

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.
Today, youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a notice with a federal court in Oregon, naming Donald J.
Today, youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a notice with a federal court in Oregon, naming Donald J. Trump as a defendant in their landmark climate case on pace for trial this fall. Plaintiffs have substituted President Trump as a named party in place of former President Barack Obama under the Federal Rules.
In Juliana v. United States, 6:15-cv-1517-TC, 21 young plaintiffs sued the federal government for violating their constitutional rights and their rights to vital public trust resources. The complaint alleges the government locked in a fossil-fuel based national energy system for more than five decades with full knowledge of the extreme dangers it posed. The plaintiffs have been further emboldened by President Trump's blatant climate denialism, inspiring them in their fight to secure climate justice and a safe future.
"I look forward to taking on the Trump administration, as I think our new president, of all people, needs to have his power checked," said Kiran Ooommen, 20-year-old plaintiff from Eugene, OR. "President Trump benefits financially from the fossil fuel industry, but his benefit comes at a heavy cost for the rest of us. The policies of the U.S. government that ignore the threat of climate change are only going to get worse under the new presidency, based on Trump's apparent lack of understanding of climate science and his plans to invest further in the fossil fuel industry. I cannot imagine a better time than now to remind the federal government of its constitutional obligation to protect the life, liberty and property of the people, not big business."
"Our case is a direct constitutional challenge to a Trump administration at war with the reality of climate change and bent on pushing a deadly fossil fuel agenda at the expense of its citizens' safety and human rights. Climate science, not alternative facts, will determine the outcome of our court trial and that gives me hope for my children's generation and the future of this country," said Jacob Lebel, 20-year-old plaintiff from Roseburg, OR.
"I am hopeful that our case will reverse or prevent all damage our current president may inflict. I hope that our trial may shed light upon the issue of climate change, and educate the American populace on the difference between real and 'alternative' facts," said Aji Piper, 16-year-old plaintiff from Seattle.
"I watched in horror as President Trump fast-tracked the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines, despite their grave consequences for climate and indigenous rights," said Alex Loznak, 20-year-old plaintiff from Roseburg, Oregon. "I also fear his pledge to roll back President Obama's Clean Power Plan, 'cancel' the Paris Climate Agreement, and expand fossil fuel extraction on federal lands. These policies could spell disaster for the planet as it approaches critical tipping points such as the destabilization of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. At this historic juncture, the courts must act as a check on President Trump's power, and preserve the climate system upon which civilization and human life depend."
"We are ready to bring this case to trial with President Trump as a defendant. President Trump will not be able to perpetuate climate denialism in a court of law. That's just not going to happen," said Julia Olson, counsel for plaintiffs and executive director and chief legal counsel at Our Children's Trust.
Other recent pre-trial developments:
At the February 7 case management conference, Federal Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin made clear that the court will work closely with the parties throughout the pre-trial discovery process. He instructed all parties to prioritize expert discovery on the scientific components of the case and scheduled another status conference for March 8, 2017 at 10:00 am PST.
Judge Coffin encouraged all parties to streamline next steps to move the case to trial. At one point, Judge Coffin asked counsel for the fossil fuel industry if CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at 400 parts per million, as the federal government admitted. The fossil fuel attorneys responded that they did not know. Judge Coffin instructed counsel for the fossil fuel industry to determine whether they will contest facts that have been admitted by the federal government, including whether climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels.
At the end of the conference, counsel for the federal government surprised those in the courtroom when he stated the government is considering an early appeal of last fall's rulings denying motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs look forward to working diligently to complete discovery and have this case ready for trial in 2017.
[Photos from press conference following case management conference, available for use with attribution to Robin Loznak: https://robinloznak.zenfolio.com/p651541277]
On January 24, lawyers for the youth plaintiffs notified the United States government that it msut retain all documents, records, and tangible things relating to the plaintiffs' claims in their complaint. On Monday, Acting EPA Administrator Catherine McCabe confirmed, via Youtube, that documents and records would not be destroyed. McCabe said "We have taken no actions to delete data and we are taking steps to preserve and make available the scientific data and information that we have collected over the years..."
Our Children's Trust is a nonprofit organization advocating for urgent emissions reductions on behalf of youth and future generations, who have the most to lose if emissions are not reduced. OCT is spearheading the international human rights and environmental TRUST Campaign to compel governments to safeguard the atmosphere as a "public trust" resource. We use law, film, and media to elevate their compelling voices. Our ultimate goal is for governments to adopt and implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans with annual emissions reductions to return to an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 350 ppm.
"Let’s be clear — this proposal isn’t a compromise, it’s a capitulation," said one progressive lawmaker in the US House.
Fury on the progressive left and among lawmakers who opposed such "capitulation" to the Republican Party erupted overnight after a handful of Senate Democrats joined with their GOP counterparts in a procedural vote on Sunday night to end the government shutdown without gaining any meaningful concessions.
With the support of eight members of the Democratic caucus—Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Angus King of Maine, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire—Republicans in the upper chamber secured the necessary 60 votes needed to pass a cloture vote that paves the way for a deal critics warn does nothing to save Americans from soaring healthcare premiums unleashed due to the GOP spending bill passed earlier this year and signed into law by President Donald Trump.
“It is thoroughly disappointing that, while most Americans overwhelmingly oppose Republicans’ horrific budget, support the fight to curtail Trump’s authoritarianism, and want to protect healthcare, some Democrats failed to hold the line, and squandered an opportunity to score a popular and decisive win for the American people," said Lisa Gilbert, co-director of the progressive watchdog group Public Citizen.
The deal will combine three separate funding measures into a single stopgap bill that will reopen the government and keep it funded through the end of January of 2026, but contains no restoration of Medicaid funding, fails to curb Trump rescissions that have devastated government agencies and programs, and does nothing to address Affordable Care Act subsidies other than a "meaningless" promised vote to extend them within 40 days—a vote nearly sure to fail in the Senate and likely not even taken up in the US House, controlled by Republicans.
"What the election showed is that the American people want us to stand up to Trumpism—to his war against working people, to his authoritarianism. That is what people wanted, but tonight that is not what happened." —Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
"How absolutely pathetic," declared the Justice Democrats, an advocacy group that focuses on assisting progressive challengers willing to take on more establishment lawmakers in office. "Your voters expect you to hold the line for their basic healthcare and food benefits. This is just surrender. Every Senate Democrat that joined Republicans to pass this sold the American people out and we should make sure they have no future in public office."
"Let’s be clear — this proposal isn’t a compromise, it’s a capitulation," said Rep. Jonathan L. Jackson (D-Ill.). "Millions would lose their health coverage, and millions more would face skyrocketing premiums. The Senate should reject this misguided plan. In the House, my vote will be HELL NO."
The original Dem demands were:1) Permanent ACA subsidies2) Medicaid funding restored3) No more blank checks for the regime (rescission)They dropped Medicaid immediately. Went silent on rescission. Cut back to 1 year of subsidies on Friday. And surrendered today.The Senate Democrats!
— Ezra Levin ❌👑 (@ezralevin.bsky.social) November 9, 2025 at 9:29 PM
For Gilbert, the shutdown exhibited exactly "how far Republicans will go to demonstrate subservience to their authoritarian leader, even at the expense of the most basic needs of ordinary Americans. Republicans have destroyed affordable healthcare access for millions of Americans, and have allowed the President to weaponize hunger against millions more of our most vulnerable people, all so that they can bully through a budget that’s catapulting us towards a dystopian future of stark inequality."
While the shutdown may come to an end this week, Gilbert said it remains imperative that "everyone who cares about the well-being of Americans to use all the leverage they have to push back on Trump’s authoritarianism and his cannibalizing of the basic needs of Americans for the benefit of his corporate donors and billionaire friends."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who, like Sen. King of Maine, caucuses with the Democrats, called it a "very bad night" as he condemned the eight members of the caucus for making a "very, very bad vote" at a time when the political winds and the moral argument were clearly on the side of holding the line.
"What it does, first of all," said Sanders in a statement following the vote, "is it raises healthcare premiums for over 20 million Americans by doubling, and in some cases tripling or quadrupling. People can't afford that when we are already paying the highest prices in the world for healthcare. Number two, it paves the way for 15 million people to be thrown off of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act," citing a statistic that indicates over 50,000 people "will die unnecessarily each year" due to lack of adequate healthcare coverage.
"All of that was done," continued Sanders, "to give a $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1%." In a political context, Sanders noted that last week's electoral wins in numerous races across the country showed that voters are in the mood to reward lawmakers who stand up to President Donald Trump and his allies in Congress, rather than give in to them.
"What the election showed is that the American people want us to stand up to Trumpism—to his war against working people, to his authoritarianism," he said. "That is what people wanted, but tonight that is not what happened."
Democrats in the House, who had backed their Democratic colleagues for holding the line over 40 days in the Senate, fumed over the failure to keep going.
"Americans have endured the pain of the longest government shutdown in history for a 'deal' that guarantees nothing on healthcare," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.). "If Republicans wanted to vote to extend subsidies, they would’ve done it already. Capitulating is unacceptable."
"What Senate Dems who voted for this horseshit deal did was fuck over all the hard work people put in to Tuesday’s elections." —Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)
Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, voted "no" on the deal. Still, it's widely understood he was the driving force behind putting the agreement together and privately supported the eight lawmakers—none of whom are facing reelection in 2026—to cross over.
"Schumer voting 'no' for a shutdown deal he facilitated every step of the way," noted journalist Ken Klippenstein. "Just trying to keep his hands clean. Don't fall for it."
In the wake of the vote, others called for Schumer to resign or be primaried for capitulating to deliver practically nothing.
The surrender by Democrats in the Senate facilitated by Schumer, opined journalist Krystal Ball, "perfectly encapsulates why centrists are the problem for the party both substantively and electorally. After romping nationwide victories, the worst members of the Democratic caucus decided to abandon the healthcare fight, which hurts Americans and demobilizes their own base."
"This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless," said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.
President Donald Trump's Agriculture Department on Saturday threatened to penalize states that don't "immediately undo" steps taken to pay out full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November following a Supreme Court order that temporarily allowed the administration to withhold billions of dollars of aid.
In a memo, the US Department of Agriculture warned that "failure to comply" with the administration's directive "may result in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the federal share of state administrative costs and holding states liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that it appears the Trump administration is "demanding that food assistance be taken away from the households that have already received it."
"They would rather go door to door, taking away people's food, than do the right thing and fully fund SNAP for November so that struggling veterans, seniors, and children can keep food on the table," said Craig.
The USDA memo came after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that had required the Trump administration to distribute SNAP funds in full amid the ongoing government shutdown. SNAP is funded by the federal government and administered by states.
The administration took steps to comply with the district court order while also appealing it, sparking widespread confusion. Some states, including Massachusetts and California, moved quickly to distribute full benefits late last week. Some reported waking up Friday with full benefits in their accounts.
"In the dead of night, the Trump administration ordered states to stop issuing SNAP benefits," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in response to the Saturday USDA memo. "This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless."
Under the Trump administration's plan to only partially fund SNAP benefits for November, the average recipient will see a 61% cut to aid and millions will see their benefits reduced to zero, according to one analysis.
Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, stressed in a statement that "the Trump administration all along has had both the power and the authority to ensure that SNAP benefits continued uninterrupted, but chose not to act and to actively fight against providing this essential support."
"Meanwhile, millions of Americans already struggling to make ends meet have been left scrambling to feed their families," said FitzSimons. "Families and states are experiencing undue stress and anxiety with confusing messages coming from the administration. The Trump administration’s decision to continue to fight against providing SNAP benefits furthers the unprecedented humanitarian crisis driven by the loss of the nation’s most important and effective anti-hunger program."
"Trump said he’d leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.
Congressional Republicans are reportedly trying to insert anti-abortion language into government funding legislation as the shutdown continues, with the GOP and President Donald Trump digging in against a clean extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as insurance premiums surge.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, sounded the alarm on Saturday about what he characterized as the latest Republican sneak attack on reproductive rights.
"Republicans said they might vote to lower Americans’ healthcare costs, but only if we agree to include a backdoor national abortion ban," Wyden said in remarks on the Senate floor.
The senator was referring to a reported GOP demand that any extension of ACA subsidies must include language that bars the tax credits from being used to purchase plans that cover abortion care.
But as the health policy organization KFF has noted, the ACA already has "specific language that applies Hyde Amendment restrictions to the use of premium tax credits, limiting them to using federal funds to pay for abortions only in cases that endanger the life of the woman or that are a result of rape or incest."
"The ACA also explicitly allows states to bar all plans participating in the state marketplace from covering abortions, which 25 states have done since the ACA was signed into law in 2010," according to KFF.
Wyden said Saturday—which marked day 39 of the shutdown—that "Republicans are spinning a tale that the government is funding abortion."
"It's not," Wyden continued. "What Republicans are talking about putting on the table amounts to nothing short of a backdoor national abortion ban. Under this plan, Republicans could weaponize federal funding for any organization that does anything related to women’s reproductive healthcare. They could also weaponize the tax code by revoking non-profit status for these organizations."
"The possibilities are endless, but the results are the same: a complete and total restriction on abortion, courtesy of Republicans," the senator added. "Trump said he'd leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along."
The GOP effort to attach anti-abortion provisions to government funding legislation adds yet another hurdle in negotiations to end the shutdown, which the Trump administration has used to throttle federal nutrition assistance and accelerate its purge of the federal workforce.
Trump is also pushing a proposal that would differently distribute federal funds that would have otherwise gone toward the enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
"It sounds like it could be a plan for health accounts that could be used for insurance that doesn’t cover preexisting conditions, which could create a death spiral in ACA plans that do," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.