

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.

Whit Jones, Energy Action Coalition, whit@energyactioncoalition.org, 914-671-1880
On the last day of the public comment period, Keystone XL opponents held a rally in front of the State Department to deliver more than 2 million comments submitted to the State Department to urge Secretary Kerry and President Obama to reject the dirty, dangerous pipeline. The public comment period regarding the national interest of the pipeline began on February 5, after the State Department published the final environmental review.
These 2 million+ comments telling Secretary Kerry and President Obama that Keystone XL is not in the national interest exceed the more than one million comments submitted last year that expressed concern about the draft environmental review - showing a growth in concern about the risky project. Hundreds of rallies and vigils have also been held across the country, urging Secretary Kerry and President Obama to oppose the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
The same activists are prepared to mobilize in celebration following a rejection, and more than 86,000 have signed a Pledge of Resistance to commit acts of civil disobedience if Secretary Kerry recommends approval of Keystone XL to President Obama.
Given the serious concerns about climate impacts, environmental and health concerns, and the lack of a route in Nebraska, Secretary Kerry has sufficient information to conclude that Keystone XL is not in our national interest and to recommend that President Obama reject the permit.
Even the State Department's oil-soaked analysis acknowledged that the pipeline would significantly exacerbate climate pollution under certain scenarios and flagged serious water issues.
Secretary Kerry has stated that the ongoing 90 day National Interest Determination process, in which eight agencies can comment on whether the tar sands pipeline is in our national interest, marks the beginning of his involvement in the process. The EPA's comments on two previous State Department analyses included significant concerns about State's process and findings.
The 2 million+ comments will be buttressed by ads in blue and orange line metro cars that read:
Secretary Kerry: You've spent a lifetime challenging Weapons of Mass Destruction. Don't ignite one. Say no to Keystone XL.
Nearly 900,000 of the comments came from international pipeline opponents, including Desmond Tutu. People around the world are watching Secretary Kerry on this issue, and his recommendation on Keystone XL will shape his international reputation and efficacy.
--
Gene Karpinski, League of Conservation Voters President: "When we asked our hundreds of thousands of members across the country to send comments to the State Department, they responded with an overwhelming call to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Nobody has done more to fight climate change than Secretary Kerry, and I'm confident that as he reviews the public comments, the science, and the facts, he will find that this dirty, dangerous pipeline is not in the national interest and must be rejected."
Maura Cowley, Energy Action Coalition Executive Director: "Just last weekend 398 young leaders got arrested at the White House to protest Keystone XL, and more than 2 million are submitting comments to stand with these young people and demand President Obama and Secretary Kerry reject Keystone XL. If President Obama and Secretary Kerry want to maintain the enthusiasm of young people, and the country, they must show they stand with us, not Big Oil, and reject this dangerous pipeline."
Frances Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council President: "This new outpouring of public opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline demonstrates yet again that the more Americans learn about this project the more we want the Obama Administration to reject it. Instead of embracing the dirtiest oil on Earth, let's put America squarely on the path to a cleaner energy future. This tar sands project would only aid and abet our oil addiction and worsen climate change. It is not in America's national interest."
Michael Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director: "We are at a crossroads, and a road paved with tar sands will take us over the climate crisis cliff. American families have embraced 21st Century clean energy prosperity and can't wait to leave behind 19th Century fossil fuels that pollute our water, air, land and public health.
"President Obama, with Secretary of State John Kerry's counsel, now have an obligation and opportunity to reject the dangerous Keystone XL pipeline and support the American ingenuity that is already generating remarkable clean energy success."
Bill McKibben, 350.org Co-Founder: "For three years now there's been an absolutely unprecedented outpouring of reaction to this pipeline proposal: from scientists, Nobel laureates, economists, theologians, and most of all from us ordinary Americans across the country. It's the biggest blizzard of public comment about any infrastructure project--and now we'll see if the Obama administration will listen to the people, or to the big oil boys."
Elijah Zarlin, CREDO's Senior Campaign Manager: "Secretary Kerry was absolutely right when he said that climate change is a weapon of mass destruction -- and that means he must oppose the carbon bomb that is Keystone XL. If the two million comments opposing Keystone XL doesn't convince Sec. Kerry to stand by his own words and recommend President Obama reject this pipeline, then more than 86,000 Americans are ready to risk arrest in massive civil disobedience."
Stephen Kretzmann, Oil Change International Executive Director: "Secretary Kerry and President Obama have a simple choice: they can stand with Big Oil or they can stand with the millions of Americans calling for rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. By rejecting the pipeline, they can live up to their own words and commitments, and move our country in a new direction away from fossil fuels and the climate chaos they are bringing upon us."
Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth President: "For the sake of our children, it is a diplomatic imperative that the State Department fights to prevent climate change. If Secretary Kerry intends to remain a climate champion, he should draw the line here and tell President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline."
Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska Executive Director: "We stand with Pres. Obama when he echoed our concerns: 'Nebraskans are not going to take a few thousand jobs if it's means our drinking water and our kids health could be put at risk.' The State Department confirmed the proposed route still crosses the Sandhills and Ogallala Aquifer. TransCanada is a foreign tarsands pipeline without a route in our state and we have the determination and numbers to keep it that way."
Amanda Starbuck, Rainforest Action Network Climate Program Director: "We're hearing from people all across this country who know that the Keystone XL pipeline is absolutely not in our nation's best interest. The two million comments delivered today reflect a huge wave of resistance to the pipeline. From the Oglala Lakota Sioux fighting to stop the pipeline from entering their territory to the hundreds of students arrested at the White House gates, we stand united with everyday Americans who are ready to do what it takes to stop this pipeline, once and for all."
Ricken Patel, Avaaz.org Executive Director: "The Keystone decision could, in one stroke of the pen, make or break Kerry's ability to lead climate action on the global stage. And it will determine whether the US is serious about fighting to save the planet, or even able to meet its existing global emissions reductions. Nearly two million people are calling on the US to lead the world to a better climate future. It's up to Kerry to heed them."
Jim Lyon, National Wildlife Federation Senior Vice President for Conservation: "Today more than two million Americans add their name to the call for President Obama to say no to Keystone XL, far outnumbering industry proponents who outspent those asking for denial by 35 to 1. The President has all he needs to reject this dangerous pipeline that would cut through America's heartland and put people and wildlife at risk. We are confident that the President will stand by this commitment to tackle climate change and reject projects, like Keystone XL, which will increase our addition to fossil fuels."
Kieran Suckling, Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director: "Keystone XL promises to spill oil, ruin pristine lands, threaten wildlife and worsen the climate crisis. There's no way it's in the national interest and more and more Americans know it. Secretary Kerry and President Obama have a clear choice: Approve Keystone and embrace the climate-killing fossil fuels of the past, or reject Keystone in favor of energy policies that are safer for people, wildlife and a healthy climate."
Participating organizations include: 350.org, Avaaz, Bold Nebraska, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Media and Democracy, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Climate Parents, CREDO, Energy Action Coalition, Environmental Action, Environmental Defense Fund, Faithful America, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Green America, Interfaith Power and Light, League of Conservation Voters, Moms Clean Air Force, Montana Environmental Information Center, Mosaic, MoveOn, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Plains Resource Council, Occupy Network, Oil Change International, PDA, Public Citizen, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, SumOfUs, The Other 98%, and We Love Our Land.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."