February, 03 2017, 03:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
For inquiries to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, contact Nick Pelosi, Director of Corporate Engagement, First Peoples Worldwide: standingrockdapl@gmail.com, 540-899-6545
For inquiries to the Indigenous Coalition at Standing Rock, contact Tara Houska, National Campaign Director, Honor the Earth: tara@honortheearth.org, 612-226-9404
For inquiries about the week of action and event logistics contact Vanessa Green, Individual Campaign Director, DivestInvest: vanessa@divestinvest.org, 617-230-8942
For inquiries about Amazon Watch's participation in this campaign, contact Moira Birss, Media and Communications Manager: moira@amazonwatch.org, 510-394-2041
Over 700,000 People Demand Banks Stop Financing the Dakota Access Pipeline
While Trump, Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics race to complete the pipeline, over 700,000 people say "No!" to the banks behind the project
Over 700,000 people have signed one of six petitions demanding that the banks financing the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) remove their support of the project. The figure includes individuals who collectively report having over US$2.3 billion invested in these banks through checking, mortgage, and credit card accounts, which they are ready to divest if the banks continue financing DAPL. Thousands have already closed their accounts at those banks, removing over US$55 million and counting.
With the Trump government exerting massive pressure on the US Army Corps of Engineers to ignore its own procedures and immediately issue the last permit needed to construct the final part of the Pipeline, and with Energy Transfer Partners expressing its intention to "complete construction of the pipeline without any additional rerouting in and around Lake Oahe", pressure is mounting on the banks involved.
The 17 banks involved in directly financing the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the many others providing credits to the companies behind the project, continue to find themselves targeted by campaigners demanding an end to their support for the project. Activists this week showed up in person at bank headquarters in New York, Montreal, Munich, Madrid, Amsterdam, San Francisco and elsewhere, demanding the withdrawal of the 17 banks involved in the construction loan to ETP. More actions are planned for next week in Washington DC, and Palo Alto, CA. A full list of ongoing #NoDAPL 2017 actions can be found here.
The 17 banks directly funding the construction of the DAPL are: Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ, BayernLB, BBVA, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Credit Agricole, DNB ASA, ICBC, ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, Mizuho Bank, Natixis, SMBC, Societe Generale, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, TD Bank, Wells Fargo.
In response, banks including ABN AMRO and ING have made public statements that they are ready to reconsider their relation with ETE. However, at the same time campaigners noted with dismay the renewed involvement of a number of banks in a new $2.2 billion refinancing loan to Energy Transfer Equity, led by Credit Suisse.
As pressure is mounting on the financiers of the project, The Sacred Stone Camp and their allies have vowed to stand their ground as long as DAPL construction equipment remains on Oceti Sakowin treaty land. The global coalition targeting the DAPL financiers has vowed to continue pressure on all banks funding fossils throughout 2017.
In support of these actions, leaders from the movements to stop DAPL made the following statements:
Leila Salazar Lopez, Executive Director, Amazon Watch:
"Indigenous peoples across the Americas, from Standing Rock to the Amazon, have for years been standing up against the destructive, racist practices of the fossil fuel industry. The number of people withdrawing their money from the banks supporting the Dakota Access pipeline is a clear signal to those banks that destructive fossil fuel projects are a bad financial, social, and environmental investment."
Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II:
"By attempting to fast track DAPL, President Trump has made it clear that his priorities lie with his wealthy contributors rather than the public interest. Banks now have an opportunity to take a stand against this reckless assault on our treaty rights and water, or be complicit and continue to lose millions."
Dallas Goldtooth, Keep It In the Ground Campaigner, Indigenous Environmental Network:
"President Trump wishes to fast-track the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline, against federal law and tribal treaty rights. Indigenous nations and communities will not be the sacrifice zones for President Trump's fossil fuel regime. We remain steadfast in our defense of our inherent rights and the protection of Mother Earth and we implore our allies to stand with us. We must remind the investors of this pipeline that they, via their financing, are threatening the lives of water protectors and it's time to be held accountable for that."
Judith LeBlanc, Director, Native Organizers Alliance and member of the Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma:
"The decision to build the Dakota Access Pipeline was made in the halls of power by a handful representing banks and corporations willing to sacrifice Mother Earth for profit. The decision to stop it will be made by the many, all across the world, who know that Mother Earth and water give us life. Time is now for investors to also stand for Mother Earth. We started at Standing Rock, now Standing Rock is everywhere."
Chase Iron Eyes, lead attorney, Lakota People's Law Project:
"It's inspiring to see the power of global currency being leveraged in the frontline movement at Standing Rock. Separate fights - defending clean drinking water, upholding constitutional freedoms, creating a new energy economy - are becoming one as people recognize and respond to the problem of banks using their money to finance human rights violations and brutality. If money rules the day then we will bring compassion to our capital by divesting."
Angus Wong, Campaign Manager, SumOfUs:
"Trump's green light of the destructive Dakota Pipeline is a corporate scheme to enrich himself and his corporate friends. But we know targeting banks to stop financing this dangerous pipeline works - two days after we delivered hundreds of thousands of SumOfUs members' signatures to Norway-based DNB bank headquarters in November, it pulled its assets in the pipeline. We hope DNB will again demonstrate leadership by committing to withdraw its project funding."
Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth US:
"The voices of Indigenous peoples have been ignored for too long - by the US government, corporations and big banks. By not acknowledging Indigenous peoples, these banks are perpetuating a pattern of colonialism and failing to respect Indigenous peoples' rights to Free, Prior and Informed Consent."
Vanessa Green, Director of DivestInvest Individual:
"DAPL is simply the wrong kind of investment, and people don't want their money behind it. With government mandates to scale up clean energy investments, a market increasingly supportive of a low carbon future, and unprecedented consumer and investor interest in moving money into climate and community solutions, the question now is which banks will lose the most in this historic energy transition."
Mary Sweeters, Climate Campaigner with Greenpeace USA:
"People across the world have pledged their solidarity with the Indigenous communities who reject this dirty pipeline and the threat it poses to the water and climate. The banks must choose whether they want to continue to invest their money in yesterday or listen to the millions of people who stand with Standing Rock."
Fran Teplitz, Executive Co-director of Green America:
"Now more than ever we need to move away from destructive fossil fuel pipelines and pursue a clean energy future. Indigenous communities are demonstrating heroic leadership by protecting water, the source of life, from the dangers of pipelines. We call on the government and banks to halt support for the Dakota Access Pipeline immediately."
Kristen Perry, Climate Justice Montreal Organizer:
"We need to stop funding projects which endanger water, land, and our communities, and instead follow the lead of defenders calling for direct action and support. It is crucial that we center justice for communities on the frontline of the crisis and the forefront of solutions, and pushing for divestment and the defunding of destructive projects is a tangible way for us to take action in solidarity with Indigenous communities across colonial borders."
Yago Martinez from Ecologistas en Accion:
"DAPL is not only a clear violation of Indigenous people's rights but also a major climate threat. We believe in the importance of international solidarity to achieve goals leading to global and climatic justice, and therefore we cannot fail to stand with Standing Rock. We must raise our voices. Banks from all over the world are involved in this destructive project and they must be held accountable."
Ruth Breech, Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network:
"The Dakota Access Pipeline is a morally and financially bankrupt project. If banks value Indigenous rights and free, prior and informed consent, they will leave this project immediately. We don't need another pipeline. We need financial institutions that are willing to take a stand and do the right thing-divest from the Dakota Access Pipeline."
Regine Richter of the German organisation urgewald:
"European banks involved in financing DAPL might think they are far enough away and can get off the hook from the protests. But here as well people are enthusiastic to stand with Standing Rock and protest against the loan, as we do this week at BayernLB."
Johan Frijns, Director BankTrack:
"The Dakota Access Pipeline is becoming a litmus test for all banks involved on how they let environmental, social and human impacts weigh in when considering finance for a particular project. In this case, the ongoing violation of the rights of the Sioux Tribe leave them no other option but to withdraw from the project."
Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
LATEST NEWS
Analysis Shows How GOP Attack on SNAP Could Cut Food Assistance 'From Millions' in Low-Income Households
"With economic uncertainty and the risk of recession rising, now is a particularly bad time for Congress to pursue these harmful changes," according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Apr 30, 2025
As congressional Republicans mull potentially imposing stricter work requirements for adults who rely on federal nutrition aid as part of a push to pass a GOP-backed reconciliation bill, an analysis from the progressive think tank the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released Wednesday states that such a move could take away food "from millions of people in low-income households" who are having a hard time finding steady employment or face hurdles to finding work.
