December, 13 2017, 01:00pm EDT

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Headlines #ReplaceNAFTA Day-of-Action Event: Millions Nationwide Call for Successful Renegotiation to Eliminate Job Outsourcing Incentives, Add Strong Labor and Environmental Terms
Labor, Environmental, Faith, Consumer, Family Farm and Other Advocacy Groups and Activists Nationwide Drive Calls, Tweets and Emails to Congress During D.C. NAFTA Talks.
WASHINGTON
An event on Capitol Hill today launched the national #ReplaceNAFTA Day of Action during the last North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation talks in 2017, which are now underway in Washington, D.C. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), U.S. Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), and union and civil society leaders joined Americans nationwide calling, emailing and tweeting at Congress to demand a successful renegotiation of NAFTA to eliminate its outsourcing incentives and add strong labor and environmental terms.
NAFTA renegotiations have reached a pivot point. Business lobby groups are urging Mexico and Canada simply to ignore U.S. proposals to cut NAFTA's job outsourcing incentives and Buy American waiver, to limit Chinese content in NAFTA goods and to add a five-year review. The corporate strategy increases the chances that talks deadlock and President Donald Trump withdraws from NAFTA, which he has authority to do in no small part because Congress has delegated swaths of its constitutional trade authority to presidents in recent decades.
U.S. civil society groups and activists participating the #ReplaceNAFTA Day of Action are urging the administration to eliminate NAFTA's outsourcing incentives and add strong labor and environmental provisions that meet fundamental international standards, include swift and certain enforcement, and raise wages for all workers. Callers to Congress are demanding that a vote on a renegotiated NAFTA not be held until these essential standards are met.
Among key activities for this national NAFTA Day of Action and leading to it:
- On social media platforms, a #ReplaceNAFTA Thunderclap action reached more than 1.9 million people via Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr this morning.
- More than 70 organizations are taking part in the #ReplaceNAFTA day of action, emailing more than 10 million people to drive constituent calls to every U.S. House and Senate office.
- Public Citizen and the Citizens Trade Campaign have organized 15 town halls and independent field hearings on NAFTA's renegotiation across the country, giving voice to displaced workers, family farmers, immigrants, small business owners and others demanding replacement of NAFTA with a deal that works for them, not just large corporations.
- The #ReplaceNAFTA campaign has 675 people in 48 states doing boots-on-the-ground organizing. More than 400,000 Americans have signed #ReplaceNAFTA petitions demanding the elimination of NAFTA's corporate protections that promote job outsourcing.
- The Sierra Club, the nation's largest grassroots environmental group with more than 3 million members and supporters, is calling for a NAFTA replacement that protects people and the planet, not corporate polluters. Hundreds of thousands of supporters participated in the call-in day, building on the more than 100,000 calls and messages Sierra Club members and supporters have already sent to Congress this year on NAFTA.
- Communications Workers of America (CWA) activists are calling their senators on the day of action to ask them to hold U.S. trade negotiators to their promise that an updated NAFTA will raise standards and wages for workers in all three countries and stop providing incentives for multinational corporations to move jobs offshore. CWA members from every state are actively engaged in the fight for trade agreements that prioritize supporting working families and strengthening our communities.
Almost one million U.S. jobs have been certified as lost to NAFTA, with more outsourced every week to Mexico where wages are 9 percent lower than before NAFTA and a tenth of what they are in the United States and Canada.
Statements from Members of Congress:
"The biggest economic challenge of our time is that people are in jobs that do not pay them enough to live on - and NAFTA has only exacerbated that problem by allowing companies to outsource American jobs and pay workers even less," said DeLauro. "That is why NAFTA must be rewritten to raise wages and level the playing field for workers. We cannot let corporate special interests write the rules once again and rig this trade agreement against workers."
"Trade deals like NAFTA have decimated families and communities across North America, just so corporate executives can pocket even more in profits," said Ellison. "This is an opportunity to learn from what hasn't worked and come up with an approach to trade that serves the common good. We have to stand strong for a trade policy that lifts up workers, safeguards human rights and protects the environment, not one that simply hands more power and profit to massive corporations."
Statements from Participating Organizations:
"For millions of working families, NAFTA has meant lost jobs, closed factories and call centers, and lower wages, with most unable to find jobs that provide similar levels of pay and benefits. For communities, it's meant a loss of important public services and cuts in education and other programs as employers abandon cities and towns to relocate out of the country," said Chris Shelton, president of the Communications Workers of America. "CWA members understand what's at stake, and that's why we are leading the fight to make sure that a new NAFTA works for workers."
"Americans have had enough with trade deals that make it easier to outsource jobs to wherever workers are the most exploited and environmental regulations are the weakest," said Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of the Citizens Trade Campaign. "It's time to replace NAFTA with a new agreement that prioritizes the creation of good-paying jobs, the protection of human rights and increased wages for all working people. Central to that is ending NAFTA's outsourcing incentives, and the addition of labor and environmental provisions that are based on fundamental international standards and include swift and certain enforcement."
"Across the political spectrum, Americans reject the status quo of NAFTA helping corporations outsource more jobs to Mexico every week and attack health and environmental safeguards in secretive tribunals. We are fighting for a new deal that cuts NAFTA's job-outsourcing incentives and corporate tribunals and adds strong labor and environmental terms to level the playing field," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "The corporate lobby is urging Mexico and Canada not to engage on U.S. proposals to improve NAFTA, which increases the prospects that talks deadlock and President Trump withdraws."
"Congress must ensure that NAFTA renegotiations are used to stop the ongoing bleeding from NAFTA while also adding new protections for our environment, creating jobs and raising wages," said Murshed Zaheed, political director of CREDO. "If phony populist Donald Trump gets his way, NAFTA renegotiations will hand over even more power and wealth to the superrich and out-of-control mega-corporations."
"National Farmers Union and its 200,000 farm and ranch families support a renegotiated NAFTA that preserves duty-free market access for agricultural goods with Canada and Mexico, but fixes the flawed framework that has created a substantial trade deficit," said Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union. "Such an agreement should reinstate country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on meat and other food products and should only contain dispute settlement processes that are consistent with the U.S. judicial system."
"People will not stand by and let Donald Trump trade away their jobs, wages, climate, air and water to the highest corporate bidder," said Ben Beachy, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program. "To avoid the fate of the corporate-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership, NAFTA's replacement must reverse the outsourcing of jobs and pollution and protect workers and communities across borders by requiring swift enforcement of core international labor, environmental and climate standards."
"Trade agreements have human consequences. For more than 20 years, NAFTA has devastated Mexico's most vulnerable communities. People have been pushed out of their homes by economic, labor and environmental factors and forced to migrate in order to survive," said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice. "This renegotiation gives us an opportunity to address the desperate need for better agricultural policies as well as stricter labor and environmental guidelines. The U.S. should approach these negotiations with respect for human dignity. The effects of NAFTA transcend the economy and deeply affect the lives of people who need the benefits of trade the most. We must set things right for our communities; it is the faithful way forward."
"A renegotiated NAFTA must take concrete steps to raise labor and environmental standards throughout the continent," said Peter Knowlton, president of the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America. "It must increase Mexican workers' wages and eliminate repressive labor laws, including so-called 'right to work' laws in the U.S."
"NAFTA has failed farmers in all three of its partner countries - the U.S. Canada and Mexico - all the while lining the pockets of large-scale corporate agribusiness," said Juliette Majot, executive director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "At its very essence, trade is meant to improve the livelihoods of people residing in all partner countries. NAFTA never has. It is time for a new approach to trade aimed at ensuring fair prices to farmers and fair working conditions and livelihoods for farmworkers."
"As NAFTA renegotiations continue, it is more important than ever that we work together to find solutions to trade that protect workers, the environment and the common good," said Patrick Carolan, executive director of the Franciscan Action Network. "Rather than having a trade deal that benefits corporations looking to make a profit or gain more power, we must find ways to protect the most vulnerable that are in the best interests of workers, public health and the environment."
"NAFTA renegotiations need to be taken very seriously. They represent an opportunity to do what's right. We can eliminate incentives for companies to leave the United States and move jobs overseas, while strengthening the labor and environmental side agreements, turning them into something enforceable with teeth," said Gabriela Lemus, president of the Progressive Congress Action Fund. "NAFTA has greatly disrupted workers' lives in all three countries -- this is our opportunity to fix it."
"The underlying crisis afflicting rural America - rural poverty - is a result of federal agriculture, dairy, food and trade policies that do not provide farmers a fair price that cover our costs of production," said Brenda Cochran, a Pennsylvania dairy farmer with Progressive Agriculture Organization, a member organization of the National Family Farm Coalition. "Farmers do not need NAFTA - we need a fair price - and NAFTA should be terminated unless farmers and workers are paid fairly."
Organizations Participating in the #ReplaceNAFTA Day of Action Include:
AFL-CIO | Jobs with Justice |
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) | Just Foreign Policy |
Alcohol Justice | Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA) |
Alliance for Global Justice | National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) |
California Labor Federation | National Farmers Union (NFU) |
California Nurses | National Nurses United |
California Trade Justice | NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice |
Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (CDM) | NH Labor News |
Center for International Environmental Law | No Maiz Gringo |
Citizens Trade Campaign | Occupy the SEC |
Columban Advocacy | Oregon AFL-CIO |
Common Frontiers | Oregon Fair Trade |
Communication Workers of America (CWA) | Our Revolution |
Connecticut State Council of Machinists | Occupy Wall Street Special Projects Affinity Group |
CREDO | Pennsylvania Council of Churches Ministry of Public Witness |
CT Fair Trade Coalition | Pride At Work |
Demand Progress | Progress for All |
Democracy for CT | Progressive Congress Action Fund |
Fair World Project | Public Citizen |
Family Farm Defenders | Question your Shrimp |
Fight for $15 | Replace NAFTA |
Rock County Progressives | |
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center | |
Global Exchange | Sierra Club |
Global Progressive Hub | South Florida LCLAA |
Good Jobs Nation | Southeast Minnesota Area Labor Council, AFL-CIO |
Greater Boston Trade Justice | SumOfUs |
Green America | Teamsters |
IAMAW District Lodge 26 | 350 Seattle |
IBEW Local 1837 | United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) |
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy | United Steelworkers (USW) |
Institute for Policy Studies | Washington Fair Trade Coalition |
International Association of Machines and Aerospace Workers | Witness for Peace |
International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF) | Women's International League for Peace and Freedom |
Iowa99Media |
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST 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


