

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.

Lindsay Meiman, US Communications Manager 350.org, lindsay@350.org, +1-347-460-9082
Hoda Baraka, Global Communications Manager 350.org, hoda@350.org, +1-347-453-6600
Starting today, a global wave of peaceful direct actions lasting for 12 days will take place across six continents targeting the world's most dangerous fossil fuel projects, under the banner of Break Free.
2015 was the hottest year ever recorded and the impacts of climate change are already hitting communities around the world. From rising sea levels to extreme storms, the need to act on climate change has never been more urgent. Added to that, the fossil fuel industry faces an unprecedented crisis -- from collapsing prices, massive divestments, a new global climate deal, and an ever-growing movement calling for change. The time has never been better for a just transition to a clean energy system.
To harness the moment, activists and concerned citizens committed to addressing climate change - from international groups to local communities to individual citizens - will unite to ensure that strong pressure is maintained to force energy providers, as well as local and national governments, to implement the policies and additional investments needed to completely break free from fossil fuels.
People worldwide are providing the much needed leadership by intensifying actions through peaceful civil disobedience on a global scale as so much remains to be done in order to lessen the effects of the climate crisis. This includes demanding governments move past the commitments made as part of the Paris agreement signed last month.
In order to address the current climate crisis and keep global warming below 1.5C, fossil fuel projects need to be shelved and existing infrastructure needs to be replaced now that renewable energy is more affordable and widespread than ever before. The only way to achieve this is by keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground and accelerating the just transition to 100% renewable energy. During Break Free people worldwide are rising up to make sure this is the case.
Actions taking place between 3-15 May include:
QUOTE SHEET:
"By backing campaigns and mass actions aimed at stopping the world's most dangerous fossil-fuel projects - from coal plants in Turkey and the Philippines, to mines in Germany and Australia, to fracking in Brazil and oil wells in Nigeria - Break Free hopes to eliminate the power and pollution of the fossil-fuel industry, and propel the world toward a sustainable future," May Boeve, Executive Director 350.org
"There's never been a bigger, more concerted wave of actions against the plans of the fossil fuel industry to overheat our earth--and for the just, fair, and sustainable world we can now envision. In the hottest year on record, we're determined to turn up the political heat on the planet's worst polluters," Bill McKibben, co-founder 350.org
"Communities on the front lines of climate change aren't waiting for governments to act. They are taking bold action, and the world needs to listen. The Paris agreement was only possible because millions of people spent years fighting for climate justice. Now that governments have committed to action, we must make sure they follow the science and deliver on their words. The only way to survive climate change is through a rapid just transition to 100% renewable energy, keeping oil, coal and gas in the ground," Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International
"Communities all over the Philippines are demanding that the government cancel all plans, permits and construction efforts for new coal power plants and coal mines in the Philippines, and to take decisive steps towards the phase out of existing ones. We need to take major steps in order to break free from fossil fuels and all harmful sources energy. A complete transition to renewable energy is not only possible, but urgent," Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator of the Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) and Co-Coordinator of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice
"Breaking free from fossil fuels is a vote for life and for the planet. The Paris Agreement signed by world leaders ignored the fact that burning fossil fuels is the major culprit in global warming. In these actions the peoples of the world will insist that we must come clean of the fossil fuels addiction. In Nigeria we will in addition raise our voices to demand a clean up of the extreme pollution caused by oil companies operating in the Niger Delta," Nnimmo Bassey, Nigerian activist from the Health of Mother Earth Foundation
"We are currently at a crossroads in humanity where we must choose either to continue down a destructive path of extracting fossil fuels or transition to sustainable ways of living. What we need is ambitious renewable energy projects, not more tar sands pipelines. These pipelines don't have the support of local communities and the Indigenous nations they will impact. If we continue to build fossil fuel infrastructure, we are breaking our promise to do our part in Canada to stem a global climate crisis that is already being felt by communities all over the planet," Melina Laboucan-Massimo, Lubicon Cree First Nation, Greenpeace Canada Climate & Energy Campaigner and 350.org Board member
"The global climate justice movement is rising fast. But so are the oceans. So are global temperatures. This is a race against time. Our movement is stronger than ever, but to beat the odds, we have to grow stronger," Naomi Klein, award winning journalist/author
"People power in our cities, in our villages and on the frontlines of climate change have brought us to a point where we have a global climate deal - but we do not stop now, we need more action and faster. Civil society is set to rise up again, to fight for our societies to break free from fossil fuels, to propel them even faster towards a just future powered by 100% renewable energy," Wael Hmaidan, Director of Climate Action Network
"Fossil fuel plants cause extreme harm to local communities and ecosystems, they are also a danger to the country and the whole planet since they are a major contributor to climate change. It is immoral to burden future generations with the cost of mistaken energy choices made today. It is time to end the age of fossil fuels," Archbishop Ramon Arguelles, Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lipa in the Philippines.
