

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.

Laurel Sutherlin, RAN, (415) 246-0161, laurel@ran.org
The quickly growing international campaign pressuring JPMorgan Chase to end its massive funding of extreme fossil fuels continued to escalate today as a delegation representing Indigenous and nonindigenous communities from Canada to Ecuador and across the U.S. gathered at Chase's annual shareholder meeting in Plano, Texas. The delegation represents the broad range of people suffering harm from the environmental, Indigenous rights and climate impacts connected to the bank's financing of the most dangerous and polluting forms of fossil fuels.
Among major U.S. banks, JPMorgan Chase is the biggest funder of extreme fossil fuels: tar sands, Arctic oil; ultra-deepwater oil; liquefied natural gas export; and coal mining and power. It is also a major funder of oil drilling in the Amazon rainforest.
An open letter penned by the delegation to shareholders, spotlights JPMorgan Chase in particular because of the unique scale and seriousness of the consequences stemming from its funding choices. "Jamie Dimon opens his most recent shareholder letter by boasting that JPMorgan Chase has 'helped communities large and small.' He omits mention of the other side of the balance sheet - the harm that his bank has done to communities like ours through its fossil fuel financing," reads the delegation in the open letter.
Today's protest comes just one week after a nationwide day of action saw hundreds of people engage in demonstrations at Chase branches in cities across the country, including New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Minneapolis. In downtown Seattle, 14 arrests were made after demonstrators staged a dramatic action that shut down the streets outside while others occupied Chase's regional headquarters.
A briefing paper released recently by Rainforest Action Network (RAN) reveals that in spite of the urgent climate crisis and a public commitment to the Paris Agreement, JPMorgan Chase is doubling down on some of the most carbon-intensive, financially risky, and environmentally destructive fossil fuel sectors. According to the paper, which highlights data from Banking on Climate Change 2018, Chase is the biggest U.S. backslider, with extreme fossil fuel financing more than $4 billion higher in 2017 than 2016. For coal mining, the bank's financing in 2017 was a startling 21 times higher than the previous year -- this despite the bank's policy to reduce its credit exposure to coal mining companies. And in the Amazon, a report from Amazon Watch shows that the bank invests heavily in companies with licenses to explore and/or drill in the Amazon rainforest on or near the territories of Indigenous nations that oppose oil extraction on their lands.
Delegates attending the AGM include Joye Braun of Indigenous Environmental Network, Tara Houska of Honor the Earth, Cherri Foytlin of Louisiana Rise, Cedar George-Parker of the Indigenous Youth Council, Bryan Parras of Sierra Club and Deyadira Arellano of the Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (TEJAS), Jessica Lorena Rangel of Eyes of a Dreamer, Paul Corbit Brown of the Keeper of the Mountains Foundation, Yolonda Bluehorse and Frankie Orona of the Society of Native Nations, Manari Ushigua of the Sapara Nation in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Juan Mancias of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas and Patrick McCully of Rainforest Action Network (RAN), Diana Best of Greenpeace USA and others.
Bios and Statements from delegation members:
Joye Braun (Cheyenne River Sioux), of Indigenous Environmental Network says:
"I'm fighting Chase bank because they fund Keystone XL pipeline and they're the biggest US bank that funds tar sands. And should the Keystone XL pipeline break along the Cheyenne River, it will reach the water intake of my people on my reservation within 33 minutes. We can't afford this. The time is now to stand up against climate change. The time is now to stand up against JPMorgan Chase."
Joye Braun (Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe) with Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN). Joye lives in South Dakota and will be attending & organizing to speak on behalf of communities in the route of the KXL pipeline. Joye was an early representative at Standing Rock and part of the many prayers, actions and meetings that took place.
Tara Houska (Couchiching First Nation), of Honor the Earth says:
"JPMorgan Chase has dramatically increased its backing of tar sands, the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuel on the planet. The heart of my people's culture would be obliterated if and when Enbridge's Line 3 tar sands pipeline breaks in Minnesota's vast watersheds and rich wild rice beds -- Chase can play a major role in preventing this from happening by ending its credit relationships with Enbridge and all destructive fossil fuel actors."
Tara Houska (Couchiching First Nation) is an attorney and National Campaigns Director with Honor the Earth, and will be representing the Anishinaabe people and the Great Lakes region from the impending threat of Enbridge's Line 3 tar sands pipeline. Tara was Senator Bernie Sanders Native American Adviser during his Presidential Campaign. Tara was also a strong voice and presence at Standing Rock & has carried on divestment work internationally over the past two years.
Cherri Foytlin of Louisiana Rise says:
"These Big Banks just can't seem to get it right - they say one thing but do another. When they keep pumping money into dirty fossil fuel companies and projects, it makes us all sick. Sick from the pollution, sick from the injustice, sick from an addiction that is killing us and our planet. We are done being a sacrifice zone, and we are done with your corporate lies. The people of Louisiana are gathering now to right your wrong. We will stop Energy Transfer Partners, and end your bad investments, such as the Bayou Bridge Pipeline. We are rising above your lies, your pollution, and your greed."
Cherri Foytlin (Latinx, Black, Indigenous heritage) from Southern Louisiana. Cherri walked over 1,200 miles from Louisiana to Washington DC after the BP oil spill. Cherri has been a national movement leader to end offshore drilling and to stop the Bayou Bridge Pipeline.
Cedar George-Parker (T'sleil Waututh) says:
"The Trans Mountain Kinder Morgan pipeline will kill my land, salmon, and way of life. We will do whatever it takes to stop the pipeline-educationally, politically, and culturally."
Cedar George-Parker is a member of T'sleil Waututh Youth and has followed a family tradition of leadership in his community. He has been active in the Vancouver area and with the Coastal Salish Indigenous First Nations to stop Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain tar sands pipeline expansion.
Deyadira Arellano of the Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services says:
"JPMorgan Chase prides itself on being a great community partner, but we know that our neighborhoods are affected by their investments in unregulated industries that either pollute or lock-up our families, and sometimes do both!"
Deyadira is a Texas Community Health Worker/Promotora for Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services. Her work as a community organizer includes the intersection of issues such as immigration, public education, environmental justice, healthcare, and workers' rights. Her Mexico/Tejas connection, grounded in family heritage and respect for nature, has given her the understanding to preserve and restore our land, resources, species, and humanity through collective decision-making, public pressure, and civic engagement. Following the effects of Hurricane Harvey in Houston and surrounding areas, Deyadira continues to support mutual-aid efforts and advocates for recovery justice.
Bryan Parras of the Sierra Club says:
"As a top funder of extreme fossil fuel development, JPMorgan Chase is directly contributing to the pollution of our air and water and climate disasters like Hurricane Harvey. It's time for Chase to stop funding fossil fuels, pipelines, and other destructive industries, like private prisons and gun manufacturers, that threaten the health and safety of our communities. It's time to start investing in a future that promotes prosperity for all our relations."
Bryan Parras is a Gulf Coast Organizer with the Sierra Club's Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign. He is also a co-founder of the Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (t.e.j.a.s.) and has been organizing in the Houston area around environmental justice and public health issues for almost 20 years.
Jessica Lorena Rangel is the founder of Eyes of a Dreamer, an organization devoted to uprooting xenophobic stereotypes by telling the stories of immigrants through powerful images and words. She is also one of the five global moderators for the Immigration Subreddit. In her hometown of Pasadena, TX, she played a leading role in local organizing against SB4, a punitive law targeting sanctuary cities. In the wake of the devastating Hurricane Harvey, Jessica has been tirelessly working to get aid to undocumented families. Dismantling discrimination against all immigrants and empowering women of color, she is an emerging voice and leader for immigrant communities in Texas and beyond.
SPANISH: "Comunidades afectadas por las malas decisiones departe de el banco "JPMorgan Chase" son las mismas comunidades que son dejadas atras cuando estos proyectos quedan mal. La comunidad Latina, se solidariza con las demas comunidades afectadas. Nuestra gente, incluyendo las personas indocumentadas, merecen un futuro con cero fosiles en el que seamos tratados bien y podamos vivir sin miedo."
"Communities affected by bad decisions by the bank "JPMorgan Chase" are the same communities that are left behind when these projects go wrong. The Latino community, stands in solidarity with the other affected communities. Our people, including undocumented people, deserve a future with zero fossils in which we are treated well and we can live without fear."
Manari Ushigua of the Sapara Nation in the Ecuadorian Amazon, says:
"Our prophecies foretold that the day would come when foreigners would try to invade our territory and we would have to resist or be wiped out. If Andes Petroleum, whose parent companies are financed by JP Morgan Chase, begins to drill for oil in our territory, it would lead to the destruction of our homes and our ancestral knowledge. We must keep the oil in the ground, and help people learn how to heal Mother Earth. Our fight is not to slow the advancement of the rest of the world. Our fight is to defend life."
Manari Ushigua Santi is a traditional healer and leader-- an akameno (authority) -- of the Sapara Nation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. He is from the community of Llanchamacocha, along the Conambo River in the region's remote roadless rainforest. He was instrumental in achieving recognition for the Sapara as a distinct ethnicity from the Ecuadorian government, and winning recognition from UNESCO for the Sapara as an "Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity". Manari has helped defend his territory from resource extraction for decades. Manari also serves as an Environmental Ambassador for Ecuador's Education Ministry.
Juan Mancias (Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas) says:
"When the Carrizo/Comecrudo ancestral lands continue to be desecrated by fossil fuel corporations without due diligence, historical research, and Texas tribal consultation by either recognize or unrecognized Tribal Nations. The lack of respect to these descendants who speak and live their ancestral lifeways is an evil crime toward human beings and adds to the ongoing genocide of the Native Original People of Texas."
Juan Mancias is tribal chair of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, also known as the Esto'k Gna. Juan works to promote, maintain and preserve the Carrizo/Comecrudo culture, including by defending his people's sacred lands against fossil fuels and other threats.
Paul Corbit Brown of the Keeper of the Mountains Foundation says:
"Any investment is a gamble, and every company or individual has the right to gamble their own resources in the hopes of making a profit. However, no company, no individual has the right to gamble that which does not belong to them. Your money is far from the only asset that is at risk due to your investments in fossil fuels. Also on the table are the health of those living in the communities affected by the industries you support and profit from; the damage and devastation to the resources that WE ALL rely on such as clean water and clean air; and lastly, climate change. We are long past the time for taking climate change seriously. There is no debate among those who are thinking clearly and honestly."
Paul Corbit Brown (European American) is a long time resident of Fayette County, West Virginia. Paul is an avid photographer & educator using his skills to challenge mountaintop removal and coal mining. Paul is active with the Keeper of the Mountains Foundation, an organization dedicated to protecting the Mountains, water and People of West Virginia.
Frankie Orona (Tongva & Chumash) of the Society of Native Nations says:" Enough is "Enough, we must hold JPMorgan Chase accountable for being the largest funder of the destruction, contamination, and genocide of our Mother Earth and to our future generations. We must stand together now and demand change away from fossil fuels. By the time our children stand up for themselves, it might be too late, we need to stand together to wake up the world."
Co-Founder & Executive Director of Society of Native Nations (SNN)
Husband, Father, Entrepreneur and Activist, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Society of Native Nations (SNN). Frankie is Tongva and Chumash from California and Borrado from Texas. He is CEO of his IT company which delivers programming in the IT hardware and software sectors. He is a graduate of the University of La Verne and ITSP. He turned his lifelong passion of serving indigenous communities into the Society of Native Nations. A 501c3 that focuses on Native American rights, social justice, environmental justice and youth education. SNN works to help protect Native American spirituality, culture and traditional values. Frankie continues to work as an entrepreneur, allowing him the time needed to continue helping his community and people to preserve the spirituality and way of life of the indigenous communities of North and South America. His goal is to help create a better future for his children and all future generations. Frankie lives in San Antonio with his wife and children.
Yolonda Bluehorse (Lakota) of the Society of Native Nations says:
"Financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase, do not realize that by supporting big oil corporations, they are also supporting the poisoning of Mother Earth and her most precious resources we human beings need to survive."
Yolonda Bluehorse (Lakota) with Society of Native Nations have both been active in fighting Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) through opposition to the Trans Pecos Pipeline, divestment and at ETP Headquarters in Dallas.
David Hill (Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma)
"Let me tell you, our dignity is not for sale.... If someone doesn't speak up, no one will."
David worked as a union electrician; Director / Coordinator of Indian Center in Salt Lake City, Utah; Youth Alcohol and Drug Counselor at the Oklahoma City Indian Center and in Rapid City, South Dakota. He has been an advocate against alcohol and drug use as an activist his whole life and with the American Indian Movement since 1972. He has served with the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee as Director three times and National Advisor to the present time. He has organized national horse rides and demonstrations to bring awareness to the issue of unjust incarceration through violations of the U.S. Constitution against native people. David Hill continues to support events and demonstrations for indigenous rights, treaty rights, and human rights.
Patrick McCully of Rainforest Action Network says:
"It is sadly not surprising that JPMorgan Chase is the biggest Wall Street founder of extreme fossil fuels given that its CEO, Jamie Dimon, shows zero understanding of the climate crisis, and that its longest serving board member, Lee Raymond, is the former CEO of ExxonMobil. Under Raymond, ExxonMobil spread disinformation about climate change, and poured millions of dollars into the worst climate denying organizations. Mr Dimon needs to get an education on climate change, and JPMorgan Chase's shareholders need to replace Mr Raymond with someone from a clean energy background."
Patrick McCully is Climate and Energy Program Director for Rainforest Action Network.
Diana Best of Greenpeace USA says:
"Chase has a pipeline problem. While other banks around the world have recognized that funding extreme fossil fuel projects and the related companies is incompatible with any credible policy on human rights and climate change, Chase has doubled down. Chase continues to fund Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the highly controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline, as well as other companies attempting to build devastating new tar sands pipelines. Chase is dragging its feet as the world is rapidly moving away from fossil fuels, threatening not only Indigenous rights, water, and the climate, but also its own reputation in the process."
Diana Best is a Senior Energy Campaigner for Greenpeace USA and Global Pipeline Finance Lead.
Established in 1990 within the United States, IEN was formed by grassroots Indigenous peoples and individuals to address environmental and economic justice issues (EJ). IEN's activities include building the capacity of Indigenous communities and tribal governments to develop mechanisms to protect our sacred sites, land, water, air, natural resources, health of both our people and all living things, and to build economically sustainable communities.
"My husband and I were crushed when we learned that we would never get to bring our daughter home. We wanted mercy for our daughter—but Oklahoma's laws denied us that."
When Sheena Hamlin found out she was pregnant with a daughter she named Ellie, she was "very excited," until her doctors discovered at around 21 weeks that the baby "might survive birth, but that her lungs were so severely underdeveloped that she would suffocate almost as soon as the umbilical cord was cut."
"The alternative would be to terminate the pregnancy," explains a lawsuit filed in state court on Wednesday, but that "was not an option in Oklahoma," where a pair of laws force patients whose "pregnancy will end in miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of an infant shortly after birth" to leave the state if they choose abortion.
Hamlin and her husband, who have a son, "agreed that they did not want their daughter to suffer," so she flew to Illinois for care shortly before Thanksgiving in 2024, and spent nearly $4,000 out of pocket. After the "devastating" experience, the couple "underwent genetic testing and confirmed that Ellie had Meckel-Gruber syndrome."
They "pursued in vitro fertilization (IVF) and genetic counseling to ensure that they would not have another child affected by the condition," and while Hamlin is now expecting a baby, she "has found it anxiety-inducing to be pregnant in Oklahoma again, particularly in the period leading up to the anatomy scan," the suit says.
Hamlin is not alone. Magon Hoffman is also suing over the abortion bans that prevented her from receiving care. Hoffman and her husband were similarly "thrilled" to learn of her pregnancy in 2022, but a series of unfortunate revelations soon followed: a "huge blood clot," placenta previa, unusual growth measurements, and ultimately, anencephaly.
As Hoffman's doctor, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, explained at her 19-week anatomy scan, her fetus had a "tiny bit of brain floating around," but "no skull." In other words, the complaint says, "her pregnancy was not viable. Her baby had no chance of survival. Ms. Hoffman was devastated."
Because Oklahoma only allows abortion care to save a patient's life, the doctor warned that she would have to leave the state to end the pregnancy. He then "tried to convince Ms. Hoffman to carry to term," the filing notes, even though "there was nothing they could do to help the baby survive," and if the child lived "for a few hours or a few days... she would be 'blind and 'dying.'"
Hoffman and her husband, who already had a daughter, drove eight hours and spent $3,000 to get abortion care in New Mexico. Afterward, the suit says, she "struggled with anxiety and depression from the loss of a pregnancy she desperately wanted and the stigma and fear she experienced in being forced to seek care out of state."
"In June 2024, while still using birth control, Ms. Hoffman unexpectedly became pregnant for a third time. She was terrified... At no point during the pregnancy was Ms. Hoffman able to believe she would bring home a healthy baby," the complaint continues. She was relieved to deliver another daughter—and does not want any more children, "so her husband decided to have a vasectomy, though he would have preferred to wait. Ms. Hoffman still fears another unexpected pregnancy."
The group Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice has joined Hoffman and Hamlin as plaintiffs, as have two of the OB-GYNs who treated them, Drs. Sarah Mashburn and Elizabeth Pinard, who were both born and raised in Oklahoma.
"I have dedicated my life to caring for women from all across our state, including those facing fatal fetal conditions. Doctors routinely provide care according to what our patients want for themselves and their families, but Oklahoma's abortion bans have left me feeling helpless," Pinard said in a statement.
"I don't want to tell my patients to leave the state when I can easily give them the care they need right here in my office," she stressed. "This is not how healthcare should work. My patients deserve access to all of their options for care, and the state needs to allow us to do our jobs."
Hamlin said that "my husband and I were crushed when we learned that we would never get to bring our daughter home. We wanted mercy for our daughter—but Oklahoma's laws denied us that."
Hoffman similarly said that "Oklahoma turned the hardest day of my life into weeks of needless suffering on top of our grief," and the state "is failing families like mine. I'm bringing this case so Oklahomans can have the power again to make the best decisions for our families."
The defendants in the case are the state attorney general and health commissioner, Oklahoma County's district attorney, and executive directors of the state's boards for medical licensing and osteopathic examiners, all of whom have yet to comment on the suit.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and the Center for Reproductive Rights, a powerhouse that has fought for abortion rights in several high-profile state and federal cases. The legal group's president, Nancy Northup, said Wednesday that "it's unthinkable the pain these families went through because of Oklahoma's abortion bans."
"Forcing women to give birth knowing they won't be bringing a baby home is pure cruelty," she argued. "Every pregnant person should get to decide what is best for their family based on their own beliefs, values, and medical circumstances. The government should have no place in that. We're suing to hold the state accountable for the pain lawmakers have caused these families, and to make sure no other families suffer in this way."
Oklahoma is among the states where anti-choice policymakers have ramped up their longtime efforts to restrict reproductive freedom in the wake of the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority overturning Roe v. Wade. Another state on that list is Texas, whose abortion ban led to the 2022 reversal.
In Texas on Wednesday, Tierra Walker's family sued various state officials. The San Antonio woman died in December 2024, at the age of 37, after being denied an abortion. Although such denials have killed a growing number of pregnant people in Texas and beyond, this is the first case of its kind, tying a preventable death to a state abortion ban.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres called on leaders to work together to solve the growing problem of global inequality at the UN General Assembly.
High-level meetings at the United Nations General Assembly are set to begin next week, and they come at a time when the threats to humanity posed by the climate emergency and artificial intelligence have never been clearer.
Those crises demand that policymakers work together to prevent catastrophic, permanent planetary heating and the creation of "runaway" AI technology, suggested UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Wednesday, but he emphasized that another pernicious, destructive problem cannot be overlooked.
Guterres also named "the intolerable deepening of inequalities" as another "existential threat" that leaders must address at the upcoming meetings.
Earlier this year, the anti-poverty group Oxfam International released a report showing that combined billionaire wealth stood at $18.2 trillion in 2025, having risen from $3.6 trillion in 2009.
At the same time, the number of food-insecure people on Earth shot up to 2.2 billion in 2024, rising from 1.5 billion a decade earlier.
"Nearly half of the world lives in poverty while a select few continue to gain extreme wealth and power," said Oxfam at the time. "The amount of wealth owned by the poorest half of the world is less than the amount owned by just the 12 richest billionaires. This extreme concentration of wealth isn’t just making life less affordable for most of us, it’s creating harmful divisions. Billionaires, corporations, and politicians are taking away people’s basic ability to make choices about their futures and suppressing dissenting voices."
An analysis focused on wealth inequality in the US by the Center for American Progress (CAP) this week also showed that the gap between the ultrarich and the rest of the American public has gotten significantly wider in less than two years since President Donald Trump was reelected, with hundreds of billions of dollars in financial backing from billionaires including tech CEO Elon Musk.
"Since Trump took office, the ultrawealthy (top 0.1%) gained more than 8,000 times as much wealth per household as those in the bottom half of the wealth distribution," said CAP. "To provide an example of the extremity and exponential nature of wealth inequality in the United States, the 10 wealthiest Americans alone saw their real fortunes grow by a combined $259 billion over the same period, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index—about $26 billion per person, or 22 million times more than the bottom half’s $1,200 per household."
Economic experts have found that the growing inequality crisis is entirely solvable. As Common Dreams reported last year, research from the European Union Tax Observatory found that a global 2% minimum tax on billionaire wealth "would generate about $250 billion in tax revenue—from just 3,000 individuals," raising about $50 billion in Europe alone.
In 2024, finance ministers at a meeting of the Group of 20 in Rio de Janeiro agreed on the need to tax the richest people in the world at a higher rate to address persistent and worsening economic inequality.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, a study published in The Lancet found that the global inequality that's been worsened by Trump's foreign aid cuts could be addressed by a 3% wealth tax—raising a small amount of money compared to the total wealth of the world's richest people, but enough to save 29.5 million lives over the next four years.
Climate campaigners in Africa, who have demanded an end to French company Total Energies' East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), agreed with Guterres' point that "climate, inequality, and international cooperation are inseparable."
"People living along EACOP's path," said the group Stop EACOP, "are the first to bear the environmental and economic costs of decisions made far from their communities."
"The fact that Trump immediately resorts to new threats is further proof that stronger EU-Canada cooperation is both wise and necessary," said a Belgian member of the European Parliament.
In the wake of President Donald Trump's threats of annexation and economic warfare, Canada is distancing itself from the United States and moving toward a first-of-its-kind "associate membership" with the European Union. Trump suggested on Wednesday that this could be a "hostile act."
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen first introduced the idea earlier that day of Canada deepening its ties with the EU economic bloc during a meeting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France.
"Democracies have the freedom to choose with whom to work," Von der Leyen said, suggesting that an "Alliance for the Future" between the EU and Canada would expand cooperation on technology, economic security, and military industry, among other critical areas.
She described such cooperation as a necessity in an "openly hostile world."
This was, in part, a not-so-subtle dig at Trump, who has antagonized Canada during his second term by slapping 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion of Canadian imports and repeatedly floating the idea of making it the "51st state."
Europe, too, has been targeted by Trump's trade war, while the president has repeatedly threatened the sovereignty of Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, by suggesting the United States could take control of it—including by military force.
An "associate membership" in the EU for a non-European nation has no formal basis in EU statute. One EU diplomat told Reuters that "nobody really knows what it means."
However, Trump described it as an unmistakable slight and issued more threats.
"I think it’s laughable, the whole thing with Canada," he told reporters on Wednesday. "Canada’s been a terrible trade partner."
If the two reached an agreement, Trump said he may retaliate further, heightening the tariffs that have led to sharp declines in European exports to the US and driven up costs for American consumers, especially low-income households.
"If they do that, if I think it’s at all a hostile act, I will put very serious tariffs or stop trading with Europe on many things," Trump said. "So if they do that, if Europe does that with a bad intention, if it’s a good intention, that’s fine.”
"If it’s a bad intention, we’ll put very heavy tariffs on Europe," he reiterated.
Speaking at the European Parliament on Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney—whose compatriots are now more inclined to view the US as an "enemy" than an "ally," according to a recent poll—said of Von der Leyen's proposal, "We welcome this ambition."
While he did not discuss the specifics of becoming an associate member, he agreed that Canada's relationship with the EU should move beyond the current Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
"Canada and Europe should secure our strategic autonomy through deep cooperation in the full range of strategic capabilities, including critical minerals, defense industrial capacity, AI and compute, energy security, space, and payments," he said.
Carney stressed that the act was not one of hostility toward the United States and that he did not seek to form "a third bloc in order to become a great-power rival." But he also seemed to draw a contrast with Trump's bellicosity.
"We do not seek power to dominate others," he said. "On the contrary, we are pursuing resilience so that no one can control our open markets, impair our sovereignty, threaten our territorial integrity, or undermine our freedoms, our democracies, our rule of law."
Trump has not yet specified what tariff rate he'd seek to impose against Europe or what would signify that the alliance with Canada had a "bad intention."
But Kathleen Van Brempt, a Belgian social-democratic politician and member of the European Parliament, said that "the fact that Trump immediately resorts to new threats is further proof that stronger EU-Canada cooperation is both wise and necessary."
"He does not find the idea ridiculous; he fears it because it would weaken his divide-and-conquer tactics and his ability to wield illegal tariffs as political and economic weapons," she wrote on social media.
"He might not react when you lift a finger," she added. "But he will understand when you raise a fist."
"Voters see this election not just as a referendum on Trump... but as a repudiation of the entire political system."
A poll released by the Cook Political Report on Thursday shows US voters in key swing districts overwhelmingly dislike artificial intelligence companies—but are feeling warm about Medicare for All.
In total, the poll finds that voters in 37 swing districts across the US view AI companies unfavorably by a two-to-one margin, with 64% of voters saying they're more concerned than excited about the technology, compared to just 31% who say they're more excited than concerned.
Opposition to AI data centers is even stronger, as 63% of voters say they would oppose building one in their communities, compared to just 28% in favor. Additionally, 44% express strong opposition to local data center construction, making strong opposition higher than overall support.
At the same time, the poll finds much stronger support for Medicare for All, with 62% of swing-district voters having a favorable view of the policy, compared to 34% who said they were opposed. The intensity gap is also notable, as 41% of voters sat they have a strongly favorable view of Medicare for All, while just 25% have a strongly unfavorable view.
This does not mean that these voters are socialists, however, as the poll shows just 32% expressing a positive view of socialism, compared to 58% expressing a negative view. When it comes to Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), 37% of voters say they have a favorable view of the group, compared to 56% who say they have an unfavorable view.
Regardless of specifics about policy and ideology, the poll shows a deep dissatisfaction with the American political system and an openness to major changes.
Amy Walter, editor-in-chief of the Cook Political Report, commented in a social media post that "the most interesting finding was that these voters see this election not just as a referendum on Trump (who’s underwater by 16 points), but as a repudiation of the entire political system."
Walter pointed to a striking finding among independent voters in the survey, who vastly preferred a candidate promising to change the whole political system compared to a candidate who would just be a check on Trump.
"This also suggests," Walter added, "that these voters would want a Dem-led Congress that focuses more on an agenda that tackles corruption and institutional rot than one that focuses solely on Trump and his overreach."
Yasmin Radjy, executive director of Swing Left, said that the Cook Political poll "tracks with everything we're hearing" in conversations with voters.
The idea that the "system is broken," wrote Radjy, "is overwhelmingly the top issue/theme we hear from voters across the ideological and partisan spectrum—even more than affordability!”
"Resorting to international institutions and international law is a legitimate right of the State of Palestine and a peaceful, legal means to protect the Palestinian people and their rights," said the PA Foreign Ministry.
For the second year in a row, the US government under President Donald Trump has denied diplomatic visas for Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials—a move condemned by the PA and outside critics as counter to international peace efforts.
Abbas, who leads both the PA and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was to attend meetings at the United Nations in New York City next week, but the move by the US State Department means he will have to deliver remarks and participate in meetings via video link.
In a statement, the foreign ministry of the PA called the refusal of visas “an unjustified measure that runs counter to efforts to rebuild trust, develop Palestinian-US relations, and create the necessary political climate for implementing the two-state solution and achieving peace and stability.”
The US State Department said the refusal of visas was justified, in part, because of the efforts by Palestinian leaders to seek redress for crimes against their people carried out by the Israeli government by pursuing actions through both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well as for efforts toward "unilateral recognition" with UN members states.
Palestinian pursuits at the ICC and ICJ, the State Department charged in a statement, constitute "taking actions to internationalize the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." While the US has steadfastly backed Israel politically and armed its military during recent years while it has carried out what experts, including those backed by the UN itself, have characterized as "genocide" in Gaza and grave crimes in the Occupied West Bank, the US accused Palestinian leaders of "glorifying terrorism" to justify the visa bans.
Critics of the US move called it a betrayal of its obligations as host nation of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), headquartered in New York City.
Mohammed Maree, head of media and public opinion studies at the Egyptian Center for Strategic Studies, an independent research institution, said that denying Abbas entry to attend the UNGA "confirms that Washington has effectively abandoned its supposed role in the Middle East peace process and fully embraced Israel’s agenda."
The move, added Maree, "once again exposes the stark contradiction between Washington’s rhetoric about peace and its actual policies. In the medium term, it will become clear that attempting to eliminate the two-state solution in line with Israel’s wishes will bring neither stability nor the peace the region desperately needs. Instead, it will only fuel further escalation and uncertainty."
In its statement, the PA Foreign Ministry rejected the US stance.
"Resorting to international institutions and international law is a legitimate right of the State of Palestine and a peaceful, legal means to protect the Palestinian people and their rights," it stated. "This cannot be equated with the policies of occupation, settlement expansion, annexation, displacement, and settler violence [by Israelis]—actions that pose the real threat to the two-state solution and prospects for peace."
The ministry further called for the Trump administration to reconsider its decision and "halt the policy of sanctions and restrictions, and engage in a direct, serious Palestinian-US dialogue to address any points of contention."
"The State of Palestine," the statement concluded, "will continue to fulfill its national and international obligations, pursue its reform program, and utilize peaceful political, diplomatic, and legal means to defend its people's rights, stressing that it will not relinquish their right to self-determination, freedom, and stability."
The report points to statements by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that signaled the "deprioritization of civilian harm mitigation and of compliance with international law."
Human rights experts who led a United Nations fact-finding mission in Iran are set to submit their findings to the UN Human Rights Council that the United States likely committed war crimes in the early days of the US-Israeli war there.
The experts examined evidence regarding two airstrikes that killed at least 178 civilians, including 120 children, according to Iranian authorities—the bombing of the Shajareh Tayyebeh School in Minab and an attack on a sports complex and residential area in Lamerd, both of which took place on February 28.
The report notes that the Pentagon has not released findings of its own investigation into the Minab school bombing and the US has not accepted responsibility for the attack, although Reuters reported on an internal probe that found US forces were likely behind the strike.
Despite the lack of a response from the US to the fact-finding mission's requests for information, the experts said they found "reasonable grounds to believe that the US committed the war crime of launching an indiscriminate attack resulting in loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects."
The report pointed to the Trump administration's "deprioritization of civilian harm mitigation and of compliance with IHL [international humanitarian law], expressed through public statements by senior US leadership, including the president and the secretary of defense."
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said early in the war that the US would dispense with “stupid rules of engagement”—which are meant to protect civilians under international law—and said US forces would rain "death and destruction from the sky all day long."
The Pentagon also relied on "outdated targeting data" when deciding to bomb the school in Minab, which was clearly identified as a school for young children, said the report.
"The mission considers that the United States' failure to update information in relation to the school in its targeting databases and to verify that the building was a military objective before launching the attack went beyond mere negligence," reads the report. "Rather, the US directed the strikes at the building of the school while being aware of a substantial risk of striking a civilian object and acting recklessly as regards the possibility that this would happen."
More than 150 people were killed in the attack, including 120 children.
The experts also said the sports complex and residential area in Lamerd on February 28 were "clearly identifiable" as civilian targets, and that the weapon used in the attack—Lockheed Martin-manufactured Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) that disperse tungsten pellets over a wide area—show that the strike "constituted an indiscriminate attack in violation of the principle of distinction" between civilians and military targets.
The missiles, said the experts, "could not be directed at a specific military objective and their effects on civilians and civilian objects could not be limited as required by IHL. The US was under the IHL obligation to employ weapons systems and ammunition that satisfied these requirements."
The UN team said 22 civilians were killed in the attack in Lamerd, including four schoolchildren and a two-year-old girl who was killed while playing in front of her home.
US Central Command has denied responsibility for the attack, but top US officials in March boasted that the military had "made history" by using the PrSM for the first time in the war.
"What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species."
"Hmmmm.... I've done a lot of horrible things lately. What is another evil, cruel, nonsensical idea? Ya know, one that would have irreversible generational consequences?"
That's how University of Alberta professor Timothy Caulfield responded to The New York Times' Wednesday reporting that President Donald Trump's administration "is quietly moving to strip a core protection" of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), according to an internal memo obtained by the newspaper.
Signed by US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik, the memo interprets the law to mean that only the intentional killing or wounding of a protected species is illegal. The Times explained that excluding accidental acts "would be a seismic shift," because "the killing of endangered animals almost always happens incidentally, in the course of economic activity."
The memo is dated September 14—the same day that another Trump administration attack on the ESA took effect. That legally contested earlier policy rescinds the regulatory definition of "harm" under the 1973 law so that extractive industries can degrade crucial habitats. When the move was announced in July, critics called it "a death knell for America’s wildlife."
The effort revealed by the Times goes even further. Andrew Mergen, a Harvard University law professor who previously supervised ESA litigation at the US Department of Justice, told the paper that "this is really an assault on the act like we've never seen before."
"What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species," he said. "What they seem to be saying in this document is, it doesn't matter if you killed an endangered species if you didn't mean to."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that "this stabs at the very heart of the Endangered Species Act by giving federal approval to the killing of some of America's most beloved wildlife... The Trump administration is desperate to annihilate environmental protections, but this incredibly radical measure is both cruel and profoundly unlawful. Killing endangered wildlife is illegal, whether that's your purpose or not."
"If you chop down a tree full of endangered birds or race a huge ship through a pod of endangered whales, you should be held accountable for your destructive acts," Hartl added. "But this administration wants to give wildlife killers a 'Get out of jail free' card. Imposing new limitations on the entire definition of take is a flagrant and illegal attempt to rewrite the Endangered Species Act via unilateral fiat. This would drive imperiled species over the cliff to extinction."
Other opponents of the plan called it "pure evil," and blasted the "perpetual villainy" of Trump's second administration—which has continued an assault on the landmark law launched during the Republican's first presidential term. All of his previous attacks on the ESA have faced resistance from conservation organizations and many members of Congress.
The rule on harm has sparked not only legal challenges from advocacy groups and state attorneys general, but also legislative pushback. In late July, US Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, introduced the Safeguarding Endangered Species Act, to nullify the policy.
Then, last month, Democratic US Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution that, if passed, would repeal the policy. As the rule took effect on Monday, a Schiff spokesperson told CNN that "the senators will look to force a vote in the coming weeks."
This article has been updated with comment for the Center for Biological Diversity.
One campaigner asserted that Trump's "recklessness in the White House has pushed working families’ budgets to their breaking point."
The US Federal Reserve on Wednesday raised its benchmark interest rate for the first time since 2023, prompting renewed criticism from progressive economists and Democratic lawmakers who argue that President Donald Trump’s tariffs and warmongering are fueling inflation and further squeezing working families.
The 12-member Federal Open Market Committee unanimously lifted its federal funds target range by a quarter percentage point, to 3.75-4%, while signaling that it could raise the rate again to around 4.1% in the coming months. Fed officials cited persistently elevated inflation and said the move would support a “timelier return” to their 2% inflation target.
The increase came despite months of pressure from President Donald Trump for the central bank to cut rates. Trump has repeatedly demanded substantially lower borrowing costs, including calling for rates as low as 1%, while accusing the Fed of holding rates too high.
"Interest Rates in the United States should be 1%, or less, because we are the Best Credit in the World—BY FAR," Trump said on his Truth Social network in response to the hike. "Our Country is BOOMING with new Investment! If we stopped Trading with every country that we have a Deficit with, which is most of them, we would make, at least, 1.5 Trillion Dollars a year."
The United States is actually rated AA+ by S&P and Fitch—which is not the "best credit in the world" by any measure. Numerous nations have AAA ratings from major agencies, the highest level of creditworthiness.
"The word 'Deficit' is nothing more than a fancy word for LOSS," Trump added. "We are 'carrying' almost every country in the World, and that cannot go on any longer. LOWER THE INTEREST RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND FAST!"
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh—whom Trump tapped to lead the central bank—nonetheless backed the increase. The Fed's latest projections indicate that inflation will remain above its target and that most officials anticipate at least one additional rate increase before the end of the year.
The rate hike means consumers and businesses will face higher borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and other debt. The average 30-year mortgage rate had already risen above 7% by Wednesday.
Referring to the worsening affordability crisis caused by Trump administration choices like tariffs and the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran, the progressive economic advocacy group Groundwork Collaborative lamented how "working families foot Trump's bill twice."
Trump's "never-ending war with Iran and his chaotic tariffs have driven inflation high enough that his own pick for chairman raised rates anyway, in a unanimous vote—a decision that will lead to higher borrowing costs for families and small businesses but does little to combat high prices from Trump’s economic mismanagement," the group said in a statement.
Groundwork Collaborative chief economist Breyon Williams said that "Trump can deny, disparage, and deflect from Americans’ economic reality all he wants, but there’s no hiding the truth: His recklessness in the White House has pushed working families’ budgets to their breaking point."
"Under his watch, inflation has skyrocketed, prices on essentials like gas and groceries have emptied wallets, and the labor market has lost steam," Williams added. "Today’s decision from the Federal Reserve confirms Americans’ fears of continued price pains to come, and its own forecast now says families will not see borrowing costs go down until 2028.”
Addressing the Fed rate hike, US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Wednesday that "the chaos of Trump’s disastrous war and costly economic policies are drowning Americans in inflation. Trump has sown chaos in our economy, scared off potential investors, rattled our markets, and made it harder for American workers and businesses alike to succeed."
"Ever since taking office, Trump has taken aim at the Fed and other institutions designed to keep our economy stable and growing. That has only added to the economic chaos plaguing our country," he added. "But what does Trump care? Trump doesn’t care that Americans have to pay to more; he only cares about raking in as much money as he can off the presidency before Americans send him and his Republican Party packing."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said during a Wednesday interview on CNN that "it's the American people who are paying the price" for Trump's policies.
"There is no happy solution at this moment based on interest rates," she added.
State officials "have imposed a merciless blanket prohibition on abortion that intimidates doctors into inaction," says the lawsuit. "Too many pregnant Texans have already died preventable deaths."
"Tierra Walker is dead, and those responsible must be held accountable."
That's the opening line of a lawsuit filed by Walker's family in Bexar County, Texas this week against the state's Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, and various others over the death of the 37-year-old pregnant San Antonio woman.
On December 30, 2024, Walker's son "found her in bed, not breathing," the complaint notes. "It was his 15th birthday."
The teenager, as well as Walker's husband, mother, and aunt, who is responsible for her estate, are all involved in the wrongful death suit—the first of its kind, linking a "preventable death" to an abortion ban, according to The 19th.
In addition to Paxton, who is running for US Senate with support from President Donald Trump, the family is suing Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales, Texas Medical Board Executive Director Stephen Brint Carlton, the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and three doctors who treated Walker before she died.
"During the four months of her pregnancy, as she suffered through seizures, blood clots, and one hypertensive crisis after another, Ms. Walker repeatedly asked for an abortion to save her life," explains the filing. "Defendants associated with University Health responded only 'your baby is fine,' disregarding Ms. Walker's deteriorating health and constitutionally protected right to life."
The document argues that "their deliberate indifference, discrimination, and medical mistreatment ultimately caused her horrific and tragic death. Now, Ms. Walker's husband is a widower. Her disabled mother has lost her daughter and caregiver. And her teenaged son has no mother."
"Meanwhile, from the moment Texas' first abortion ban went into effect in 2021, through the overturning of Roe v. Wade, through the present day, defendants Ken Paxton and Stephen Brint Carlton have imposed a merciless blanket prohibition on abortion that intimidates doctors into inaction and breeds extreme fear among Texas' medical establishment," the filing notes. "As a result, too many pregnant Texans have already died preventable deaths. Yet no one has held them accountable."
The suit—filed by the principal attorney at the Marynell Maloney Law Firm and Amplify Legal, the litigation arm of the nonprofit Abortion in America—is designed to do just that.
"Tierra had a treatable medical condition, the problem was that the treatment she needed was an abortion," said attorney Michelle Maloney in a statement. "She died a preventable death. Medical and political negligence killed Tierra Walker."
Defendants in the case have declined to comment or, in some cases, even respond to media outlets, including The Texas Tribune. As the newspaper detailed Wednesday:
Months after Walker died, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 31 aimed at ensuring that pregnant women receive lifesaving care under the state’s near-total abortion ban. It says that a patient doesn’t have to be in "imminent" medical crisis for doctors to intervene and that a doctor can only be charged if the state can prove "no reasonable doctor" would have made the same call. It also requires the Texas Medical Board to create training for doctors, which was finalized in early 2026.
But Molly Duane, one of the lawyers representing the Walker family, said during a news conference on Wednesday that SB 31 would not have prevented Walker's death.
"I would love if the Texas Legislature would actually take their responsibility here seriously and get rid of the laws that are causing so many deaths. I just don't have any confidence that that is something that they can do in this environment, but ultimately, that's a political question," Duane said.
ProPublica first reported that Walker "died after she couldn't get an abortion in Texas" last November. The investigative outlet has exposed similar deaths in the state—those of Nevaeh Crain and Porsha Ngumezi—as well as the first known case of a fatal abortion care denial in the wake of the Roe reversal: Amber Nicole Thurman in Georgia.
"No one else should have to experience what my family has gone through. Tierra was the glue that held our family together, and now she's gone," said Walker's aunt, LaTanya Walker. "Doctors all turned a blind eye as Tierra was dying, and refused to give her the abortion she needed to save her life. She deserves justice."
Citing the 70% depopulation of Gaza, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz vowed to "finish the job" of what he called Palestinian "migration"—a euphemism, say critics, for ethnic cleansing.
Amid a so-called "ceasefire" during which Israeli forces continue to kill and maim Palestinians, Israel's defense minister on Wednesday vowed to "finish the job" of depopulating the Gaza Strip—a plan human rights defenders have described as ethnic cleansing.
Responding to criticism from right-wing political rival Ofer Winter ahead of next month's Israeli elections, Defense Minister Israel Katz said the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would soon resume the full-scale assault on Gaza—which has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing since October 2023, 90% of the strip in ruins, and around 2 million people forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
Noting that 70% of Gaza has been forcibly depopulated, Katz said that "the IDF is prepared, once given the directive to eliminate Hamas, to finish the job so that we can also implement the migration plan," according to The Times of Israel.
Katz's remarks came after he said earlier this month that Israel was ready to implement plans to forcibly displace Palestinians from Gaza once US President Donald Trump gives his approval.
Trump has repeatedly backed the ethnic cleansing of Gaza's Palestinians. He said last year that the United States would "own" Gaza, "level it out," and build "the Riviera of the Middle East" there after the Palestinians—most of whom are descendants of people ethnically cleansed from the rest of Palestine during the bloody establishment of Israel in 1948—were gone.
While many proponents of expulsion claim it would be "voluntary," most Palestinians vehemently reject any relocation, voluntary or otherwise.
"Gaza is an integral part of our state," Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stressed on Wednesday.
Numerous countries have been floated as possible destinations for Palestinians who are forced from or choose to leave Gaza, with Egypt—specifically the Sinai Peninsula—often topping such lists.
However, on Wednesday, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi reaffirmed his government's "firm stance against the displacement of the Palestinian people or any attempt to annihilate the Palestinian cause," drawing praise from Abbas.
Katz has repeatedly advocated the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. He said last year that IDF troops were “expanding to crush and clean” the strip. He also said the military was “seizing large areas that will be added to the security zones of the state of Israel for the protection of fighting forces and the settlements,” a reference to plans by far-right members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and leaders of the settler movement for the illegal recolonization of the Palestinian exclave.
Last year, Israeli lawyer Omer Shatz filed an incitement to genocide case at the International Criminal Court in The Hague against eight Israeli officials, including Netanyhau, Katz, and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Netanyahu and Gallant are already fugitives from the ICC, where they are wanted for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
Israel is also the subject of a genocide case currently before the International Court of Justice filed by South Africa and formally supported by nearly 20 countries.
Katz's latest remarks come amid a nearly yearlong "ceasefire" during which more than 1,300 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza. On Wednesday, a war-damaged apartment building in Gaza City collapsed, killing at least 21 Palestinians, including children. IDF airstrikes are also killing Palestinians on a daily basis.