

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.

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.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."