

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.

Today, the Obama administration released the long-secret text of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that would weaken consumer protections, undermine U.S. food safety standards and prevent commonsense food labeling. The language included in the TPP is more aggressive than previous trade deals and provides broad new powers for other countries and foreign corporations to challenge U.S. food safety and food labeling measures.
"The TPP is a giveaway to big agribusiness and food companies that want to use trade deals to attack sensible food safety rules, weaken the inspection of imported food and block efforts to strengthen U.S. food safety standards," said Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch executive director. "The food and agribusiness industries inserted language into the text of the TPP that will undermine U.S. food safety oversight and expose consumers to risky imported foods."
The TPP includes a new provision designed to second-guess the government inspectors who monitor food imports. The so-called Rapid Response Mechanism allows companies to challenge border inspection procedures that companies claim cause unnecessary delay -- like holding suspect shipments while awaiting laboratory test results -- and demand that a TPP panel of experts review and provide guidance on the inspection. This would create a chilling-effect on rigorous border inspection that would be especially dangerous for problems that are not obvious, like chemical or drug residues that would only appear after more thorough examination and testing.
"The TPP will increase the volume of imported and potentially risky foods coming into the United States, but tie the hands of the border inspectors who are the last line of defense between the shipper and the supermarket," said Hauter. "The TPP gives companies new powers to second guess inspectors and push uninspected food onto the market."
The TPP food safety rules also include a host of deregulatory catch phrases and code words that are considerably stronger than the food safety rules in prior trade deals like the World Trade Organization. The food and agribusiness industry demanded -- and received -- stronger sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS ) disciplines that make it harder to defend domestic food safety standards from international trade disputes. It also directs the United States to expand the current policy of recognizing foreign food safety systems that are not as strong as ours.
"American consumers are pushing to block the use of artificial and potentially risky processes and ingredients, like antibiotics and GMOs, but the TPP could trump these democratic efforts to improve our food supply," said Hauter.
The biotechnology industry received the biggest benefit from the TPP. This is the first trade agreement to provide specific biotechnology protections, according to the U.S. Trade Representative and U.S. Department of Agriculture. The posted SPS chapter does not include the Annexes where these provisions would be located. Agribusiness and biotech seed companies can now more easily use trade rules to challenge countries that ban GMO imports, test for GMO contamination, do not promptly approve new GMO crops or even require GMO labeling.
"The TPP gives the food industry a powerful new weapon to wield against the nationwide movement to label GMO foods," said Hauter. "The language in the TPP is more powerful and expansive than other trade deals that have already been used to weaken or eliminate dolphin safe tuna and country of origin labels."
"The TPP food safety and labeling provisions are worse than expected and bad news for American consumers and farmers," said Hauter. "Congress must reject this raw deal that handcuffs food safety inspectors and exposes everyone to a rising tide of unsafe imported food."
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) 683-2500"The American people deserve a Department of Justice that fights for us, and it's a tremendous shame that Trump's DOJ would rather sell us out to Big Oil," said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
Just weeks after the Minnesota Supreme Court allowed the state's climate deception lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry to move into discovery, President Donald Trump's Department of Justice took action in federal court on Monday to block the case.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison first sued the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and its subsidiary Flint Hills Resources in state court for orchestrating and executing a "campaign of deception" regarding the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency "with disturbing success" in 2020.
The industry has been fighting to kill the case since then, and the DOJ on Monday filed a complaint in the District of Minnesota against both the state and Ellison. In a related statement, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward declared that "President Trump promised to unleash American energy dominance, and Minnesota officials cannot undermine his directive by mandating that their woke climate preferences become the uniform policy of our nation."
"Minnesota's attempt to impose a national regulation on global greenhouse gas emissions not only is preempted by federal law, but also undermines affordable and reliable American energy, weakening the national and economic security of the United States," Woodward continued, summarizing the argument made in the new federal filing.
While the fossil fuel entities targeted by Minnesota welcomed the Trump DOJ's intervention, Ellison made clear that he was undeterred.
"In 2020, I sued Big Oil for lying to Minnesotans about the true causes of climate change, then sticking us with the bill for the harms it is causing," Ellison said. "Six years later, we are still waiting to go to trial because Big Oil has pulled every procedural trick in the book to delay facing the consequences of their unlawful actions."
"This frivolous and meritless lawsuit is just their latest attempt to hide from accountability, and I will move to have it dismissed immediately," he pledged. "The American people deserve a Department of Justice that fights for us, and it's a tremendous shame that Trump's DOJ would rather sell us out to Big Oil."
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, which supports cases against polluters, also ripped the federal filing.
