April, 28 2017, 12:15pm EDT

Trump Signs Executive Order Expanding Offshore Drilling, Puts Communities at Risk
Order could direct agencies to re-do the 5-year-plan that prevented Arctic, Pacific, and Atlantic drilling
WASHINGTON
Ahead of the Peoples Climate March and nearly 7 years to the day since the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Trump administration issued an executive order today directing federal agencies to revise the 5-year-plan for offshore drilling previously approved by the Obama administration. The order could expose the Atlantic, the Pacific, and Arctic coasts, which are excluded from the current plan, to future drilling.
On the Arctic, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts, communities have been working for years to stop offshore drilling, citing the impact of fossil fuels on health, safety, and the climate. Accidents like the massive BP Deepwater Horizon disaster have devastated coastal communities and led to lasting struggles for local economies. At a time when our climate can't afford any new fossil fuel infrastructure, opening more waters to offshore drilling would exacerbate the climate crisis and drive up the risk of disaster.
###
Quote Sheet:
Trip Van Noppen, Earthjustice President, said: "When President Obama withdrew irreplaceable and sensitive waters of the Arctic Ocean and important parts of the Atlantic Ocean from offshore drilling, it was a bold step in protecting these seas for our future and girding the global community against the worst effects of climate change. Any attempt to reopen these areas or expand offshore drilling elsewhere would be a step backward on climate progress, and would once again put coastal communities, irreplaceable wildlife, and our shared future at risk."
Rhea Suh, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: "This dangerous move is nothing more than a sellout to big oil and gas we've seen so much of in Trump's first 100 days. The American people don't want to abandon our oceans, coastal communities and all they support to industrial pollution and the peril of another BP oil spill catastrophe. They want these waters safeguarded. Attempting to open them to drilling chains us to dirty fossil fuels of our past and all the hazard, harm and climate damage they bring. Equally important, the president cannot, just by a stroke of his pen, with the stroke of his pen reverse the permanent, and legal, protection currently extended to these areas of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. We--and thousands that will march on Saturday for climate action--will fight this move, for our children's future and a livable world."
Patrick Carolan, Executive Director of the Franciscan Action Network, said: "Each time President Trump signs an executive order like this one, which could potentially lead to significant increases in offshore drilling and oil and gas exploration, he is sending a clear message that the welfare of people and the planet is not important to him. With the climate in an increasingly fragile state, and millions of the world's inhabitants already vulnerable to extreme weather and the food insecurity, homelessness, and disease that comes along with it, continued fossil fuel extraction is the most dangerous move we can possibly make. And yet, President Trump continues to roll out executive orders that support his dangerous agenda. As Franciscans, our call is to be stewards of this earth, to care for the least among us, and so our faith impels us to push back against regulations that threaten the health of people and our planet, as this latest executive order so clearly does."
Nancy Pyne, Climate and Energy Campaign Director at Oceana, said: "This latest executive order is yet another indication that the Trump administration is committed to doubling down on dirty and dangerous oil and gas development, instead of moving America towards clean energy alternatives like offshore wind. Coastal communities have made it clear--they are not willing to trade their thriving tourism and fishing-based economies for the false promises of the oil industry. As of today, more than 120 municipalities, over 1,200 elected officials, and an alliance representing over 35,000 businesses and 500,000 fishing families have publicly opposed offshore drilling and/or exploration along the East Coast. On the eve of the People's Climate March, as the specter of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster looms large, it is more important than ever to make sure that these voices are heard in Washington."
Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said: "The American people have made it loud and clear that they oppose offshore drilling. It is simply not worth the risk to our precious coastal environments and economies. At a time when our coasts are being battered by sea level rise, we need to be expanding our clean energy economy -- not increasing our reliance on dangerous new sources of fossil fuels."
May Boeve, 350.org Executive Director, said: "It takes a true climate denier to say that what our disappearing coastlines need are more oil rigs. Trump is trying to lock in decades more of dirty fossil fuel extraction, while science tells us we need to keep it in the ground. Arctic, Atlantic, and Gulf coast communities have fought hard to protect their water, their health, and the climate from Big Oil, refusing to be sacrifice zones. Now it's even more important for everyone to join the Peoples Climate March, push back on polluting projects like Keystone XL, and build the renewable energy future we need from the ground up."
Leah Donahey, Senior Campaign Director, Alaska Wilderness League, said: "President Trump's executive order to expand offshore drilling and potentially reverse protections in America's Arctic and Atlantic oceans, just gives us one more reason to take to the streets. As we have seen from the Deepwater Horizon disaster, when we drill, we spill and this means disaster for our coastal waters and communities."
Gene Karpinski, League of Conservation Voters President, said: "Donald Trump is once again showing that his presidency serves the interests of giant oil companies over the health, safety, and future of people across the United States. Allowing Big Oil to expand offshore drilling to the Atlantic, Arctic, and Pacific Oceans would put coastal economies and ways of life at risk of a devastating oil spill, while worsening the consequences of climate change. We must make smarter energy choices by further investing in clean energy to leave our kids a planet not damaged beyond repair instead of staking our future in places whose oil wouldn't reach consumers for decades. We will fight any attempt to expand risky offshore drilling."
Rev. Fletcher Harper, Executive Director of GreenFaith, said: "Morally decent leadership means restricting further fossil fuel development - not actively promoting it. This executive order makes it clear that this administration has the environment, and our shared future, in their crosshairs."
Elizabeth Yeampierre, Executive Director of UPROSE, said: "This administration has proven time and time again that they have no regard for the wellbeing of people or the earth we inhabit. Increasing off-shore drilling is reckless and has already proven detrimental to the environment and communities on the frontlines of climate change, i.e. low-income communities of color already over burdened by environmental hazards. It's only been 7 years since the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Have we learned nothing from that catastrophe? We wholeheartedly reject this administration's executive order on offshore drilling and oil and gas exploration. We are committed to fighting this administration's war on climate every step of the way."
Aura Vasquez, Director of Climate Justice at the Center for Popular Democracy, said: "Trump's administration will once again be endangering communities, this time on the Arctic, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts, all to advance the fossil fuel industry's agenda. Expanding offshore drilling would only bring more pollution and destruction, especially to those communities already feeling the impacts of the climate crisis. We can't let this administration dictate the faith of our planet. We must stand and let the world know that offshore drilling is dangerous and unnecessary. We should be supporting renewable energy infrastructure that can bring about equitable jobs and a healthy environment."
Annie Leonard, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA, said: "Opening new areas to offshore oil and gas drilling anywhere risks locking us into decades of harmful pollution, devastating spills, and a fossil fuel economy with no future. Scientific consensus is that the fossil fuel reserves off US coasts must remain undeveloped if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. This executive order from Trump is just the latest in a series of rollbacks that most people in this country do not want, and they only come at the behest of Trump's inner circle of desperate fossil fuel executives. Holing up at Mar-a-lago may protect Trump from an oil spill, but it will not protect his disastrous policies from the resistance and rejection of millions of Americans who demand better for themselves and their families."
Adrienne L. Hollis PhD, JD, Director of Federal Policy, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, said: "Increasing offshore drilling and oil and gas exploration is a recipe for disaster. It will dramatically increase the possibility of damaging health effects in frontline communities from water, soil, and air contamination. This Executive Order is just another in a line of legislative actions designed to strip away any protections communities may have and give more power to fossil fuel companies to control our environment. In the words of acclaimed American poet, storyteller, activist, and autobiographer Dr. Maya Angelou "when people show you who they are, believe them (the first time)." The Trump Administration has shown us that they do not care about the welfare of the people."
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.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


