

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.

Karen Feridun, Berks Gas Truth, 610.678.7726, karen.feridun@gmail.com
Wes Gillingham, Catskill Mountainkeeper, 845.901.1029, wes@catskillmountainkeeper.org
Kate Kiely, NRDC, 212-727-4592, kkiely@nrdc.org.
Peter Hart, Food & Water Watch, 732.839.0871, phart@fwwatch.org,
Jeff Tittel, Director, New Jersey Sierra Club, 609.558.9100, jeff.tittel@sierraclub.org
David Pringle, Clean Water Action New Jersey, 732.996.4288 dpringle@cleanwater.org
Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, 215.369.1188x102 keepermaya@delawareriverkeeper.org
Barbara Arrindell, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, 845.252.6677 dcs@DamascusCitizens.org
Tracy Carluccio, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, 215.369.1188x104 tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org
Representatives of organizations and members of the public spoke directly to the Delaware River Basin Commissioners today during a comment period at the Delaware River Basin Commissioner's (DRBC) public business meeting demanding a just public input process for the draft fracking regulations and proposed ban on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River Watershed.
The DRBC issued draft natural gas regulations on November 30 that are open for public comment through 5:00pm, February 28, 2018. But the agency set a public input process that the public is heavily criticizing as very difficult to navigate. For example, there are only Public Hearings in two locations, both in Pennsylvania, both difficult to access, with no hearings in New York, New Jersey or Delaware and, for some inexplicable reason, it's required that people register on line by December 31- right in the middle of holidays - to speak at the January 23 and 25 Hearings. Written comments can only be submitted through an on-line system, prohibiting written comments to be filed through the postal service, email, or hand delivery. This gauntlet actually limits public access on the critical issue of whether or not fracking and all its activities, including frack wastewater dumping and water withdrawals for fracking, will be banned in the Basin - a decision that will indelibly impact the future of the Delaware River Watershed, the Wild and Scenic Delaware River, the communities throughout the Watershed, and the water supplies for 15 to 17 million people.
The proposed fracking rules were not on the agenda but people saw this as a rare opportunity to ask the Commissioners - who are the ultimate deciders at the DRBC - for changes that would add accessibility, time, and fairness to the public process on this crucial issue. This may be the only meeting with all of the Commissioners present during the draft fracking regulation public comment period.
"The process the DRBC has put in place is unjust. People throughout the basin feel strongly about preserving all of the protections that have been in place since 2010. They want a full fracking ban. They should be able to be heard regardless of whether or not they have access to computers to submit comments or have cars to get to difficult to access hearing locations. They should not have to travel for hours, miss work, or try to figure out how to pay for parking just to be able to participate in a process that is the public's one opportunity to be heard," said Karen Feridun, Founder of Berks Gas Truth.
"While there are many positives to the fracking regulations proposed by the DRBC, there is a lot that needs to be fixed in order for our watershed to be truly protected. Rather than present a process to allow people to bring forth the science, facts, and information needed for a good outcome, DRBC seems to be carefully crafting a process designed to shut people out. The process needs to be fixed and we are here today to ensure the Commissioners hear us on that point," said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper.
"DRBC seems to keep forgetting or caring that its charge is to protect the public's water and the public is its base. The proposed public process and the proposed fracking rules do not protect the public's water well enough and do not permit the public meaningful, plentiful public comment. DRBC needs more public hearings in more public places at more public friendly times in all the Delaware River Basin's regions and states," David Pringle, NJ Campaign Director, Clean Water Action.
"The DRBC needs to get the frack out of the Delaware Valley! Not only do we need a complete ban on fracking in the Valley, but they cannot allow fracking waste to be dumped here either. The purpose of a ban is to protect the drinking water for 17 million people. We can't do that if they steal our water for fracking or dump toxic chemicals into our waterways, " said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. "The DRBC needs to schedule more than just two hearings and extend the comment period to give citizens across the Basin a chance to play a part in the process. We're telling the DRBC to do their job to represent the people and protect the environment of the Basin!"
"That the DRBC is proposing to prohibit fracking is excellent, that the DRBC is making it a difficult and technology dependent process to comment on the proposed regulations is not good. No postal letters? Only hearings where there is no public transportation? And only two days of hearings and only at the extreme ends of the Basin? Is this even a legal process?" said Barbara Arrindell, Director, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability.
"Banning fracking while allowing frack waste and water withdrawals puts the drinking water for millions at risk," said Lena Smith of Food & Water Watch. "Any deal that would allow toxic, radioactive fracking waste into the watershed should be a non-starter for the governors responsible for protecting the Delaware River watershed."
"The DRBC has proposed regulations that will affect the future of our lives and this region for years. That is why we need easier access to making comments on these important regulations. They should allow for written comments, give us more hearings and ensure the people of this region have a voice the process," said Wes Gillingham, Associate Director, Catskill Mountainkeeper.
"A fracking ban would be historic, but these regulations still put drinking water at risk of contamination from the cocktail of chemicals found in wastewater," said Kimberly Ong, Staff Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council. "The public deserves a real chance to share the concerns they have about how fracking--and everything that goes with it--would impact their health and communities."
"One of the most important decisions to ever be made by the DRBC regarding the water resources of the Delaware River Watershed - a frack ban and proposed regulations - requires a robust and inclusive public participation process. Everything from the scarcity of public hearings to the restrictive logistics of submitting verbal and written comment, to the short length of time of the comment period, especially considering the holidays, is unjust and limits public input. This is so wrong but can be easily transformed into an open and fair process if the Commissioners listen to the public's plea for the opportunity to meaningfully participate," said Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director, Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
To see the letter filed with the DRBC for public input process changes, go here: https://bit.ly/2AqjQ2H and to see some Talking Points about the unfair process, go here: https://bit.ly/2kZcUlT.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500"His campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for."
Amid calls for ousting Democratic congressional leadership because the party caved in the government shutdown fight over healthcare, a YouGov poll released Monday shows the nationwide popularity of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's economic agenda.
Mamdani beat former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in both the June Democratic primary and last week's general election by campaigning unapologetically as a democratic socialist dedicated to making the nation's largest city more affordable for working people.
Multiple polls have suggested that Mamdani's progressive platform offers Democrats across the United States a roadmap for candidates in next year's midterms and beyond. As NYC's next mayor began assembling his team and the movement that worked to elect him created a group to keep fighting for his ambitious agenda, YouGov surveyed 1,133 US adults after his victory.
While just 31% of those surveyed said they would have voted for Mamdani—more than any other candidate—and the same share said they would vote for a candidate who identified as a "democratic socialist," the policies he ran on garnered far more support.
YouGov found:
Data for Progress similarly surveyed 1,228 likely voters from across the United States about key pieces of Mamdani's platform before his win. The think tank found that large majorities of Americans support efforts to build more affordable housing, higher taxes for corporations as well as millionaires and billionaires, and free childcare, among other policies.

"There's a common refrain from some pundits to dismiss Mamdani's victory as a quirk of New York City politics rather than a sign of something bigger," Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell wrote last week. "But his campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for. The lesson isn't that every candidate should mimic his style—you can't fake authenticity—but that voters everywhere respond when a candidate connects economic populism to clear, actionable goals."
"Candidates closer to the center are running on an affordability message as well," he noted, pointing to Democrat Mikie Sherrill's gubernatorial victory in New Jersey. "When a center-left figure like Sherill is running on taking on corporate power, it underscores how central economic populism has become across the political spectrum. Her message may have been less fiery than Mamdani's, but she drew from a similar well of voter frustration over rising costs and corporate influence. In doing so, Sherrill demonstrated to voters that her administration would play an active role in lowering costs—something that voters nationwide overwhelmingly believe the government should be doing."
"When guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors," said one critic.
Progressive anger and calls for primary challenges followed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' Monday endorsement of top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer—under whose leadership numerous Democratic lawmakers caved to Republicans to pave the way to ending the government shutdown without winning any meaningful concessions.
As progressives demanded the resignation or ouster of Schumer (D-NY), Jeffries (D-NY) was asked during a press conference whether the 74-year-old senator is effective and whether he should remain as the upper chamber's minority leader.
"Yes and yes," replied Jeffries. "As I've indicated, listen, Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats over the last seven weeks have waged a valiant fight on behalf of the American people."
"I don't think that the House Democratic Caucus is prepared to support a promise, a wing and a prayer, from folks who have been devastating the healthcare of the American people for years," he said.
Asked if he thinks Schumer is effective and should keep his job, Hakeem Jeffries replies: "Yes and yes."
[image or embed]
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein.bsky.social) November 10, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Both Schumer and Jeffries say they will vote "no" on the the GOP bill to end the shutdown.
Activist and former Democratic National Committee Co-Vice Chair David Hogg said on social media that Schumer's "number one job is to control his caucus," and "he can't do that."
Eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus—Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), John Fetterman (Pa.), Maggie Hassan (NH), Tim Kaine (Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH)—enabled their Republican colleagues to secure the 60 votes needed for a cloture vote to advance legislation to end the shutdown.
Critics say the proposal does nothing to spare Americans from soaring healthcare premiums unleashed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July.
"Standing up to a tyrant—who is willing to impose pain as leverage to compel loyalty or acquiescence—is hard," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Monday. "You can convince yourself that yielding stops the pain and brings you back to 'normal.' But there is no 'normal.' Submission emboldens the tyrant. The threat grows."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on X: "Sen. Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?"
New York City Councilman Chi Ossé (D-36)—who on Sunday said that Schumer and Senate Democrats "failed Americans" by capitulating to "MAGA fascists"—laughed off Jeffries' ringing endorsement of Schumer's leadership.
Former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner called Jeffries and Schumer "controlled opposition" while demanding that they both "step down."
The progressive political action group Our Revolution published a survey last week showing overwhelming grassroots support for running primary challenges to Schumer and Jeffries. The poll revealed that 90% of respondents want Schumer to step down as leader, while 92% would support a primary challenge against him when he’s next up for reelection in 2028. Meanwhile, 70% of respondents said Jeffries should step aside, with 77% backing a primary challenge.
Turner also called for a ban on corporate money in politics and ousting "corporate politicians."
Left Reckoning podcast host Matt Lech said on X that "when guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors."
In a letter to the British public broadcaster, Trump cited a memo from a Conservative Party-linked former BBC adviser who claimed the network displayed an "anti-Israel" bias, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
The BBC in the United Kingdom is the latest target of US President Donald Trump's attempts to root out all unflattering portrayals of him from media coverage, with the president citing a memo penned by a former BBC adviser reported to have ties to the British Conservative Party.
Trump wrote to the BBC Monday, warning that he would file a lawsuit demanding $1 billion in damages unless the publicly funded broadcaster retracts a documentary film about him from last year, issues a formal apology, and pays him an amount that would “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”
The president gave the network until Friday to act in regard to Trump's complaint about a section of the film Trump: A Second Chance? by the long-running current affairs series Panorama.
The film was broadcast days before the 2024 US election, and included excerpts from the speech Trump gave to his supporters on January 6, 2021 just before thousands of them proceeded to the US Capitol to try to stop the election results from being certified.
It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the speech that were made about 50 minutes apart, making it appear that Trump urged supporters to march with him to the Capitol and called for violence.
"We’re going to walk down to the Capitol... and I’ll be there with you... and we fight. We fight like hell," Trump is shown saying in the edited footage.
In the unedited quote, Trump said, "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
BBC chairman Samir Shah said the network's standards committee had discussed the editing of the clips earlier this year and had expressed concerns to the Panorama team. The film is no longer available online at the BBC's website.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity. It’s a power play... It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
“We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action," said Shah. "The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment.”
Two top executives, director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, also resigned on Sunday under pressure over the documentary.
The uproar comes days after the right-wing Daily Telegraph published details from a memo by former BBC standards committee adviser Michael Prescott, "managing director at PR agency Hanover Communications, whose staff have gone on to work for the Conservative Party," according to Novara Media.
Prescott's memo took aim at the documentary as well as what he claimed was a pro-transgender bias in BBC news coverage and an anti-Israel bias in stories by the BBC's Arabic service.
According to the Guardian, Robbie Gibb, a member of the BBC board who previously worked as a communications official for former Tory Prime Minister Theresa May, "amplified" the criticisms in Prescott's memo in key board meetings ahead of Davie's and Turness' resignations.
Deadline reported Monday that "insiders" at the BBC have alleged that Prescott's memo, the resignations, and Trump's threat of legal action all stem from a right-wing "coup" attempt at the broadcaster.
Journalists including Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo News and Mikey Smith of The Mirror noted that while Panorama's editing of Trump's speech could be seen as misleading, the documentary wasn't responsible for accusations that the president incited violence on January 6, which pre-dated the film.
"To understand how insane it is that the BBC is being accused of ‘making it look like’ Trump was inciting violence with their bad edit, as opposed to Trump actually having incited violence, we know even his own kids that day were desperately trying to get him to call off the mob," said Hasan.
Others suggested the memo cited in Trump's letter to the broadcaster should be discredited entirely for its claim that the BBC has exhibited an anti-Israel bias—an allegation, said author and international relations professor Norrie MacQueen, that amounted to "an entirely new level" of George Orwell's "newspeak."
While the BBC "has been shaken by one of the smallest of its sins," wrote media analyst Faisal Hanif at Middle East Eye, "the greater one—its distortion of Palestinian reality—goes unpunished."
Hanif pointed to a report published in June by the Center for Media Monitoring, which showed that despite Gaza suffering 34 times more casualties than Israel since October 2023, the BBC "gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanizing victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs. 201 Israelis)."
The network also used "emotive terms four times more for Israeli victims" and shut down allegations that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, as well as "making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements," even as Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity," wrote Hanif. "It’s a power play: the disciplining of a public broadcaster that still, nominally, answers to the public rather than the billionaire-owned media. It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
"The BBC is punished for the wrong things. It loses its leaders over an editing error, while escaping accountability for its editorial failures on Gaza," Hanif continued. "The Trump documentary might have been misedited, but the story of Gaza has been mistold for far longer. If the BBC still believes in its own motto—'Nation shall speak peace unto nation'—then peace must begin with honesty."