"This is a desperate effort to shield the architects of Big Oil's decadeslong climate deception from facing accountability," said Wiles. "Big Oil and the Trump administration are clearly terrified that Minnesota's lawsuit will reveal exactly how these defendants defrauded the public about the dangers of fossil fuels. Federal courts dismissed the Trump administration's last two attempts to stop states from taking Big Oil companies to court. This naked political intimidation tactic should meet the same fate."
Trump was backed by Big Oil during the 2024 election and campaigned on a promise to "drill, baby, drill." Since returning to office, he's aimed to serve industry interests in a range of ways, including last year's executive order directing the US attorney general to protect "American energy from state overreach."
The Justice Department noted in its Monday statement that last year, its Environment and Natural Resources Division "filed complaints against Hawaii, Michigan, New York, and Vermont to stop those states' unconstitutional climate actions."
Dozens of state and local governments have filed cases similar to Ellison's in Minnesota. The US Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments related to one from Colorado that dates back to 2018: Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County.
Meanwhile, Trump and Big Oil's allies in Congress are also working to protect polluters. Last month, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced a bill that, if passed, would "prohibit liability against those engaged in the mining, extraction, production, refinement, transportation, distribution, marketing, manufacture, or sale of energy for damages or injunctive or other relief from the use of their products, and for other purposes."
Wiles noted at the time that "Big Oil companies have raked in massive profits at the pump while lying to the American people about the catastrophic harm of their products, and now they want to deny Americans their rightful day in court and stick taxpayers with the bill for the mess they made."
"If fossil fuel companies have done nothing wrong," he asked, "why do they need immunity?"
“It should not be controversial to have one’s ‘heart opened to the inhumanity and injustice of Israel’s war in Gaza,’” said Professor Derek R. Peterson.
The University of Michigan is facing criticism after it apologized and said it was launching a review into a professor's commencement speech in which he praised the school's pro-Palestine student movement for highlighting the “injustice and inhumanity” of Israel's genocidal war in Gaza.
Since the early weeks of the war, which has so far resulted in the deaths of more than 72,000 Palestinians according to official estimates, Michigan's campus has been the site of continued acts of civil disobedience from student activists that have been met with harsh disciplinary action by the school and aggressive crackdowns by state police.
During a commencement address on Saturday, Professor Derek R. Peterson—a University of Michigan historian and the outgoing chair of the Faculty Senate—acknowledged these students as part of a speech that commemorated the school's long history of social activism, including the struggle led by suffragette Sarah Burger for the school to open its doors to women in the mid-1800s.
"The freedoms that we all enjoy were hard won. They weren't handed to us by a generous and far-seeing administration," Peterson said. "So the next time you sing 'Hail to the Victors,' our fight song, sing for Sarah Burger."
"Sing for the thousands of other students who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of social justice over the course of centuries," he said.
He encouraged students to “sing for Moritz Levy, the first Jewish professor at the University of Michigan,” who helped turn it into “a safe haven from the antisemitism of East Coast universities” and for “the students of the Black Action Movement, whose members demanded a curriculum that would reflect the experience and identity of black people in this country.”
Then he said to "sing for the pro-Palestinian student activists, who have over these past two years opened our hearts to the injustice and inhumanity of Israel's war in Gaza."
A cheer erupted from the crowd. But Peterson said the comments caused “a furor on social media” from supporters of Israel, who called it a “political rant,” a shoutout to “terrorist sympathizers,” and “grounds for termination.”
Sarah Hubbard, a Republican who is currently serving as a regent at the university, wrote on social media that while she was not in attendance, she found Peterson's remark "troubling and disappointing." She added that there should be "meaningful consequences" for his statements that should "set the tone" for the conduct of other faculty.
Leo Terrell, the chair of the Department of Justice’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, which was created by President Donald Trump as part of an effort to crack down on pro-Palestinian speech on college campuses, said, “Shame on the University of Michigan,” and issued what appeared to be a threat for retaliation over social media: “We’ll see you soon. You can bet the house on it.”
Domenico Grasso, president of the University of Michigan, responded to the uproar on Saturday by issuing an apology for Peterson's remark.
He called the comments "hurtful and insensitive to many members of our community" and said, "We regret the pain this has caused on a day devoted to celebration and accomplishment."
Grasso accused Peterson of having "deviated" from the remarks he'd shared before the ceremony, and said his statements "were inappropriate and do not represent our institutional position" or "the diversity of views across our entire faculty."
He added that Peterson's remarks "were expected to be congratulatory, not a platform for personal or political expression" and said the school would "review and refine" future commencement programming to prevent speech that does not "align with the purpose of the occasion." The university has removed Peterson's commencement video from its public channels.
The University of Michigan has had sitting members of Congress and other political leaders serve as commencement speakers for decades.
President Lyndon B. Johnson famously used the ceremony in 1964 to introduce Americans to his "Great Society" agenda, which he said would demand an "end to poverty and racial injustice." President George HW Bush used the forum to tout his foreign policy accomplishments and rail against "political correctness" on university campuses.
Just last year, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) served as commencement speaker and warned that public discourse was being “defined by fear” under the second Trump administration in part because of activists being punished for their political beliefs and speech.
In a statement to CBS News Detroit, Peterson responded to the backlash and the university's response.
"It should not be controversial to have one's 'heart opened to the inhumanity and injustice of Israel's war in Gaza', which is what I credited activists with doing," he said. "Having an open heart to other people's suffering is a fundamental human virtue. It is a quality that I hope we teach our students, whatever their political posture might be."
Peterson said he was "mystified" by the response to his speech. "I have—like many of us here in Michigan—been convicted by the evidence of human suffering in Gaza; and I credit my awareness of that to pro-Palestinian activists... On a day meant to honor students for their accomplishments, I thought it important that we would honor the student activists who have, over the course of time, pushed the institution toward justice."
"The idea that graduations should be apolitical is ridiculous," Peterson added. "Michigan is not a finishing school for polite young men and women. Our students are not wilting flowers. They have just finished their degrees at the foremost public university in the country. They can handle controversy."
Just as Peterson's comments sparked a backlash, the university's reaction to his speech has been met with familiar criticism that it is silencing political speech at the behest of Israel's supporters.
"The entire 'speak-no-criticism-of-Israel' industry is erupting in outrage and demanding retribution for a history professor’s speech at the UMich graduation," said Lara Friedman, the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, who added that those seeking to discipline Peterson were effectively making a "demand for a complete Israel-exception to free speech."
Israel has been condemned for human rights violations in Gaza by United Nations experts and numerous nations around the world, while several human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Israeli organization B'Tselem, among many others, have used the term "genocide" to describe its campaign of destruction and displacement in Gaza.
Dean Baker, a senior economist at the Center for Economic Policy and Research, noted Grasso's claim that Peterson's statements ran counter to the school's "institutional position."
He said sardonically that it was “pretty neat to see a University of Michigan president say the school is opposed to human rights.”
"The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a problem CAUSED by US military power, not one US military power can fix," said one critic.
Iran on Monday launched missiles and drones at US military forces and merchant ships after President Donald Trump announced plans to help vessels navigate the Strait of Hormuz.
According to The Washington Post, the Iranian strikes "were carried out just after Central Command announced that two U.S.-flagged commercial vessels passed through the strait, the first known to have done so since the ceasefire, closely following the passage of two US destroyers."
Maj. Gen. Ali Abdollahi, a senior Iranian commander, warned in a statement given to the Iranian Mehr News Agency that his country's military "will attack any foreign force, particularly the US military, if it attempts to approach or enter the Strait of Hormuz."
Trump responded to the Iranian attacks by once again threatening to carry out war crimes, telling Fox News' Trey Yingst that Iran will "be blown off the face of the Earth" if it attacks US military ships.
Trump's latest threat comes just over a month after the president delivered an openly genocidal threat against Iran, warning that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," if Iran's leaders didn't give into his demands.
Amid the resumption of hostilities, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) warned that the US and Iran could be stumbling into a dangerous new phase of the war, which Trump launched in late February without any authorization from the US Congress.
"In seemingly daring Iran to fire on US vessels by testing their restriction of naval traffic through the Strait of Hormuz," NIAC wrote in a social media post, "the US risks instigating a Gulf of Tonkin-like incident that would serve as a spark for deeper military hostilities. The consistent rejection of diplomatic off-ramps and use of brinksmanship to seek to enhance leverage at the negotiating table is a losing game that risks tilting the US and Iran back into full-blown war."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, relayed comments from an unidentified Iranian analyst who said Iran's decision to fire "warning shots" at US military vessels represented a move to a more aggressive strategic posture.
"If Trump plans to restart the war, Iran will not wait for Trump to do so before it retaliates," Parsi wrote. "It will strike preemptively in a measured way to deter Trump."
Sina Toossi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, called attention to Trump's claims that his escort mission to get two commercial vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz was a "success," even as it led to reported Iranian strikes on ports in the allied United Arab Emirates.
"Reads like another desperate attempt to steady markets as events suggest otherwise," Toossi remarked.
Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, said the latest round of hostilities showed the Trump administration was still in denial about what needs to happen to reopen the strait.
"The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a problem CAUSED by US military power, not one US military power can fix," Kavanagh explained. "The sooner Washington accepts this, the sooner we can start working toward a diplomatic resolution."