The analysis is based on a proposal regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from House Agriculture Committee member Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), which, if enacted, the group estimates would translate into an estimated 6 million people being at risk of losing their food assistance.
"In total, nearly 11 million people—about 1 in 4 SNAP participants, including more than 4 million children and more than half a million adults aged 65 or older and adults with disabilities—live in households that would be at risk of losing at least some of their food assistance" under Johnson's proposed rules, according to the analysis.
Per CBPP, current SNAP rules mandate that most adults ages 18-54 without children may receive food benefits for only three months in a three-year period unless they prove they are participating in a 20-hour-per-week work program or prove they have a qualifying exemption.
Under Johnson's proposal, work requirements would apply to adults ages 18-65, and they would also be expanded to adults who have children over the age of seven. Per CBPP, Johnson's proposal would also "virtually eliminate" the ability of states to waive the three-month time limit in response to local labor market conditions, like in cases where there are insufficient jobs
According to CBPP, its report is based on analysis of "the number of participants meeting the age and other characteristics of the populations that would be newly subject to the work requirement under U.S. Department of Agriculture 2022 SNAP Household Characteristics data," as well as the number of participants potentially subject to work requirements in areas that are typically subject to the waivers mentioned above.
The House Agriculture Committee, which oversees SNAP—formerly known as food stamps—has been tasked with finding $230 billion in cuts as part of a House budget reconciliation plan. To come up with that amount, the committee would need to enact steep cuts to SNAP.
According to CBPP, most SNAP recipients who can work are already working, or are temporarily in between jobs. Per the report, U.S. Department of Agriculture data undercount the SNAP households who are working because the numbers come from SNAP's "Quality Control" sample, which gives point-in-time data about a household in a given month.
This snapshot does "not indicate whether a household had earnings before or after the sample month, nor do they show how long a household participates in SNAP."
What's more, "with economic uncertainty and the risk of recession rising, now is a particularly bad time for Congress to pursue these harmful changes," according to the authors of the analysis.
Keep ReadingShow Less
SOS: Migrants Awaiting Deportation Use Their Bodies to Cry for Help
The 31 men were nearly deported earlier this month before the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to return them to a detention facility in Texas.
Apr 30, 2025
Ten days after a U.S. Supreme Court order forced buses carrying dozens of Venezuelan migrants to an airport in Texas to immediately turn around and return them to Bluebonnet Detention Facility in the small city of Anson, 31 of the men formed the letters SOS by standing in the detention center's dirt yard.
As Reutersreported, the families of several of the men have denied that they are members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, contrary to the Trump administration's claims.
Immigration enforcement agents have detained and expelled numerous people with no criminal records, basing accusations that they're members of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 solely on the fact that they have tattoos in some cases.
After the reprieve from the Supreme Court earlier this month, with the justices ordering the government "not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court," the migrants still face potential deportation to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center under the Alien Enemies Act.
Reuters flew a drone over Bluebonnet in recent days to capture images of the migrants, after being denied access to the facility. One flight captured the men forming the letters—the internationally used distress signal.
Reuters spoke to one of the men, 19-year-old Jeferson Escalona, after identifying him with the drone images.
He was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in January and initially sent to the U.S. migrant detention center at Guantánamo Bay before being transferred to Bluebonnet. A Department of Homeland Security official said, without providing evidence, that he was a "self-admitted" member of Tren de Aragua, but Escalona vehemently denied the claim and told Reuters he had trained to be a police officer in Venezuela before coming to the United States.
"They're making false accusations about me. I don't belong to any gang," he told Reuters, adding that he has asked to return to his home country but has been denied.
"I fear for my life here," he told the outlet. "I want to go to Venezuela."
Earlier this month in a separate decision, the Supreme Court ruled that migrants being deported under the Alien Enemies Act must be provided with due process to challenge their removal.
"Remember," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council, "the Trump administration refuses to give these men a chance to day in court, despite the Supreme Court telling them that they must give people a chance to take their case in front of a judge!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Supreme Court Could OK Religious Public Charter School in Oklahoma
"Allowing taxpayer dollars to fund religious charter schools would put both public education and religious freedom at risk," warned one teachers union leader.
Apr 30, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments over what could become the country's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school—and opponents of the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School renewed their warnings about the proposal.
Faith leaders, parents, and educators celebrated last June, when the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against establishing St. Isidore. The test case for all such schools has now advanced to the country's highest court, which has a right-wing supermajority.
