

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, Corporate Accountability International released a new report, "Fueling the Fire: The corporate sponsors bankrolling COP21," exposing the filthy track record of the corporations sponsoring the Paris climate talks. With less than one week before the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) of the climate treaty, the report pulls back the green veil of four of the meeting's dirtiest sponsors.
"Fueling the Fire" focuses on the environmental destruction and public policy interference of the leading COP21 sponsors including fossil fuel conglomerates Engie (formerly GDF Suez) and Suez Environnement, as well as global banking giant BNP Paribas and French utility Electricite de France (EDF). By detailing the corporations' abuses to the environment and aggressive lobbying to undermine environmental policy, the report lays bare the conflict of interest inherent in allowing such sponsorship to exist.
"Inviting some of the world's biggest polluters to pay for the COP is akin to hiring a fox to guard a hen house," said Patti Lynn, executive director of Corporate Accountability International. "We must eliminate this conflict of interest before COPs become corporate tradeshows for false market-based solutions."
As the report details, COP sponsors have long track records of policy interference that contradict the green PR they advance. For example, while EDF claims to be "committed to a decarbonized world," it is an active member--alongside ExxonMobil and Shell--of BusinessEurope. On behalf of its members, BusinessEurope, which is a reliable obstructionist of European climate policy, openly opposes the "market deployment of energy produced from renewable sources."
In addition to anti-climate policy interference, the report exposes the reality behind the green facade advanced by the COP sponsors. Engie, an early sponsor of COP21, is a polluter with few rivals. In 2014, the corporation was directly responsible for more than 131 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to the pollution emitted from driving around the globe 12 million times.
"In Nigeria, the deadly effects of Shell's unholy alliance with our government has left deep scars on our country." said Philip Jakpor from Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria, a member of the global coalition, "Whether it's sponsorship or back-door lobbying, we must protect climate policy making from those who wish to undermine it."
Corporate sponsorship of the treaty meetings is just one example of the many ways in which corporate cooptation of and interference in climate policy has become commonplace. In both the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and in national governments, the fossil fuel industry has inserted itself as a stakeholder in the process in order to drive policymakers toward industry friendly "solutions" and delay or water down policy.
"Despite recent announcements to stop new coal projects, Engie still owns 30 dirty coal power plants worldwide. Gas and coal are the company's main energy sources; renewables account for just 4% of its energy mix (excluding large dams)." Celia Gautier, policy advisor at Climate Action Network France, "On top of this, Engie is planning to sell some of its coal power plants instead of closing them down. The French state is directly responsible for Engie's greenwashing activities as it owns 33% of its shares and accepted to put them in their list of COP21 sponsors."
The Lima-Paris Action Agenda (LPAA), a joint project of the Peruvian and French COP presidencies, the Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, the UNFCCC Secretariat, is a series of commitments and initiatives involving more than 1,700 corporations including Shell, Total, ExxonMobil and other big polluters. In Paris, the Secretariat will make the LPAA a primary focus, even folding it into the agenda and formal outcomes of the talks. The project's "open-door" policy has welcomed the participation of not only the world's largest fossil fuel corporations, but also corporations involved in coal mining and hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" as well transnational energy utilities.
In May, more than 60 organizations launched a global campaign to kick big polluters out of climate policy. To date, more than half a million people have called for the implementation of existing legal precedents to protect climate policy from the interference of the emissions-intensive industries. The coalition will deliver these demands to the Parties in Paris in a week's time.
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525"We took over the cargo. We took over the oil. It’s a very profitable business," said the American president of seizing ships many thousands of miles away from US waters. No mention of what the war of choice against Iran is costing the US taxpayer.
President Donald Trump on Friday night openly bragged of the US military acting "like pirates" in the world's oceans as he described recent activities of the US Navy incapacitating vessels at sea and then taking their cargo.
"We took over the cargo. We took over the oil. It’s a very profitable business," Trump said with a smile as the friendly crowd at the Forum Club in Palm Beach, Florida cheered him on.
"We're sort of like pirates, but we're not playing games," Trump added before calling the Iranian "bullies" who had to be confronted.
Trump on US Navy Seizing Ships:
It’s a very profitable business. We’re like pirates. pic.twitter.com/erWDQmJWnw
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 2, 2026
"The only good thing about Trump—only thing!—is that he sometimes says what we all know to be true," said journalist Mehdi Hassan, "but don’t expect an American president to say, admit, out loud."
In social media post, the Iranian Embassy in New Zealand said: "No need to confess President, the whole world already knows you. By the way, those who, with performative noise, constantly talk about 'international law' and 'freedom of navigation'… don’t want to condemn piracy now?"
"The only good thing about Trump—only thing!—is that he sometimes says what we all know to be true, but don’t expect an American president to say, admit, out loud."
While using the US military to seize the contents of ships may be profitable to somebody, it's not entirely clear who that might be.
So far, the estimate for what Trump's war of choice against Iran over the last two months has cost US taxpayers in the immediate term ranges from $25 billion, which is what the Pentagon itself said this week, to upwards of $100 billion. Over the long term, including the increased cost of gas and groceries due to the economic disruption and the care of veterans involved in the war, the costs of the war—which remains historically unpopular among the US public—could exceed $1 trillion.
Mark P. Nevitt, a retired US military lawyer and now an associate professor at the Emory University School of Law, argues that the series of maritime blockades imposed by Trump on Iran has created a "legally surreal moment" in the ongoing conflict.
"The United States is simultaneously observing a ceasefire with Iran while enforcing a naval blockade—a belligerent wartime operation that has no legal basis in peacetime," explained Nevitt in a column for Justice Security on Friday. "Normally, the imposition of a naval blockade ends a ceasefire, because a blockade is itself a belligerent act."
While there are established legal frameworks for naval blockades during wartime, legal scholars have asserted from the outset of the war—when US and Israeli launched unprovoked bombings of Iran on Feb. 28—that the war itself is illegal under international law.
While the existence of the blockade, an overt act of war, means the US and Iran remain in active military conflict, Trump himself and the Pentagon made the untenable claim this week that because a tentative ceasefire is in place, the US is not engaged in war—thereby trying to sidestep a 60-day threshold under the War Powers Act of 1973 which mandates the president either get permission from Congress to continue the war or end military operations completely.
As Nevitt puts it, "the United States is neither fully at war nor fully at peace according to its own logic."
In his assessment, which makes distinctions between maritime law under normal circumstance versus laws of war and blockades during active military conflict, Nevitt said the Pentagon's position that it can enforce a total blockade of ships coming or going from Iranian ports by interdicting or boarding "sanctioned vessels of any flag state anywhere in the world is remarkably broad and lacks a sound legal basis in international law."
"I'm at the top of this bridge," says Guido Reichstadter, "because the government of the United States is engaged in acts of mass murder in my name."
Forty-five year old social justice activist named Guido Reichstadter on Saturday morning was still perched atop the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge in Washington, DC after first scaling the structure Friday afternoon in protest against President Donald Trump's disastrous war against Iran, now in its third month, and the rapid and unregulated spread of artificial intelligence technology.
As Reichstadter, who described himself as the father of two children with masters degrees in both math and physics, said in a video posted to social media on Friday: “Hi my name is Guido Reichstadter and I’m currently occupying the top of the Frederick Douglass memorial bridge in Washington, DC.”
"I'm calling on the people of the United States," he continued, "to bring an immediate end to the Trump regime's illegal war on Iran and the removal of the regime power through mass nonviolent direct action and non-cooperation."
"I woke up on February 28th and I found that hundreds of schools children had been blown apart. I think there are many millions of Americans who reject the war in principle, but whose actions have not yet been sufficient to bring it to an end."
In a separate video, he explained he was at the top of the bridge, which rises approximately 168 feet above the Anacostia River at its highest point, "because the government of the United States is engaged in acts of mass murder in my name. And I refuse to be complicit in that."
While bridge traffic in both directions was closed at times on Friday and overnight, the bridge is reportedly open to traffic Saturday morning, though with some lane restrictions, as law enforcement said a "barricade situation" with the protester continued.
Reichstadter, who has staged high-profile protests in the past, spoke to Al-Jazeera via video stream on Friday to explain his actions and call for an end to the war that he says—and tens of millions of other Americans agree, according to polling—is a colossal failure by the Trump administration.
A 45-year old man is occupying the top of Washington’s Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge to protest the war on Iran.
Guido Reichstadter spoke to Al Jazeera from atop the structure - here's what he had to say. pic.twitter.com/YzHghEoS8m
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) May 2, 2026
"I mean, it's an atrocity, right?" he said, when asked what motivated him. "I woke up on February 28th and I found that hundreds of schools children had been blown apart. I think there are many millions of Americans who reject the war in principle, but whose actions have not yet been sufficient to bring it to an end."
Democratic members of Congress, both in the US House and Senate, have now brought several War Powers Resolutions to the floor in an effort to end the US attack on Iran, which now includes a naval blockade of the country, but Republican majorities in both chambers backing Trump, those efforts have failed.
Poll after poll, meanwhile, shows that Reichstadter is completely correct in stating that millions of people "reject the war," but still the war continues even after a 60-day deadline, according to the War Powers Act of 1973, which says the president must either end military operations or get the explicit approval of Congress, came and went on Friday.
On Friday, video showed Reichstadter wearing a t-shirt that read "NO WAR" and he unfurled a large black banner down the side of the bridge's central arch as part of the protest.
Before scaling the bridge, Reichstadter also spoke with journalist Ford Fisher to explain his motivations and what he hoped to accomplish with his one-person direct action:
Guido Reichstadter reached out to me prior to doing this demonstration (where he is still on the bridge arch now).
He expressed his opposition to the Trump administration’s war in Iran.
He did the same for abortion access in 2022.https://t.co/b7iM0eZlHL pic.twitter.com/AzlFgjRysX
— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) May 1, 2026
Reichstatder stayed on the bring overnight, even as fireworks exploded overhead from a nearby Major League Baseball game.
In his statement concerning AI, Reichstadter said he wanted to "urgently warn the people of the US and the world of the imminent danger we are in of crossing a point of no return towards the development of artificial intelligence which poses the risk of catastrophic harm to humanity, including human extinction."
"I call on the governments of the world to take immediate action to end this danger by permanently banning the development of artificial general intelligence and machine super intelligence," he said. "I also call on the people of the world to exert all possible influence through nonviolent action to compel their governments to end this danger with all possible speed."
The president's latest aggression toward Cuba comes amid his repeated threats to "take" the island.
Citing Cuba's ties with its ally Iran, President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order expanding the already crippling US sanctions regime against Cuban officials, as the US administration has the island in its crosshairs after ousting Venezuela's socialist leader.
Trump's executive order cites highly dubious "national security threats posed by the communist Cuban regime," including Havana's alignment "with countries and malign actors hostile to the United States."
The directive "imposes new sanctions on entities, persons, or affiliates that support the Cuban regime’s security apparatus, are complicit in government corruption or serious human rights violations, or are agents, officials, or material supporters of the Cuban government," without identifying any of the affected groups or individuals.
For 65 years, the US has imposed an economic embargo on Cuba that has adversely affected all sectors of the socialist island’s economy and severely limited Cubans’ access to basic necessities including food, fuel, healthcare, and medicines—with disastrous results. The Cuban government claims the blockade cost the country’s economy nearly $5 billion in just one 11-month period in 2022-23 alone. United Nations member states have perennially—and overwhelmingly—condemned the embargo.
The Trump administration also imposed a fuel blockade and reinstated Cuba on the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list, from which former President Joe Biden removed the country before leaving office in 2021. Cuba was initially added to the list during the Reagan administration amid a decadeslong campaign of US-backed Cuban exile terrorism, failed assassination attempts, economic warfare, and covert operations large and small in a futile effort to overthrow the revolutionary government of longtime leader Fidel Castro.
Cuba says US-backed terrorism has killed or wounded more than 5,000 Cubans and cost its economy billions of dollars.
The Cuban government—which was celebrating International Workers' Day on Friday—did not immediately respond to the expanded sanctions.
Experts warned that the new sanctions are worryingly broad, with Georgetown Law visiting scholar Peter Harrell writing on X that "basically any non-US person or company doing any business in/with Cuba could be sanctioned."
Harrell noted that the edict "gives the Trump administration a fair amount of easy-to-deploy firepower to drive remaining international businesses out of Cuba."
"The questions will be in implementation," he added. "For example, will Trump sanction a Chinese firm installing renewable energy in Cuba?"
Trump's edict comes months after the president ordered the invasion of Venezuela and abduction of socialist President Nicolás Maduro and amid the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran, the 10th country bombed during the course of Trump's two terms in office.
Trump last month declared that “we may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this,” referring to war on Iran that’s left thousands of people dead or wounded, including hundreds of children. The president has also said that he believes he’ll “be having the honor of taking Cuba,” language echoing the 19th century US imperialists who conquered the island along with Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines from Spain in another war waged on dubious pretense.
“Whether I free it, take it—I think I can do anything I want,” Trump said of the island and its 11 million inhabitants.