

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.

After careful review, the US Army Corps of Engineers issued a landmark decision to deny federal permits for SSA Marine's proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, a coal export facility at Xwe'chi'eXen, also known as Cherry Point, Wash. In January 2015, the Lummi Nation asked the Army Corps to reject the project because of its significant harm to their treaty-protected fisheries and ancestral lands. The historic decision deals a severe blow to SSA Marine's struggling proposal and marks the first time that a coal export facility has been rejected based on its negative impacts to the treaty rights of a tribal nation.
"This is an historic win, and we are grateful to the Lummi Nation for their leadership in delivering a tremendous victory for Northwest families. By denying permits for the largest proposed coal export terminal in North America, the Army Corps is honoring the Lummi Nation's treaty rights and protecting the Salish Sea for all people who call the Pacific Northwest home," said Crina Hoyer, executive director of Bellingham's Re Sources for Sustainable Communities. "The message rings loud and clear: communities will never accept the health, safety, economic or environmental impacts of dirty coal exports."
Since its proposal in 2011, Gateway Pacific has been plagued by delays and financial setbacks, and has faced unprecedented community opposition including more than 124,000 public comments on a scoping process in 2012. Financial backer Goldman Sachs pulled out of the project in 2014; since then, domestic and overseas coal markets have continued their precipitous decline. And this May, leaders from nine tribal nations came together to sign a proclamation urging the Army Corps to respect treaty rights and deny permits for the terminal.
"From this decision to China's groundbreaking cap-and-trade program and recent commitments from world leaders at the UN Climate Negotiations in Paris, the writing on the wall is clear: Coal exports are the wrong direction," said Cesia Kearns, Deputy Director with the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, and Co-Director of the Power Past Coal coalition. "The Lummi Nation's victory brings even more energy to local movements working for justice, and against coal exports and harmful fossil fuels throughout the continent. From British Columbia, to Longview, Washington, to the Gulf of Mexico, we will continue to stand together to say no to corporate special interests and yes to healthy, community-driven futures."
Gateway Pacific would have exported up to 48 million tons of Powder River Basin coal each year, bringing up to 18 additional coal trains every day through Washington, Idaho and Montana, and nearly 1,000 giant coal ships per year through the Salish Sea. Due to the terminal's unprecedented risks to the health, safety, local economies and natural resources of Northwest communities, the Washington State Department of Ecology and Whatcom County planned to consider the project's broad impacts in the environmental impact statement, including coal dust around the terminal, rail traffic and coal dust along rail lines and waterways in Montana, Idaho and Washington; and the effects of burning coal overseas on the Northwest, particularly regarding climate pollution and mercury contamination.
"The peoples of the Pacific Northwest have stopped coal companies dead in their tracks. We've defeated five of six proposals to protect the health and welfare of our families--and families around the world," said Beth Doglio, Campaign Director of Climate Solutions and Co-Director of Power Past Coal. "Now, only the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminals in Longview remains, along with a terminal expansion in British Columbia that would affect rail-line communities in the Northwest. We will continue standing together to defeat these remaining projects and move forward with a cleaner, safer and more sustainable way of life."
Background:
Friends of the Earth U.S. is part of Power Past Coal, an ever-growing alliance of health groups, businesses and environmental, clean-energy, faith and community organizations working to stop coal export off the West Coast. Visit www.powerpastcoal.org for more information.
Since 2010, coal companies have pushed for a total of six coal export terminals for the Pacific Northwest. Four have been defeated, and one is on life support--the Port of Morrow proposal is being appealed by coal export company Lighthouse Resources after receiving state and federal permit denials in 2014. In Washington state, only the Millennium Bulk Terminals proposal remains in Longview, Washington. Combined, Gateway Pacific and Millennium Bulk Terminals would be capable of exporting nearly 100 million metric tons of coal each year. In response, the public has submitted more than 400,000 comments, and nearly 15,000 people have attended public hearings for the facilities.
Opposition is being further fueled by a proliferation of proposals for oil terminals and new oil-by-rail to existing refineries. Together, coal and oil projects place an extreme strain on regional rail systems; rail-line communities could see up to 30 loaded coal and oil trains per day and 212 loaded oil and coal trains every week.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400One climate reporter warned their windfalls "will go toward political campaigns and lobbying organizations dedicated to fighting climate regulation, blocking clean energy policy, and fueling authoritarianism."
After pouring money into President Donald Trump's successful campaign to take back the White House, US fossil fuel industry executives cashed in on his and Israel's war on Iran with record-setting stock sales, according to a VerityData analysis reported on Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal.
"Much of the selling for the first quarter began before the US and Israel began bombing Iran on February 28," and some "were prearranged under plans that allow executives to sell stock automatically at specific times or share prices without making in-the-moment decisions that could leave them open to allegations of improper trading," the newspaper acknowledged.
However, as share prices for the industry skyrocketed—Iran responded to the US-Israeli assault by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route for fossil fuels—executives at Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Diamondback Energy, and other oil and gas companies collectively sold $1.4 billion in stock.
"At nearly a dozen companies, the number of executives selling in the quarter reached or surpassed 10-year records, and in some cases set all-time records," the Journal detailed. "The sales hit a 15-year peak, with nearly six executives selling for every one that bought shares in the first quarter—well over double the usual ratio."
"CEOs stood out as big sellers in many cases," the newspaper highlighted, noting that "Chevron chief executive Mike Wirth sold some $104 million worth of shares between January and March. ConocoPhillips's Ryan Lance netted about $54.3 million in share sales in March alone. Lorenzo Simonelli, CEO of oil field services company Baker Hughes, sold about $33 million worth of stock that same month."
VerityData's head of research, Ben Silverman, said that "it speaks to the opportunistic behavior of everyone involved—it could be opportunistic set months earlier, it could be opportunistic in the moment... There was a breathlessness to the selling, and the message they sent was to cash in now because the ride won't last forever."
Who's profiting from ridiculous and unnecessary wars? Big Oil CEOs, to name one obvious group. @emorwee.bsky.social heated.world/p/chevrons-c...
[image or embed]
— Ross Macfarlane (@rossmacfarlane.bsky.social) April 8, 2026 at 5:04 PM
In her Heated newsletter, climate journalist Emily Atkin pointed out that "this isn't the first time a small group of extraordinarily wealthy oil CEOs used a war to make themselves richer. In the weeks after President Joe Biden said that he was 'convinced' Russia would invade Ukraine in 2022, Big Oil CEOs sold almost $99 million worth of shares, according to an analysis by Friends of the Earth and BailoutWatch."
According to Atkin:
What really makes this story remarkable is not simply that oil executives got rich from a war. It's how perfectly legal and normal it all is, and what that legality reveals about who wins and who loses when America goes to war.
When America goes to war, the costs are distributed broadly, onto every American who drives a car or heats a home. The benefits are distributed narrowly, flowing to a small group of men whose compensation is designed to capture exactly this kind of windfall.
And the cash windfall these oil executives make from the war won't go primarily toward yachts and private jets (they already have those). It will go toward political campaigns and lobbying organizations dedicated to fighting climate regulation, blocking clean energy policy, and fueling authoritarianism.
The Journal reporting came on the heels of Trump and Iran agreeing to a fragile two-week ceasefire negotiated by Pakistan late Tuesday. While Israel is supposedly on board, it escalated attacks on Lebanon on Wednesday.
As a Pakistani official publicly reiterated that Lebanon is still part of the deal and Iran threatened to back out altogether, Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher with the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams that Israel's assault "appeared to be a direct attempt to blow up the ceasefire, and it worked."
Meanwhile, although oil prices dropped after the ceasefire announcement, "'fossilflation'—or inflation caused by volatile and rising prices of oil and gas—is still likely to continue," the global climate group 350.org warned on Wednesday.
"Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens and the ceasefire holds, oil and gas prices will stay above pre-war levels, and consumers will pay," said Andreas Sieber, 350.org's head of political strategy. "Volatility remains high, and supply will stay tight due to infrastructure damage and inventory rebuilding."
The group said last week that the war-related spikes in oil and gas prices "have already cost consumers and businesses an additional $104.2-$111.6 billion" globally, and an analysis from Democratic members of the congressional Joint Economic Committee found that Americans spent an extra $8.4 billion at the gasoline pump during the first month of Trump's war.
Throughout the conflict, 350.org and other green groups have advocated for a windfall profits tax targeting oil and gas giants, as well as renewed calls for a swift and just international transition away from climate-wrecking fossil fuels.
A foreign policy expert told Common Dreams that Israel’s unprecedented attack on Lebanon, backed by the US, “appeared to be a direct attempt to blow up the ceasefire, and it worked.”
A Pakistani official said Wednesday that despite Israel’s unprecedented attack on Lebanon, it is still part of the ceasefire agreement that Pakistan's prime minister helped to mediate the previous day, even as Israel and the US insist otherwise.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who played a key role in brokering the deal announced on Tuesday, said that "Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.”
But within hours of the agreement, Israel launched what it said was its largest military operation against Lebanon yet, which killed at least 254 people and wounded 1,165 others, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. The Israel Defense Forces acknowledged that the assault included attacks on many civilian areas.
Contrary to the mediators, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the ceasefire "does not include Lebanon.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt followed suit, confirming that the US's position was also that “Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire,” adding that “that has been relayed to all parties involved."
But Pakistan's ambassador to the US, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, said on Wednesday afternoon that this was not the agreement the parties reached on Tuesday.
He told CNN anchor Becky Anderson that the deal announced by his prime minister, which included Lebanon, "could not have been more authentic" to what the two parties agreed to, and that it was still the prime minister's understanding that Lebanon was included.
He added that this was another instance in which a ceasefire "could be disrupted" by Israel's actions. He also noted that "there have been instances in the past where ceasefires have been disrupted," a possible reference to Israel's routine violations of its previous ceasefire with Lebanon and the current one with Gaza, and its repeated assassinations of Iranian negotiators as they've sat down for talks with the US.
The US-Iran ceasefire is less than 24 hours old, but Israel's attack on Wednesday has already thrown it into peril. Iran responded to the attacks on Wednesday by once again closing the Strait of Hormuz after briefly reopening the critical waterway in accordance with the deal. Iran is also reportedly considering withdrawing from the ceasefire altogether and resuming strikes against Israel.
President Donald Trump has appeared eager to declare victory and move on from the war, which has further tanked his already plummeting support at home and sparked a global economic crisis.
But Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher with the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams that Israel's goals are very different.
She explained that Israel was largely sidelined from the talks that culminated in Tuesday's ceasefire and that within Israel's internal politics, the agreement is being portrayed as "catastrophic."
She noted that Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition to Netanyahu's government, has portrayed it as “the worst political failure in our history,” and accused the prime minister of failing to achieve his goals.
"What we’ve seen since looks like Israel acting to undermine a diplomatic process over which it had lost influence," Abou-Elias said.
She said that Israel's attack on Lebanon on Wednesday, which it has referred to as Operation Eternal Darkness, "appeared to be a direct attempt to blow up the ceasefire, and it worked."
According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a US-based human rights monitor for Iran, at least 1,701 civilians have been killed in US-Israeli attacks against Iran since the war was launched on February 28.
After Wednesday's bombardment, Lebanon's Health Ministry reported that the death toll in the country was now up to at least 1,739 since the war began on March 2.
"At this point, any durable end to this conflict, even a temporary one, requires Washington to rein in Israel," Abou-Elias said. "Trump has the leverage to do it. What’s unclear is whether he has the political will to use it."
"No family should have to worry about putting food on the table, but congressional Republicans have made sure that millions will," said one critic of the GOP's budget law.
An analysis published Wednesday by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found that millions of low-income Americans have stopped participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ever since President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law last year.
According to CBPP's analysis, SNAP participation declined by 6% between July 2025 and December 2025, with 2.5 million fewer Americans receiving benefits.
CBPP estimated that millions more will be dropped from SNAP benefits in the coming months as states adjust their budgets to remain in compliance with the law.
"Starting in 2027, most states will have to pay between 5% and 15% of SNAP benefit costs, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars a year in many states," explained CBPP. "The magnitude of the cost shift... may incentivize states to take drastic measures to reduce their payment error rates quickly and cut program costs, even if it means delaying or improperly denying benefits to eligible people."
In total, concluded CBPP, "we estimate that 4 million people in a typical month will lose out" on SNAP benefits "once the changes are fully implemented."
CBPP published a separate analysis focusing specifically on Arizona, where SNAP participation has already fallen "far more than anticipated," while warning that other states could soon see similarly steep participation drops as they rush to comply with the law.
The GOP budget law contained roughly $186 billion in cuts to SNAP over the span of a decade, which came from expanding work requirements, shifting some of the cost of the program to the states, and restricting benefit increases. As a result, millions of Americans became vulnerable to losing their benefits.
Leor Tal, campaign director at Unrig Our Economy, pointed to CBPP's analysis as an example of the GOP waging class warfare on behalf of rich donors.
“SNAP is a lifeline for working Americans nationwide," Tal said. "Now, that lifeline is being ripped away from millions because Republicans in Congress decided that giving tax breaks to billionaires and waging war are more important than protecting food for families. No family should have to worry about putting food on the table, but congressional Republicans have made sure that millions will.”