February, 25 2016, 03:30pm EDT
Clinton Opposes Trans-Pacific Partnership, Would Instead Focus On Enforcing Paris Climate Agreement
Kingstree, SC
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a climate disaster that would give dangerous new powers to the fossil fuel industry, according to 350 Action. As Super Tuesday quickly approaches, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stressed the importance of enforcing the Paris climate agreement, and promoting clean jobs and strong incomes, over supporting the toxic Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.
When asked by Carolina Arias, a student and fossil fuel divestment campaigner at the University of North Carolina-Asheville, on what Clinton would do to make sure we do not support trade deals that exacerbate climate change, the former Secretary of State was quick to express her opposition to the TPP, and to explain that instead efforts must focus on enforcing the Paris climate deal.
"Clinton has previously said she would not support the TPP as it's written now, and today she got more specific about the harm that the deal would pose to our climate and working people," said Yong Jung Cho, Campaign Coordinator with 350 Action. "Trade deals like NAFTA and TPP are bad for climate change. The TPP would expand the rules that TransCanada is currently using to sue the US government for $15 billion over the rejection of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. We need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, not implement trade deals that empower the very industry that exacerbates the crisis."
The Trans-Pacific Partnership was recently signed in New Zealand by the twelve participating countries. Both labor unions and environmentalists have regarded the trade deal as a fossil fuel industry handout, a threat to workers' rights, and a serious affront to democracy.
The Paris climate agreement, signed last December by nearly 200 world governments, sent a major signal to financial markets and global institutions that the end of the fossil fuel era is here. As President, Clinton says she would spend an "enormous [amount of] time and energy" to enforce the agreement, citing that "it's our best chance to turn the world around before it's too late," and elaborates by talking about current impacts.
"It's definitely promising to hear Clinton declare her commitment to enforcing the Paris climate deal," said Cho. "But Clinton cannot support global agreements to combat climate change while in the same breath approving trade deals that will allow unfettered fossil fuel expansion."
Video: https://bit.ly/1Qgw4uG
Full Transcript:
Carolina Arias: As president, what would you do to make sure we do not support trade deals like that exacerbate climate change?
Hillary Clinton: Well, you know, I'm against the Trans-Pacific trade deal because I don't think it meets the criteria that it should, but that's at least in my view. It doesn't provide clean jobs or high enough incomes for people.
Now we do have a Paris agreement. So we have an agreement now, finally, on climate change. That, I think, has to be focus of our efforts. In order to push forward on what countries have agreed to in Paris, I will spend an enormous time and energy to make sure that happens. So the trade deals, I'm not supporting the TPP. We have to enforce trade deals. I think that the environment and health are part of that enforcement. But now we really need to put our efforts into enforcing and carrying out the Paris climate deal because that gives us the best chance to bring world around before it's too late, and we have a lot of evidence that sea levels are rising, the climate's getting warming. We're seeing the effects right now. We cannot wait. This is not just an issue for academics and activists, this is an issue for everyone, especially in coastal states like South Carolina.
350 Action is the independent political action arm of the non-profit, non-partisan climate justice group 350.org.
LATEST NEWS
'Another Backdoor Deal'? Billionaire Trump Ally Larry Ellison at Center of TikTok Spin-Off
"TikTok has officially been sold to the worst people on Earth," wrote one activist, "and no this is not an Onion headline."
Dec 19, 2025
A group of investors including Oracle—a software giant led by billionaire Trump ally and GOP megadonor Larry Ellison—is set to control TikTok's US operations under a spin-off agreement formalized Thursday, raising concerns of undue political influence on the short-form video app used by around 170 million Americans.
TikTok's Chinese owner, ByteDance, signed a binding deal under which Oracle, the private equity group Silver Lake, the Abu Dhabi-based firm MGX, and other investors will hold an 80.1% stake in the newly formed US TikTok entity.
NPR reported that under the agreement, "TikTok's US algorithm will be retrained with only Americans' data" and "content moderation rules around what is permitted and what is not will be set by the new investor-controlled entity."
The deal, which stems from an executive order that President Donald Trump signed in September, averts a TikTok ban in the US.
Last year, former President Joe Biden signed widely criticized legislation that would have banned the platform in the US if ByteDance did not sell it. The measure was inserted into broader legislation that included billions in military aid for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel.
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who voted for the package that included the potential TikTok ban, called for close scrutiny of the new agreement. Warren pointed to the Trump administration's approval earlier this year of the merger of CBS News owner Paramount and Skydance—a company run by David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison.
"First Paramount/CBS and now TikTok. Trump wants to hand over even more control of what you watch to his billionaire buddies," Warren wrote in a social media post on Thursday. "Americans deserve to know if the president struck another backdoor deal for this billionaire takeover of TikTok."
Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, wrote in response to the deal that "TikTok has officially been sold to the worst people on Earth and no this is not an Onion headline."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Warn FBI Probe of Anti-ICE Activity Portends New Crackdown on Lawful Dissent
"People who are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing can be subjected to surveillance or investigation," said one critic of the FBI memo. "That imposes stigma."
Dec 19, 2025
Rights groups are expressing alarm over new reporting about the FBI carrying out nationwide anti-terrorism probes against activists protesting against federal immigration enforcement officers.
The Guardian on Friday published a report detailing an internal FBI document that outlines "criminal and domestic terrorism investigations” into “threats against immigration enforcement activity” in 23 regions across the US.
The FBI document, which was dated November 14, is a response to National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The FBI report cites two violent attacks against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in Texas to argue that there has been "an escalation in violence compared to past attacks, which primarily resulted in property damage."
Additionally, the FBI report directs agents to look for "indicators" that an anti-ICE activist may be planning to carry out an attack on immigration enforcement officials, including "stockpiling or distributing firearms," as well as using encrypted messaging apps and "conducting online research" about immigration agents' movements and locations.
The last two of these three "indicators" are raising red flags for rights groups, which are warning that they could be used as the pretext for mass infringement of constitutional rights to speak freely and protest peacefully.
Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Guardian that the FBI appeared to be treating US citizens with suspicion for engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment.
"It is not illegal to do online research about the publicly available movements of government officers or to communicate through encrypted apps like Signal or WhatsApp," she said. "While the document refers to using encrypted communications to ‘discuss operational planning’, that term is undefined and ambiguous, leaving it open what kinds of conversations might draw FBI scrutiny."
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, expressed concern to the Guardian that the FBI document is "infused with vague and over-broad language, which was exactly our concern about NSPM-7 in the first place."
"It invites law enforcement suspicion and investigation based on purely First Amendment-protected beliefs and activities," Shamsi explained. "People who are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing can be subjected to surveillance or investigation. That imposes stigma. It can wrongly immesh people in the criminal legal system."
Adam Goldstein, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), published an analysis on Thursday that criticized a recently unearthed memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi that fleshed out the concepts laid out in NSPM-7.
In particular, Goldstein argued that Bondi's memo risks using law enforcement to investigate people based on their political ideologies rather than on suspicion that they are engaging in criminal activity.
"People who conspire to engage in actual criminal behavior should be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted," Goldstein wrote. "But these memos aren’t narrowly focused on groups that exist for the purpose of ideologically motivated violence, which act to bring about violence; they broadly condemn particular viewpoints and lay a foundation for a government watchlist of American groups which share those viewpoints."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Do Not Become Inured': Death Toll From Trump Boat Strikes Tops 100 After Latest Murders
"This is premeditated killing outside of armed conflict. We call that murder," said one expert.
Dec 19, 2025
The US military on Thursday bombed two vessels in the eastern Pacific, killing at least five people and pushing the death toll from the Trump administration's lawless military campaign in international waters above 100.
Thursday's strikes marked the third time this week that the US military has bombed boats operated by people accused, without evidence, of smuggling drugs. None of the dozens of strikes that have now killed at least 105 people since early September have been authorized by Congress, and legal experts at home and abroad have said the attacks clearly constitute murder.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, warned against allowing the Trump administration to normalize and escape accountability for its extrajudicial killings.
"The lawless killing spree continues. Do not become inured," Finucane wrote on social media. "This is premeditated killing outside of armed conflict. We call that murder."
As with previous attacks, the Trump administration attached a short video clip to its announcement of the Thursday strikes, which came amid mounting fears that President Donald Trump is dragging the US into an illegal war with Venezuela and possibly other South American countries.
On Dec. 18, at the direction of @SecWar Pete Hegseth, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted lethal kinetic strikes on two vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations in international waters. Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known… pic.twitter.com/CcCyOgYRto
— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) December 19, 2025
But US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is refusing to release footage of at least one of the deadly strikes that he authorized with a verbal order to "kill everybody" onboard the targeted vessel.
"We’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public,” Hegseth told reporters earlier this week, referring to footage of a September 2 attack in the Caribbean that killed the survivors clinging to wreckage from an initial strike.
The ACLU's Jeffrey Stein and Christopher Anders wrote Thursday that "if a president can murder civilians at sea and keep the legal justifications secret, we should all be concerned."
"The harm is even worse when basic factual evidence, such as full videos and orders, is also hidden from the American people," they continued. "Transparency can’t wait while the government murders more people. That’s why we’re asking everyone to send a message to their representatives in Congress urging them to act now. Demanding answers, insisting on public hearings, and refusing to accept secret law as a license to kill, is how we can all help stop these unlawful strikes and defend the basic principle that no one—not even the president—is above the law."
The latest bombings came a day after House Republicans blocked a pair of resolutions aimed at stopping the Trump administration's unauthorized boat strikes and march to war with Venezuela.
In the Senate, Ruben Gallego is pushing a new resolution that "orders the US Armed Forces to immediately cease hostilities against vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean unless authorized by Congress."
"If the president believes the use of military force is necessary, he needs to come talk to Congress first and make that case. The decision to use military force is one that requires serious debate, and the power to declare war unambiguously belongs to Congress under the Constitution,” said Gallego. “As an Iraq war veteran, I know the costs of rushing into an unnecessary war and that the American people will not stand for it.”
But Trump insisted Thursday that he doesn't "have to" go to Congress before taking military action.
Asked if war with Venezuela is a possibility, Trump said, "I don’t rule it out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