Reporting on over two hours of arguments Wednesday, Law Dork's Chris Geidner wrote that "the religious supremacy movement from the right's majority on the U.S. Supreme Court—with its outside helpers—appeared likely to... OK the first religious charter school in the country."
"Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh appeared eager to do so, and Justice Neil Gorsuch's past writing in a related case signaled his alignment with the move, at least in principle," Geidner detailed. "Chief Justice John Roberts—the key vote then since Justice Amy Coney Barrett has recused herself from the case—appeared to be open to the idea as well."
Other legal reporters also concluded that Roberts appears to be the "key vote," given that the three liberals—Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—all "expressed significant reservations" about allowing a religious charter school.
It appears very likely that the Supreme Court will force Oklahoma to approve and fund a Catholic charter school that reserves the right to indoctrinate students in Catholicism, force them to attend mass, and discriminate against non-Catholics. The three liberals sound increasingly exasperated.
— Mark Joseph Stern ( @mjsdc.bsky.social) April 30, 2025 at 11:52 AM
According toThe Associated Press:
If Roberts sides with the liberals, the court would be tied 4-4, an outcome that would leave the state court decision in place, but would leave the issue unresolved nationally.
If he joins his conservative colleagues, on the other hand, the court could find that the taxpayer-funded school is in line with a string of high court decisions that have allowed public funds to flow to religious entities. Those rulings were based on a different part of the First Amendment that protects religious freedom.
Roberts wrote the last three of those decisions. He acknowledged at one point that the court had previously ruled that states "couldn't exclude religious participants," suggesting support for St. Isidore.
But he also said the state's involvement in this case is "much more comprehensive" than in the earlier ones, a point that could lead him in the other direction.
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in a statement after the arguments that "we respect religious education and the Founders' intention in separating church and state."
"Public schools, including public charter schools, are funded by taxpayer dollars because they are dedicated to helping all—not just some—children have a shot at success," the union leader said. "They are the bedrock of our democracy, and states have long worked to ensure that they remain secular, open, and accessible to all. They are not, and never have been, Sunday schools."
"The petitioners are seeking to change that," Weingarten warned. "Religious schools should be able to operate in the U.S., but they are not public schools, and they shouldn't be able to get the benefits and the funding yet ignore the obligations and responsibilities."
"Our hope is that the justices will uphold the Supreme Court of Oklahoma's decision, correctly siding with religious pluralism over sectarianism," she concluded. "A reversal would be a devastating blow to public education and the 90% of young people who rely on it. We must preserve and nurture the roots of our democracy, not tear up its very foundations."
The country's other leading teachers union also opposes the establishment of the Oklahoma school. National Education Association president Becky Pringle said in a statement this week that "every student—no matter where they live, what they look like, or their religion—deserves access to a fully funded neighborhood public school that gives them a sense of belonging and prepares them with the lessons and life skills they need."
"Allowing taxpayer dollars to fund religious charter schools would put both public education and religious freedom at risk," Pringle asserted, "opening the door to more privatization that undermines our public education system."
Proud to join @faithfulamerica.bsky.social outside of SCOTUS ahead of oral arguments in the OK religious charter school case, which challenges whether public funds can be used to support religious charter schools. As religious Americans, we say the separation of church and state is good for both!
[image or embed]
— Interfaith Alliance (@interfaithalliance.org) April 30, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Chris Yarrell, an attorney at the Center for Law and Education, similarly warned in a Common Dreams opinion piece earlier this month that "if the court sides with St. Isidore, the ripple effects could be seismic, triggering a wave of religious charter school applications and fundamentally altering the landscape of public education."
In addition to fighting for a taxpayer-funded religious school, Christian nationalists in Oklahoma want to put Bibles in public school classrooms—an effort the state Supreme Court has temporarily impeded.
The court last month blocked Oklahoma's superintendent of public instruction, Ryan Walters, and education department from spending taxpayer dollars on Bibles and Bible-infused instructional materials.
“This victory is an important step toward protecting the religious freedom of every student and parent in Oklahoma," legal groups supporting plaintiffs who challenged the policy
said at the time. "Walters has been abusing his power, and the court checked those abuses today. Our diverse coalition of families and clergy remains united against Walters' extremism and in favor of a core First Amendment principle: the separation of church and state."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular