SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 03 2016, 12:00pm EDT
Contact:
Perry Wheeler, Greenpeace Media Officer, P: 301-675-8766
Greenpeace Storms Walmart Shareholder Meeting to Call Out Failures on Human Rights
Greenpeace flew its thermal airship and drove a mobile billboard truck around Walmart's annual general meeting this week to highlight the company's failure to address ocean destruction and potential human rights abuses in its tuna supply chain. The airship featured banners that read, "Walmart: Clean up needed in the tuna aisle" and "Save oceans.
FAYETTEVILLE, AR
Greenpeace flew its thermal airship and drove a mobile billboard truck around Walmart's annual general meeting this week to highlight the company's failure to address ocean destruction and potential human rights abuses in its tuna supply chain. The airship featured banners that read, "Walmart: Clean up needed in the tuna aisle" and "Save oceans. Protect workers." The mobile billboard truck broadcasted graphics about Walmart's destructive Great Value canned tuna, which is supplied by Thai Union -- the largest tuna company in the world and owner of Chicken of the Sea.
"Walmart can no longer hide the very real threat of labor abuse and ocean destruction with its insufficient policy statements and greenwashing," said Greenpeace Senior Oceans Campaigner David Pinsky. "Shareholders and customers now know that Walmart is ignoring the possibility of horrific abuses of workers throughout its supply chain as it continues selling cheap canned tuna from seafood predator Thai Union."
Greenpeace is campaigning against Walmart for its sale of destructive and unethical canned tuna. Walmart has shirked its responsibility to adopt improved procurement policies and address the potential human rights abuses and rampant ocean destruction connected to Thai Union seafood. Greenpeace is calling on Walmart to demand more sustainable and ethical tuna from Thai Union or reject its products entirely.
"Walmart represents roughly one quarter of U.S. canned tuna sales and must use its buying power to clean up the exploitative tuna industry," said Senior Oceans Campaigner Jackie Dragon. "Walmart has a responsibility to take care of its own workers and ensure the fair and ethical treatment of those who bring products to store shelves. Ignoring the treatment of Thai Union tuna industry workers raises concerns about Walmart's standards throughout its entire supply chain."
Walmart has faced increasing pressure to address labor issues in stores and throughout its supply chains. United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) was also in Fayetteville to call on Walmart to provide a $15 living wage, predictable schedules, accommodations for health needs, and respect for all workers. Greenpeace stands in solidarity with the labor union in urging the retail giant to treat workers fairly from sea to factory to stores.
"Walmart is the world's largest retailer," said Randy Parraz, UFCW Campaign Director for Making Change at Walmart. "It is unacceptable that some workers in the US are paid so low they struggle to put food on tables and workers in Thai Union's supply chain abroad are subject to abuse. Walmart can and should do better."
A Walmart employee working with UFCW's Making Change at Walmart campaign who has encountered difficulties moving up and getting paid what she is worth spoke to a resolution on the AGM floor today. She urged Walmart to take responsibility for human rights abuse of workers and environmental impacts throughout its supply chains. The resolution, noting Walmart's connection to Thai Union, asked investors to vote for strong public commitments and policies from the retailer on canned tuna.
Over the last month Greenpeace activists have disrupted Thai Union's operations at multiple points in its supply chain. At Walmart stores in the U.S. and Canada, activists removed all Great Value and Chicken of the Sea canned tuna products from store shelves and interfered with their sale by hiding and pushing the products in carts around the store. Activists on Greenpeace's Esperanza ship removed and destroyed dozens of fish aggregating devices (FADs) -- destructive fishing gear that damages entire ecosystems -- from boats that supply Thai Union in the Indian Ocean. The ship crew also confronted a controversial vessel at the heart of Thai Union's supply chain and used spray paint to black out high-powered lights used for a fishing method linked to overfishing. And activists in France shut down and rebranded a Thai Union factory for 14 hours to prevent trucks from coming or going.
Walmart failed Greenpeace's 2015 U.S. canned tuna ranking for its sustainability and labor issues. The retailer also scored a mediocre 5.47/10 in Greenpeace's ninth edition of Carting Away the Oceans, which ranks retailers on seafood sustainability.
Greenpeace on Wednesday sent an investor briefing to top Walmart shareholders to detail concerns over Thai Union tuna. To access a media briefing on Walmart's canned tuna issues, please click here: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Walmart-Thai-Union-Canned-Tuna-Briefing.pdf
For photos and b-roll footage of the airship and billboard truck in Fayetteville, please click here: https://photo.greenpeace.org/collection/27MZIFJJ42LZ1
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000LATEST NEWS
House Dems Join GOP to Help Advance Deeper US-Israeli Military Integration
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza... Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector," said one critic.
Jun 04, 2026
A US congressional committee on Thursday rejected an amendment to strip a provision from next year's Pentagon funding bill aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli militaries under the guise of reducing aid.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to strike Section 224—which would establish a formal "United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative"—from the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. The proposed NDAA authorizes $1.15 trillion in baseline military spending, while the Trump administration’s full defense request seeks an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in armed forces and related funding for the coming fiscal year.
Section 224 would require the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology cooperation.
In Thursday's voice vote, members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) from both parties rejected the amendment to remove Section 2024 from the NDAA, with only Khanna and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) backing the measure.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—has called Section 224 "my plan."
While proponents of Section 224 contend that the measure would reduce US taxpayer funding for Israel, Khanna argued that the provision amounts to a blank check for a country that most Americans oppose sending more aid to.
“The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do," the congressman said Thursday while promoting his amendment. "The entire country of Israel has a GDP that is less than a single town in my district, yet somehow Netanyahu thinks he could tell the American people what we should do."
“I am for Team America," Khanna added. "I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that's what [President] Donald Trump ran on. That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”
In a letter to Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)—who is not on the HASC—Netanyahu said he is "heartened" by Section 224's plan to “develop a new Memorandum of Understanding with the United States government” that will reduce “US financial military assistance over the next decade” and replace it with “a new framework of joint defense cooperation, codevelopment, coproduction, and mutual investment."
The US has provided more than $20 billion in armed aid to Israel during the Biden and Trump administrations since Netanyahu launched the genocidal war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. The current 10-year Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel, signed in 2016 during former President Barack Obama's tenure, provided Israel with $38 billion in US military aid and expires in 2028.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—who has partnered with Khanna on introducing or supporting war powers resolutions aimed at curbing Trump's ability to wage unconstitutional wars in countries including Yemen, Venezuela, and Iran—said last month that if Section 224 made it out of committee, he would work with Khanna to "offer an amendment to strip it from the bill on the floor."
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is urging Americans to contact their members of Congress to tell them to reject Section 224.
"This is not 'America First.' It is Israel First," ADC argues on its website. "The resolution language attached to this proposal gives it away: it expresses support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s initiative to transition the US–Israel relationship toward mutual defense cooperation and joint economic investment. This language turns Congress into a vehicle for advancing Netanyahu’s agenda and asks the American people to treat it as their own national security policy."
"Section 224 would move US support for Israel away from the more transparent foreign aid framework and into a maze of Pentagon procurement, licensing, data-sharing, and backdoor deals that are harder for Congress, taxpayers, and future administrations to monitor, cap, condition, or unwind," the group continued. "Concerns of undefined 'network integration' and 'data fusion' should alarm every American who cares about sovereignty, privacy, civil liberties, and democratic oversight."
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, exporting surveillance technologies used against activists and journalists around the world, marketing military technology tested on Palestinians, and carrying out terrorist attacks as seen in the cell phone [bombings] in Lebanon, Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector and making accountability harder than ever," ADC added.
In an opinion piece published this week by Common Dreams, Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote that "lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel’s military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in the region."
"This unprecedented level of US-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of US military assistance," Freeman said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘The People of Lebanon Can’t Wait,’ Says Tlaib After Dem Leaders Join With GOP to Vote Down War Powers Resolutions
"Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion."
Jun 04, 2026
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries helped Republicans tank Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s war powers resolution to limit US military involvement in Lebanon on Thursday, holding up the effort to curb the conflict for at least another several weeks.
Despite Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushing deeper, with more than 3,500 people killed and 1.2 million displaced since early March, the Michigan Democrat's resolution was defeated in a 324-92 vote, with a large number in her own party joining Jeffries (D-NY) and the Republican majority against it.
In a joint statement shortly ahead of the vote on Tlaib's resolution, House Minority Leader Jeffries of New York, along with Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said: “We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah." The statement included no mention of Israel.
The lawmakers said they’d support a different resolution introduced by Tlaib on Wednesday, which was crafted in tandem with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That resolution likewise required President Donald Trump to remove US forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of passage. But it also added the caveat that it could not be construed to "prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Jeffries, Clark, and Aguilar said, "There are no US servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon."
However, supporters of Tlaib's original measure have noted that the US military is heavily involved in Israel's actions in the country without having boots on the ground.
"The US is actively cooperating with Israel on coordinating strikes, intelligence sharing, and planning, including Trump green-lighting major attacks on Lebanon multiple times," Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams.
While the resolution's passage wouldn't "end US involvement overnight," she said, "it fundamentally changes the landscape of accountability" by giving opponents of US collaboration a legal mechanism to conduct oversight.
And while the resolution would not cut off US military aid to Israel, Abou-Elias said Israel could continue its occupation "only for a limited period of time" without US assistance.
"Israel would be absorbing losses while also draining its broader manpower and firepower reserves," she said. "At some point, the cost-benefit of continuing their occupation without US support would shift."
Because war powers resolutions are privileged, they can be forced to a vote even without approval from the Republican majority.
However, committees are given 15 days to act before a resolution is forced onto the floor, followed by three days for a House vote. This means it could take until June 21 for the new version to pass. The Senate would also have to pass it, and it would then take another week to go into effect.
"The people of Lebanon can't wait another month for Congress to act," Tlaib said on social media following news that the proposal would be voted down. "Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion. Congress must pass today's Lebanon war powers resolution."
Abou-Elias said that despite the setback, Tlaib's introduction of the measure was not a wasted effort.
"Even if the resolution doesn't pass today, the vote forces every representative on record on the US participation in the attacks on Lebanon," she said. "That alone has value."
Though resolution failed, proponents of the measure championed the 92 lawmakers who did vote in favor.
“Congress’s failure to act has thus far enabled multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon and war crimes against Lebanese civilians,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, in a statement. “Tonight’s vote demonstrated that a growing block of members of Congress are beginning to listen to their constituents. Americans don’t want the US involved in atrocities against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, or anyone. This vote is just the beginning, and we will continue to organize until all of Congress acts to end these atrocities.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dem Confronts Trump Ag Secretary Over Claim That 4.5 Million Being Kicked Off SNAP is 'Good News'
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said US Rep. Shontel Brown.
Jun 04, 2026
Rep. Shontel Brown on Thursday confronted US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins for her past boasts about kicking millions of Americans off food assistance.
During a House Agriculture Committee hearing, Brown grilled Rollins for saying it was "good news" that 4.5 million fewer people are now enrolled in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) than before President Donald Trump took office last year.
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Brown. "Families and children are not leaving the SNAP program because they are doing better."
Rep. @ShontelMBrown: Recently, you described it as good news that roughly 4.5 million people have been moved off SNAP. The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. They are not doing better--
Rollins: They are. pic.twitter.com/qcB2WlAHLv
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 4, 2026
"They are," Rollins replied, without citing any evidence.
"They are being forced off because of eligibility changes, new administrative barriers, and states preparing for the enormous cost shift that they know is coming," Brown shot back. "And you know this. So I'm really struggling to understand why you think pulling the rug out from under children, seniors, veterans, and families that have fallen on hard times [is] good news."
Rollins then baselessly claimed that all of the people who had been removed from SNAP had been added to the program fraudulently, including "200,000 dead people."
The Associated Press last month published a fact check that examined a similar Rollins claim about the number of people removed from food assistance over the last year, and determined that the most likely culprit were changes made to the program by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a 2025 budget law that slashed funding to SNAP by $186 billion over a decade.
"What we’ve seen in terms of the data is that the trend in participation declines seems to be related to the program being harder to access,” Roger Figueroa, an assistant professor at Cornell University, explained to the AP.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular