

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.

Emilie Surrusco, Earthjustice, eksurrusco@gmail.com, (202) 341-8787
Abbie Marks, Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, basinkeeper@gmail.com, (225) 685-9439
Maia Raposo, Waterkeeper Alliance, mraposo@waterkeeper.org, (203) 824-2229
Dustin Renaud, Gulf Restoration Network, dustin@healthygulf.org, (504) 525-1528 x214
Representing the interests of the millions of people who use, visit, study and rely on the Atchafalaya Great River Swamp, several groups today asked a Louisiana federal district court to vacate a recent decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that would allow the controversial Bayou Bridge pipeline to be constructed through the Atchafalaya Basin, one of the nation's ecological crown jewels, and through hundreds of Louisiana's streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands and bayous.
"Not only is the Atchafalaya Basin the most important ecosystem for neotropical migratory birds in the western hemisphere, but it is also critically important to protect much of south Louisiana and the Mississippi valley from major river floods. By allowing unsustainable development in the Basin, we are endangering hundreds of cities and communities and millions of people in southern Louisiana," proclaims Dean Wilson, Executive Director of Atchafalaya Basinkeeper.
The groups - Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, the Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association (West), Gulf Restoration Network, Waterkeeper Alliance, Sierra Club and their lawyers at Earthjustice - filed a lawsuit on Thursday to keep construction of the pipeline from moving forward. The lawsuit claims that the 162-mile pipeline would pose a serious threat, with risks of oil spills into wetlands, rivers and lakes; as well as the potential for permanent destruction of invaluable cypress and tupelo river swamps.
The pipeline project proposes to connect the controversial Dakota Access pipeline, which transports volatile and explosive Bakken crude oil from North Dakota, to refineries in St. James Parish and export terminals, forming the southern leg of the Bakken Pipeline. Energy Transfer Partners owns both the Dakota Access Pipeline and the proposed Bayou Bridge Pipeline.
"Energy Transfer Partners wants to bring its toxic mix of incompetence and greed to one of the nation's crown jewel landscapes--the Atchafalaya Basin," says Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice attorney for the plaintiffs. "The Corps refusal to look closely at the risks of this project is not just short-sighted, it's illegal."
The Atchafalaya Basin's bottomland hardwoods, cypress swamps, bayous and backwater lakes are some of the country's most productive wildlife habitats - home to 45 species of mammals, 250 species of birds and 40 species of reptiles - and a vital part of the region's economy, with tourism and travel expenditures that exceed $400 million annually.
"For too long, companies like Energy Transfer Partners have profited from the build-out of pipelines and lax enforcement by the government, while local communities and economies pay the price," said Marc Yaggi, Executive Director of Waterkeeper Alliance. "When it comes to oil pipelines, the sad reality is that it is not so much a question of if a spill will occur, but when. It's preposterous to put communities and our natural resources at risk for the sake of industrial polluters' profits."
"Oil and gas pipelines, and the spoil banks and canals associated with their construction, have degraded or destroyed extensive portions of the Basin's wetlands and waterways," the complaint reads.
The proposed pipeline threatens to further degrade forested swamps in the Atchafalaya Basin, and destroy wild crawfish habitat by making permanent illegal spoil banks that are already destroying swamps along the Bayou Bridge pipeline right-of-way. Before any more pipelines are built in the Basin, the Corps needs to enforce existing permits and bring illegal rights-of-way back into compliance.
"We have a right to a healthy environment. If the Cajun people of Louisiana had challenged the first pipeline when it came through Louisiana, we wouldn't be facing the environmental mess that we have in coastal Louisiana and the Atchafalaya Basin," said Jody Meche, a commercial crawfisherman with the Louisiana Crawfish Producer's Association, West. "It is the right thing to do to challenge the construction of a new pipeline by Energy Transfer Partners, which has a track record of flagrantly violating environmental laws."
The overall health of the basin would be threatened by potential leaks and spills - a routine occurrence for old and new pipelines. One study revealed an average of 20 major spills occur in Louisiana each year. In addition, federal data shows that Energy Transfer Partners and its subsidiary Sunoco Inc. were responsible for 329 "significant" pipeline incidents across the country in the last decade.
"The destruction of these wetlands, in direct opposition to the Louisiana Coastal Master Plan, would further weaken the state's storm defenses. Impacts to wetland forests are not 'temporary,' especially granted the severe hydrological alterations within the Atchafalaya Basin," said Scott Eustis of Gulf Restoration Network.
Despite repeated requests for adequate environmental review, the Corps issued permits and authorizations for the pipeline on December 14, 2017 without requiring an Environmental Impact Statement--a violation of the Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Protection Act, according to the complaint.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"It’s shameful that wealthy shareholders and executives are profiting while American families pay through the roof for groceries, gas, and rent."
A group of Senate Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation to hike taxes on US corporations that buy back their own stock as a new analysis estimated that major companies have spent nearly $5 trillion on share repurchases since President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts took effect.
The Democratic legislation, titled the Stock Buyback Accountability Act of 2026, would increase the current stock buyback excise tax from 1% to 4%, a change that experts say would raise around $240 billion in revenue over a 10-year period and likely dissuade some companies from engaging in buybacks, which artificially inflate share prices and further enrich shareholders and executives.
“After getting massive tax breaks from Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress, giant corporations are turning around and delivering stock buybacks at record highs,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who joined Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in introducing the new bill to rein in what they called corporate America's "stock buyback bonanza."
“It’s shameful that wealthy shareholders and executives are profiting while American families pay through the roof for groceries, gas, and rent," said Warren. "This bill is an important step forward in making corporations pay their fair share."
The legislation's release coincided with an analysis conducted by the advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF), which found that 100 of the largest corporations in the US have spent a combined $4.8 trillion on stock buybacks in the eight years since enactment of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law.
"Every time Republicans sweep an election they shower corporations with new tax breaks, and then corporations shower their wealthy shareholders and executives with new stock buybacks."
Just 10 companies—Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Meta, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Oracle, Nvidia, and Visa—were responsible for more than $2 trillion of the $4.8 trillion in total buybacks since 2017, ATF noted. The group estimated that, had the Stock Buyback Accountability Act been in place over the past eight years, the federal government could have raised around $200 billion in revenue from the 100 big corporations examined in the new analysis.
“The huge tax cuts corporations received from the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law—which were supposed to be used to increase employee pay and business investment—have instead been wasted on trillions of dollars of stock buybacks,” said ATF executive director David Kass. “Stock buybacks widen economic inequality by making already wealthy shareholders even richer. We need the Stock Buyback Accountability Act now more than ever.”
Stock buybacks were effectively prohibited in the US until 1982, as they were considered a form of market manipulation. Over four decades later, in 2025, stock buybacks by American companies surpassed $1 trillion—a record high.
"Every time Republicans sweep an election they shower corporations with new tax breaks, and then corporations shower their wealthy shareholders and executives with new stock buybacks," Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday. "We need to dial up the tax on these buybacks, and if corporations decide they’re better off investing in workers and long-term growth, that’s a great outcome.”
ATF noted in its analysis that "the resulting rise in stock price created by a buyback is not taxed unless the stock is sold."
"With the top 5% of households owning 70% of all stocks, that is a big benefit for wealthy investors, who prefer the unrealized income which comes from buybacks to the traditional corporate dividends that are paid out and taxed on an annual basis," the group observed.
"The Trump administration has once again found an avenue to tilt the scales in favor of corporate interests even as millions struggle to believe in the dream of America."
A report released Thursday reveals that the Trump administration has been using the United States' 250th birthday as an opportunity to shovel more than $100 million in federal contracts and grants to "a network of politicized entities under the control of Trump administration officials and political allies."
The report, produced jointly by researchers at Public Citizen and the Revolving Door Project, reveals how Freedom 250, an organization created by Trump loyalists last year after a failed effort to take over the congressionally-authorized America 250, has been raising money to create a "Trumpified" semiquincentennial celebration.
Since October, the administration has handed out contracts and grants worth nearly $103 million to entities that are either controlled or influenced by Trump insiders including Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, 2024 campaign manager Chris LaCivita, and former campaign finance director Meredith O’Rourke.
In addition to receiving taxpayer cash, Freedom 250 is getting undisclosed amounts in private funding from corporations including ExxonMobil, Oracle, Lockheed Martin, Palantir, and United Airlines, all of which have major regulatory issues before the federal government.
"Freedom 250’s ongoing efforts to raise private money raise a slate of ethics and transparency concerns about whether Trump and his allies are soliciting donations in exchange for access to the administration, including the president," the report notes, "especially since many of the corporations that have joined have major business dealings currently before the administration."
Alan Zibel, research director with Public Citizen and co-author of the report, said that Freedom 250's entire operation revolved around creating a "Trumpified version of the 250th anniversary" that is "mostly about lionizing Trump and catering to his political base."
"The 250th anniversary of the country should be a moment to reflect on the values of the nation," added Zibel. "Apparently, the Trump administration is replacing those values with grift, self-dealing, and enriching friends with taxpayer dollars."
Toni Aguilar Rosenthal, program director with the Revolving Door Project and report co-author, remarked that the Freedom 250 celebrations fit a lifelong Trump pattern of "obsessively scarring everything in his path with his likeness, his name, and his gaudy, dictatorial taste in faux gilding."
"The Trump administration has once again found an avenue to tilt the scales in favor of corporate interests," Rosenthal added, "even as millions struggle to believe in the dream of America 250 years after the signing of the [Declaration of Independence]."
A Thursday report in The Atlantic detailed the tensions between Freedom 250 and America 250, which is still planning to put on its own events in a spirit of nonpartisan celebration of the United States.
While some Republican members of America 250, including former Trump White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, have been trying to make peace with the more MAGA-centric Freedom 250 operation, that hasn't stopped Trump loyalists from taking shots at the group.
"America250 can’t get over the fact that Trump won,” former Trump campaign manager LaCivita told The Atlantic. “They want to apologize for America’s 250th. We don’t.”
Florida's constitution explicitly bans partisan gerrymandering. But a court full of DeSantis appointees just upheld maps that give the GOP 24 of the state's 28 seats with no time to reverse it before November.
In defiance of state law and the will of voters, the Florida Supreme Court has handed Republicans another major win in the redistricting wars in time for this year’s midterms, approving a ruthlessly gerrymandered map that could hand another four US House seats to the GOP.
Florida’s state constitution is unusually explicit in its ban on partisan gerrymandering; the Fair Districts Amendment (FDA) approved in 2010 by 63% of voters expressly states that maps may not be drawn “with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.” The court has struck down previous attempts by Republicans to draw more favorable maps on these grounds as recently as 2015.
But six of the seven justices that make up the current court have been appointed by Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. And when voting rights groups challenged a new map signed by the governor last month that is projected to give Republicans an advantage in 24 of the state’s 28 House districts, the right-wing court gave DeSantis what he wanted.
By a 6-1 ruling, the court on Wednesday declined to rule on the merits of the case, denying opponents' request for an emergency injunction, with the majority arguing that, despite the rapidly approaching election, this was not enough of a reason to rule on it while it's still being reviewed by a lower court.
The lone dissenter, Justice Jorge Labarga, who happens to be the only justice not appointed by DeSantis, argued that the case could be reviewed under the court's "pass-through" provision, which allows the court to expedite rulings on matters of great public importance.
"Surely," he said, "the upcoming 2026 congressional elections affecting the representation of millions of Floridians meet that threshold.”
With the state’s primaries set for August 18, this virtually guarantees that, despite its unconstitutionality, the map will be in place come November, as Republicans across the nation try to "pack and crack" enough Democratic strongholds to cling to control of the House in 2026.
In a post to social media, Florida's Republican Attorney General, James Uthmeier, celebrated the order as a “COMPLETE AND TOTAL VICTORY.”
The Florida Supreme Court has REJECTED the challenge to the state’s redistricting plan and new map.
This assures that the recently enacted map will be in place for the 2026 election.
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) June 10, 2026
Opponents of the map—including Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and the League of United Latin American Citizens—have said that the governor has made no effort to hide the overtly partisan nature of his redistricting push, which he carried out rapidly under an emergency session of the state legislature without public input.
In their lawsuit last month, they pointed out that the governor himself provided a color-coded version of the map to Fox News to highlight projected GOP gains—although Republicans won just under 57% of votes in House elections across Florida in 2024, they’d be expected to control nearly 86% of seats under the new maps.
Meanwhile, Jason Poreda, a senior DeSantis adviser who has described himself as the map's "drawer" has acknowledged that he used "partisan data" to draw the map in spite of the FDA.
As is the case with many of the maps drawn to maximize GOP power, DeSantis' cracks up majority-minority districts, including one predominantly Black district in Palm Beach and Broward County, and splinters the Orlando-Kissimmee area's Latino community across four districts.
And here is the new Florida congressional map in Dave's Redistricting: https://t.co/fTqDHjncwz pic.twitter.com/UTxflFazT0
— The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet) June 10, 2026
“The fact that this is a partisan gerrymander is as obvious as it is unconstitutional,” said Bradley Heard, deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represented the plaintiffs last month. “And while this unnecessary map is egregious in how it advantages Republicans and disadvantages Democrats, the people who will suffer the most if it is allowed to stand are once again Black and Brown communities, whose voices are consistently silenced in these redistricting battles."
Florida Circuit Judge Joshua Hawkes, a DeSantis appointee who upheld the maps last month, declined to weigh in substantively on the question of whether the new map violated the FDA, but said it was more in line with the maps favored by the US Supreme Court in the recent Louisiana v. Callais decision, which struck at the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by effectively ending protections for districts drawn to give representation to nonwhite voters.
While Hawkes also did not weigh in on Republican arguments that the entire FDA should be thrown out because of Callais, he said it was ultimately fine for the court to defer ruling on DeSantis' map because "to the extent the court has to balance Florida’s FDA prohibition of improper partisan intent and the United States Constitution’s Equal Protection guarantees, it seems clear that the potential partisan intent is the lesser of the two evils."
The Callais decision has given Republicans a decisive upper hand in the redistricting wars that were kicked off last year when President Donald Trump called on red states to enact unprecedented hyperpartisan gerrymanders in an effort to beat back an expected Democratic wave in 2026.
An aggressive and explicitly racial gerrymander in Texas enacted without voter approval was upheld by the US Supreme Court last month, netting the GOP an expected five seats, and six other red states have redrawn maps to likely squeeze in one new Republican seat apiece.
And while GOP gains have been somewhat offset by California voters' approval of an amendment to allow Democrats to draw their own hyperpartisan maps, the US Supreme Court's refusal to stop the Virginia state supreme court from striking down of a voter-approved Democratic gerrymander dealt a critical blow to efforts to even the score, and Democrats have vanishingly few opportunities to make up ground before the coming midterms.
Florida Republicans blatantly violate their constitution and brutally gerrymander their map without a single vote = 100% legal.
Virginians vote to change their constitution so they can temporarily offset right wing gerrymandering = 100% illegal.
America is a banana republic. https://t.co/vTer29RSqQ
— Micah Erfan (@micah_erfan) June 11, 2026
Florida represents yet another notch in the win column for Republicans, but opponents say they will attempt to fight the gerrymander ahead of future elections.
"The Florida Supreme Court's failure to stop this brazen partisan power grab is not only an assault on democracy, but an abdication of its duty to the people of Florida," said Genesis Robinson, the executive director of the voting rights group Equal Ground. "Courts are meant to serve as a check on government overreach and a safeguard against constitutional violations, but, once again, when Floridians needed that protection most, the court declined to intervene."
"The time to protect voters from irreparable harm is before another election takes place under this map," he added. "And while we remain committed to ensuring that Florida's constitutional protections are fully upheld, Florida voters deserve fair maps, fair representation, and a democracy that works for everyone now."