"No government has a workable plan to protect a stable climate. Nature won't wait, and mass disobedience is the only tool proven to bring about rapid social change. Breaking free from fossil fuels and ensuring a just transition is going to be hard, but not doing so would have unthinkable consequences," Ahmed Gaya, Rising Tide Seattle, Break Free Pacific Northwest Action
"In my community, where my church has been for 65 years, the African American and Hispanic community has been overlooked for a long time as political forces worked to improve other areas of the city. These oil trains, carrying toxic and explosive oil, have been snuck into our community with little oversight and little public disclosure. Now is the time to turn the tables, and for us to stand together to say that this can't go on," Associate Pastor Marc Johnson, Greater St. John's C.O.G.I.C., Break Free Albany, NY Action
"We are marching in Los Angeles because the city is ground zero for neighborhood oil drilling. Fossil fuel extraction is happening in our backyards. Communities live next door to active oil drilling sites, exposing children and families to various health risks like headaches, nosebleeds, and respiratory problems including asthma. We are marching because this is an injustice not only to our climate, but to communities in Los Angeles and throughout the state of California, which disproportionately are low-income and communities of color," Monic Uriarte, STAND-LA, Break Free LA Action
"When the oil tides rolled in, back in 2010, coastal communities across the Gulf witnessed the devastating gambles taken to harvest fossil fuels off our shores and in our waters. We are on the front lines, witnessing the side effects of extreme extraction, ranging from rising sea levels to tainted waters to more violent and unpredictable weather. That's why we are calling on President Obama to refuse any new leases in his offshore drilling plan and protect the Alaskan Arctic and Gulf South waters, wildlife and ways of life. It is time we break free from fossil fuels and build the just transition to renewable and sustainable solutions," Monique Verdin, Citizen of the United Houma Nation; resident of St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana; Interdisciplinary Artist; Break Free DC Action
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.
The report shows how a landmark civil rights law "is being cynically misused to squash political dissent and speech that advocates for the human rights of Palestinians," said one AAUP leader.
Under both the Biden and Trump administrations, pro-Israel and far-right advocacy groups have driven a surge of federal civil rights investigations conflating true antisemitism with university professors and students' criticism of the US-backed Israeli government and its genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip.
That's according to Discriminating Against Dissent: The Weaponization of Civil Rights Law to Repress Campus Speech on Palestine, a report published this week by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA).
"Our members, because of their expertise on the region, have long borne the brunt of allegations that falsely equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism," MESA president Aslı Bâli said in a statement. "Complaints like these penalize scholars for teaching basic facts about the region."
The report begins: "Over the past two years, the United States government has taken unprecedented steps to suppress campus speech—including scholarship, advocacy, and protest—opposing the state of Israel's genocidal war against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. This crackdown has paved the way for profound transformations in US colleges and universities."
"A long-standing 'Palestine exception' to the First Amendment now threatens to give way to a new reality: Palestine is less an exception to academic freedom than it is a pretext for erasing the norm altogether, as part of an authoritarian assault on the autonomy of higher education and on the very idea of racial and gender equity," the document warns.
The analysis comes as President Donald Trump continues his sweeping attack, aiming to shut down the Department of Education, deport foreign students critical of Israel, and bully campus leaders into signing an "extortion agreement" for federal funding.
"In effect, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is no longer being used to address racial discrimination in higher education," Bâli told the Guardian, which first reported on the findings. "Instead, Title VI has been repurposed as part of the administration's broader effort to remake higher education in line with its right-wing political and cultural agenda."
AAUP and MESA found that "more investigations were opened in the last two months of 2023 (25) than in all previous years combined (24). Investigations broke record numbers in 2024 (39) and are on track to do so again in 2025 (38, as of September 30)."
"All but one of the 102 antisemitism complaint letters we have analyzed focus on speech critical of Israel; of these, 79% contain allegations of antisemitism that simply describe criticisms of Israel or Zionism with no reference to Jews or Judaism; at least 50% of complaints consist solely of such criticism," the document states.
The report highlights that "the Biden administration opened more antisemitism probes against colleges and universities (65) than for all other types of racial harassment combined (38)," and "the Trump administration appears to have halted racial harassment investigations altogether."
The federal probes "are producing a new system of government surveillance and monitoring of campus speech," the report notes, with over 20 schools agreeing to share internal data on discrimination complaints with the government.
Examining Trump's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, the researchers found that the Department of Education "has continued to open very high numbers of antisemitism probes even as its staff has been slashed by the Trump administration," and "in its high-profile campaigns against prestigious universities, the task force has systematically ignored the procedural requirements of Title VI, unlawfully cutting off vast sums of funding before any meaningful investigation, let alone findings."
For at least 78% of the complaints examined by AAUP and MESA, pro-Israel and right-wing advocacy organizations—including those without any campus presence—served as complainants or represented them. Such groups have also been involved with private lawsuits intended to redefine antisemitism as including criticism of Israel and restrict such criticism at universities.
"Antisemitism lawsuits surged after October 7, 2023 (two filed before that date, 26 since)," according to the analysis. "No court has yet made a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs. In nine cases, Title VI claims have been dismissed, including on free speech grounds; nine lawsuits have settled, some of which resulted in even more draconian policy changes on campuses than government investigations."
AAUP general counsel Veena Dubal said that "the findings in this report underscore how the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which passed in response to years of nonviolent civil disobedience against racial injustice—is being cynically misused to squash political dissent and speech that advocates for the human rights of Palestinians."
"This is a perverse outcome," Dubal declared, as AAUP prepares for Friday protests pressuring leaders at over 100 institutions to reject the president's "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education" and make schooling more affordable.
As AAUP president Todd Wolfson said in a statement about the day of action earlier this week, "From attacks on academic freedom in the classroom to the defunding of lifesaving scientific research to surveilling and arresting peaceful student protesters, Trump's higher education policies have been catastrophic for our communities and our democracy."
"We're excited to help build a coalition of students and workers united in fighting back for a higher education system that is accessible and affordable for all and serves the common good," he added. Other supporting groups include Campus Climate Network, College Democrats of America, Gen-Z for Change, Indivisible, Jewish Voice for Peace, March for Our Lives, and Sunrise Movement.
"Big Tech is building a mountain of speculative infrastructure," warned one critic. "Now it wants the US government to prop up the bubble before it bursts."
Tech giant OpenAI generated significant backlash this week after one of its top executives floated potential loan guarantees from the US government to help fund its massive infrastructure buildout.
In a Wednesday interview with The Wall Street Journal, OpenAI chief financial officer Sarah Friar suggested that the federal government could get involved in infrastructure development for artificial intelligence by offering a "guarantee," which she said could "drop the cost of the financing" and increase the amount of debt her firm could take on.
When asked if she was specifically talking about a "federal backstop for chip investment," she replied, "Exactly."
Hours after the interview, Friar walked back her remarks and insisted that "OpenAI is not seeking a government backstop for our infrastructure commitments," while adding that she was "making the point that American strength in technology will come from building real industrial capacity, which requires the private sector and government playing their part."
Despite Friar's walk-back, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said during a podcast interview with economist Tyler Cowen that released on Thursday that he believed the government ultimately could be a backstop to the artificial intelligence industry.
"When something gets sufficiently huge... the federal government is kind of the insurer of last resort, as we've seen in various financial crises," he said. "Given the magnitude of what I expect AI's economic impact to look like, I do think the government ends up as the insurer of last resort."
Friar and Altman's remarks about government backstops for OpenAI loans drew the immediate ire of Robert Weissman, co-president of consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, who expressed concerns that the tech industry may have already opened up talks about loan guarantees with President Donald Trump's administration.
"Given the Trump regime’s eagerness to shower taxpayer subsidies and benefits on favored corporations, it is entirely possible that OpenAI and the White House are concocting a scheme to siphon taxpayer money into OpenAI’s coffers, perhaps with some tribute paid to Trump and his family." Weissman said. "Perhaps not so coincidentally, OpenAI President Greg Brockman was among the attendees at a dinner for donors to Trump’s White House ballroom, though neither he nor OpenAI have been reported to be actual donors."
JB Branch, Public Citizen’s Big Tech accountability advocate, said even suggesting government backstops for OpenAI showed that the company and its executives were "completely out of touch with reality," and he argued it was no coincidence that Friar floated the possibility of federal loan guarantees at a time when many analysts have been questioning whether the AI industry is an unsustainable financial bubble.
"The truth is simple: the AI bubble is swelling, and OpenAI knows it," he said. "Big Tech is building a mountain of speculative infrastructure without real-world demands or proven productivity-enhancing use cases to justify it. Now it wants the US government to prop up the bubble before it bursts. This is an escape plan for an industry that has overpromised and underdelivered."
An MIT Media Lab report found in September that while AI use has doubled in workplaces since 2023, 95% of organizations that have invested in the technology have seen "no measurable return on their investment."
Concerns about an AI bubble intensified earlier this week when investor Michael Burry, who famously made a fortune by short-selling the US housing market ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, revealed that his firm was making bets against Nvidia and Palantir, two of the biggest players in the AI industry.
This has led to some AI industry players to complain that markets and governments are undervaluing their products.
During her Wednesday WSJ interview, for instance, Friar complained that "I don’t think there’s enough exuberance about AI, when I think about the actual practical implications and what it can do for individual."
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, meanwhile, told the Financial Times that China was going to beat the US in the race to develop high-powered artificial intelligence because the Chinese government offers more energy subsidies to AI and doesn't put as much regulation on AI development.
Huang also complained that "we need more optimism" about the AI industry in the US.
Investment researcher Ross Hendricks, however, dismissed Huang's warning about China winning the AI battle, and he accused the Nvidia CEO of seeking special government favors.
"This is nothing more than Jensen Huang foaming the runway for a federal AI bailout in coordination with OpenAI's latest plea in the WSJ," he commented in a post on X. "These grifters simply can't be happy making billions from one of the greatest investment manias of all time. They'll do everything possible to loot taxpayers to prevent it from popping."
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," stressed one of the war powers resolution's co-sponsors.
As the Trump administration argues that it can continue its extrajudicial assassination spree of alleged drug runners on the high seas without congressional approval, the US Senate is set to vote Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block military action against Venezuela absent lawmakers' assent—as required by law.
Last month, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution to block US military "hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress," citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and Congress' sole ability to declare war under the Constitution.
Posting on X ahead of Thursday's vote, Schiff said that the measure's co-sponsors "are forcing a bipartisan vote to block the administration from dragging this country into war in South America."
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," he added.
Trump has PUBLICLY threatened land strikes in Venezuela—after already killing at least 66 unknown people on boats in the Caribbean—unnecessarily putting the U.S. at risk of war. Here’s what @schiff.senate.gov, Senator Paul, and I are doing about it:youtube.com/shorts/TQKsF...
[image or embed]
— Senator Tim Kaine (@kaine.senate.gov) November 6, 2025 at 8:29 AM
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, a Washington, DC-based think tank, said Thursday that President Donald Trump "talks about himself as a historic peacemaker while continuing to order reckless military strikes and threatening to invade countries around the world."
"His actions violate both the Constitution and his own promises to be an anti-war president," he added.
This is the second time Kaine and Schiff have tried to introduce a Venezuela war powers resolution. Last month, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman joined his GOP colleagues in voting down a similar measure. Paul joined Democrats and Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) in voting for the legislation.
Since September 2, Trump has overseen 16 reported attacks on vessels allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America, killing at least 67 people. Venezuelan and Colombian officials, as well as relatives of some of the slain men, assert that some victims were fishers and condemned the attacks as war crimes.
Trump—who deployed an armada of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of Venezuela—has also approved covert CIA action and, along with senior administration officials, threatened to attack targets on land inside the oil-rich country, which has long been subjected to US meddling, regime change, and deadly sanctions. Late last month, the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said that his country’s security forces captured a group of CIA-aligned mercenaries engaged in a "false-flag attack" against the nation.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—was enacted during the Nixon administration at the tail end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to empower Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days.
That 60-day door closed on Monday. However, according to The Washington Post, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel T. Elliott Gaiser told lawmakers this week that Trump is not bound by the War Powers Resolution, as the administration does not believe that the boat strikes legally meet the definition of "hostilities" because the victims of the attacks aren't fighting back.
The dubious argument that acts of US military aggression aren't hostilities isn't new—the Obama administration asserted similar immunity from the War Powers Resolution when it decided to attack Libya in 2011, leading to the ouster of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi and over a decade of enduring conflict and division.
As Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who is now a senior official at the International Crisis Group, wrote for Just Security this week:
There are many flaws with the Trump administration’s reported interpretation of hostilities. As indicated in the legislative history, Congress understood the term “hostilities” to apply broadly, more broadly than “armed conflict.” The Obama administration’s prior attempt to restrictively interpret the term garnered strong bipartisan congressional opposition...
That the Trump administration would resort to creative lawyering to circumvent the limits of the War Powers Resolution is hardly a surprise... It nonetheless is yet another legal abuse and arrogation of power by the executive. And it is a power grab in the service of killing people outside the law based solely on the president’s own say-so.
"Congress needs to push back against this attempt by the White House to further encroach upon its constitutional prerogatives on the use of military force," Finucane added. "The legislative branch should reject the executive’s strained legal interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, including possibly in legislation. Congress should also continue efforts to halt these killings at sea and block an unlawful attack on Venezuela."