coral bleaching event since 1998, which took place from 2016-17 and saw a 6.6% decline in coral.
After the event, scientists observed a "relative increase of approximately 6% between 2017 and 2019," said the GCRMN.
"That recovery matters because the benefits coral reefs provide extend far beyond the reef itself. Coral reefs cover less than 0.2% of the ocean floor," said the organization. "Yet, they support at least 25% of all marine species and underpin food security, livelihoods, coastal protection, tourism, and cultural heritage of close to one billion people worldwide."
Scientists including Terry Hughes, a former director of coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia, who was not involved in the analysis, emphasized that reducing planet-heating emissions is the top solution to the crisis of coral reef recovery, as the pollution from fossil fuel extraction is linked to increasingly hot oceans.
Allowing coral reefs to recover from bleaching events "really depends on how much more greenhouse gases go into the atmosphere and the amount of warming that causes," Hughes told the Times, while local solutions including reducing water pollution are also crucial for maintaining reef health.
David Obura, chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, expressed hope that the report will "shake us out of our persistent inertia."
The long-term monitoring by GCRMN, said Obura, "tracks not just the pulse of coral reefs, but of our planet too. It shows which regions are under the greatest pressure, that actions to date have not been sufficient, and warns where reefs will be under increasing threat in years to come."
"We must act now to halt this decline and invest in solutions that reduce pressures and build resilience, while sustaining the monitoring that turns good intentions into effective policy," he said. "The 40 years of data in this report provide a strident warning that delayed action risks locking in irreversible losses—not just to reefs, but also to the economies and people that depend on them.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular