May, 29 2018, 12:00am EDT
Toxic Mega-Merger Between Bayer and Monsanto Gets Approval From Department of Justice
WASHINGTON
The Department of Justice formally announced today its approval of the Bayer-Monsanto merger, contingent upon divestments from the two companies.
Tiffany Finck-Haynes, senior food futures campaigner with Friends of the Earth, issued the following statement in response:
This toxic mega-merger is another Trump Administration handout to an industry that's poisoning people and the planet. The Department of Justice is prioritizing corporate profits instead of listening to the 1 million Americans who spoke out against the merger. DOJ also failed to listen to more than 93 percent of polled farmers who are concerned about the merger.
Americans deserve better than corporate monopolies that drive up food prices and put family farmers out of business. The DOJ's weak divestment requirements will do nothing to stop Bayer-Monsanto from controlling more and more of our food system. This merger will damage the bargaining power of family farmers, prevent farmers from accessing diverse seed varieties, and allow seed prices to rise.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
'Setback for Alaska and Our Oceans': GOP Governor Vetoes Ban on Single-Use Polystyrene Food Packaging in Alaska
"Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years," said one critic.
Jun 26, 2026
Critics are slamming Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy for his Thursday veto of a bill that would have banned state agencies and restaurants from using single-use polystyrene foam food containers.
The legislation, which passed last month with bipartisan support and would have taken effect starting in January, was intended to stop the use of non-biodegradable polystyrene containers, whose usage has resulted in microplastics polluting Alaska's waterways.
In justifying the veto, Dunleavy said that the bill would "create a short and unrealistic implementation timeline" and would “be especially difficult for businesses in rural Alaska, where shipping limitations, supply availability, and higher costs already make operations more expensive."
In an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska House Speaker Bryce Edgmon (I-37) expressed frustration that Dunleavy has vetoed a number of measures this year that have had broad support, simply because they did not conform with his "far-right beliefs."
"Every bill that he has vetoed thus far, in my view, served in a valid public purpose," Edgmon explained. “It’s difficult to put so much work and so much public process and so much time and energy, and then, because they don’t meet the standards—whatever the standards are—they get canned."
Environmental advocates criticized Dunleavy for the veto, with Christy Leavitt, senior campaign director at Oceana, calling it "a setback for Alaska and our oceans."
"This veto undermines bipartisan action to reduce single-use plastic pollution at the source, and will only put Alaska’s communities, wildlife, and waters in further jeopardy," said Leavitt. "We applaud the efforts of the state legislature and look forward to working with lawmakers to pass this important bill in the future to phase out plastic foam foodware."
Dyani Lezama, state director at Alaska Environment, said she was "incredibly disappointed that the governor vetoed this opportunity to make Alaska’s environment safer and cleaner."
"Polystyrene foam is bad for our health, produces a huge amount of litter, and is incredibly hard to clean up," Lezama emphasized. "Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years."
Had Dunleavy not vetoed the legislation, Alaska would have become the thirteenth state to ban polystyrene foam containers, following Maryland, Maine, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, Delaware, Oregon, Rhode Island, and California.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Criminalizing Dissent': Alarm Grows Over Extreme Prison Terms for Texas ICE Protesters
“Now anyone engaged in basic protests with the wrong political beliefs can be labeled a domestic terrorist, when they have no intention of violence," said one attorney.
Jun 26, 2026
Alarm and outrage mounted this week following a federal judge's lengthy prison sentences for a group of activists falsely accused by the Trump administration of being members of a nonexistent "North Texas Antifa Cell," with some observers calling the extreme punishments—including 30 years for moving a box of constitutionally protected pamphlets—a test case for criminalizing dissent.
Eight members of the "Prairieview Nine"—part of a larger group of activists who staged a July 4, 2025 protest outside a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Alvarado, Texas—were sentenced Tuesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth to between 30-100 years imprisonment.
Benjamin Song, who was convicted of shooting Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, was sentenced to 100 years for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and lesser offenses, including discharging a firearm during a violent crime, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and rioting. Song, a former US Marine, contends that he shot Gross in self-defense after the officer drew his gun first.
The “explosives” in question were fireworks brought to the July 4 protest to show solidarity with people detained by ICE.
Savanna Batten, Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Bradford Morris, and Elizabeth Soto got 50 years each for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use and using an explosive.
Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and conspiracy to conceal documents. Those documents were leftist pamphlets protected by the First Amendment.
Rueda's husband, Daniel “Des” Rolando Sanchez Estrada, was hit with a 30-year prison sentence for conspiracy to conceal documents for moving a box full of the pamphlets after speaking with his wife. He did not attend the protest.
Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush and a favorite of right-wing judge shoppers, told the court that the lengthy sentences are meant to “send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology” with the defendants, according to one observer of Tuesday’s proceedings.
The Prairieland sentences were more severe than the longest prison term for the average US murderer or rapist, as well as for the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—all of whom were later pardoned by President Donald Trump—as well as for convicted child sex trafficker and Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.
"What happened on Tuesday, it’s shocking to all of us, devastating to the families, 50- to 100-year sentences," Sufia Khalid, deputy director of the National Security Criminal Defense Center at the Muslim Legal Fund of America and lawyer to one of the Prairieland defendants, told Democracy Now! on Thursday. "Those are essentially life sentences for all of the young people in this case, largely of whom were engaged in nonviolent protest at an ICE detention facility."
A group of anti-ICE protesters in Texas were sentenced to 30 to 100 years in jail on Tuesday, after federal prosecutors accused them of being an "antifa terror cell."
The activists attended a protest and noise demonstration outside the Prairieland ICE jail in Alvarado, Texas.… pic.twitter.com/QxFMPaGsvj
— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) June 25, 2026
Khalid noted that the Department of Justice (DOJ) invoked a rarely used "material support for terrorism" statute that "does not require any connection to a domestic terrorist organization or any kind."
"Any American can be targeted that way now. It does not require ties to antifa or to any domestic terrorist organization," she said. "That’s a dangerous precedent, and what allowed them to stack these charges so high on Tuesday."
The DOJ hailed “the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with antifa following... Trump’s executive order designating the group as a domestic terrorist organization in September 2025" in the wake of the assassination of white supremacist influencer Charlie Kirk—which had nothing to do with antifa, a decentralized and leaderless international ideology opposing fascism that's more of a mindset than a movement.
Later that month, Trump also signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), a directive titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” that focuses exclusively on left-wing activities and mandates a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
Khalid pointed to the pardoned January 6 insurrectionists, who "were involved in rioting, carrying massive arsenals of weapons, lots of discussions ahead of time—that didn’t exist in this case—about targeting law enforcement, wanting to kill members of Congress, [and] actually storming the Capitol."
"So, we have a massive, unwarranted sentencing disparity here," she said. "What happened in the court in Fort Worth was unconstitutional and should concern everybody in this country in the direction that it is taking us."
Mark Osler, a law professor and sentencing expert at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, told The Guardian on Friday that "the 30-year sentence for Estrada is probably the one that for most people will come closest to shocking the conscience, simply because this is an activity that took place after the harm occurred."
"What happened in the court in Fort Worth was unconstitutional and should concern everybody in this country in the direction that it is taking us."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, underscored during a Friday interview in an episode of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's Counterspin podcast titled "Criminalizing Dissent" that Estrada "wasn't even at the protest."
"He's somebody who allegedly transported a box of pamphlets because his wife was at the protest," Stern said. "And he believed, according to prosecutors, that the box of pamphlets might implicate his wife... so he was concealing evidence."
"Evidence of what?" he continued. "This wasn't a how-to manual... They were zines. They said nothing about this protest, about the Prairieland detention facility, about shooting this police officer... So when they say that he concealed evidence by moving these zines, evidence of what? It's evidence of an ideology. It's evidence of somebody's reading habits."
"And now they're on the same plane as terrorists, as [Islamic State], according to this administration," Stern added. "It's all pretty absurd. But at the end of the day, we have a Constitution that prohibits people from being locked up for what they think, write, or read, as long as they are not inciting imminent violence. So hopefully the appellate courts will reverse these convictions. But the law is only as good as the people who enforce it."
Jeremy Busby, an incarcerated journalist, wrote on the eve of Estrada's trial that the "homespun zines at issue contain no plans for any shooting, and under normal circumstances, they would clearly be deemed constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment."
"But the government’s concealment theory only makes sense if it views merely having the literature as criminal," he argued. “Criminalizing possession of literature is a miscarriage of justice, whether in prison or at a protester’s husband’s parents’ house. If the Trump administration is allowed to send Estrada to prison for the crime of possessing literature, members of society at large can be subjected to the same pernicious rules as the incarcerated.”
Amber Lowrey, the sister of Prairieland defendant Savanna Batten—who was sentenced to 50 years behind bars for material support for terrorism and conspiracy to use and using "explosives" (fireworks)—told The Guardian before Batten's trial that the Trump administration just wants "to make an example of people and silence anyone who... opposes the government."
"They want to silence dissent, criminalize dissent," she added.
Trump administration prosecutors have also invoked NSPM-7 in the case of 15 organizers with the groups Direct Action Minnesota and Black Cat Workers, who are accused of impeding the Department of Homeland Security’s anti-immigrant crackdown in Minneapolis, where US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti were separately killed earlier this year by ICE and Border Patrol officers.
"We live under a fascist state where ICE agents can murder us with impunity, yet we can go to prison for 50 years for protesting," socialist commentator and journalist Ryan Knight said Thursday on X. "The unjust sentences of the Prairieland protesters violate the First Amendment and infringe on our rights to fight back against a tyrannical government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Didn’t Say What Susan Collins Did Is Criminal,' Says Platner. 'I Said It SHOULD Be'
Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner accused his Republican opponent of exploiting a loophole to funnel money to the lobbying firm where her husband worked for a decade.
Jun 26, 2026
Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner on Thursday unveiled a sweeping anti-corruption agenda featuring a plank named after incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, accusing the Maine Republican of using the power of public office to direct money to her husband's firm and enrich herself.
Platner's proposed "Collins Rule" would require senators to "recuse themselves from any vote, decision, or oversight activity involving an agency from which their spouse’s firm receives government contracts." Underlying the proposal is the Platner campaign's allegation that Collins "funneled more than $76 million in federal contracts to her husband's lobbying firm"—a claim that Collins' campaign denounced as "a lie."
In a social media post on Thursday after Platner announced his proposed "Corruption Crackdown," Collins wrote that "a man I have never met held a press conference and accused me of criminal conduct," referencing the Platner campaign's claim about the federal contract dollars flowing to her husband's firm.
"That is outrageous and false," Collins added.
Platner responded with a social media post of his own. "I didn’t say what Susan Collins did is criminal," he wrote. "I said it SHOULD be criminal."
In a nine-page document outlining its anti-corruption agenda, Platner's campaign writes that "no existing law" prevents the spouse of a US senator from "being enriched through winning contracts from agencies the senator oversees."
"Hiring your spouse is banned. Arranging for your spouse’s firm to receive millions from agencies you oversee is, apparently, fine," the document states. "This is plain corruption, and we will not stand for it."
"We’re taking this fight directly to Susan Collins and her billionaire donors, and we won’t stop until power is returned to the working people of Maine."
Collins' campaign manager rejected Platner's characterization of the senator's record and said she "has not funneled any money to Tom Daffron," her husband.
Daffron, who married Collins in 2012, was a registered lobbyist in 2006-2007 and, for the subsequent decade, served as chief operating officer for Jefferson Consulting Group, the firm that Platner's campaign says benefited from Collins' votes to the tune of $76 million.
News Center Maine noted that, "in its accounting, Platner’s campaign pointed to a list, compiled by searching the USA Spending website, of contracts awarded to Jefferson Consulting by the US Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, Interior, and Veterans Affairs. Fifty-five million dollars came from two contracts with USAID, the Agency for International Development, roughly three-quarters of that $76 million."
"The Collins campaign did not dispute the total amount in contracts," News Center Maine added, "but said it was the Obama administration, not Congress, that was responsible for doling out those funds between 2009 and 2016." (The executive branch awards federal contracts that are funded through congressional appropriations.)
During a press conference on Thursday, Platner rejected the notion that Collins' support for appropriations that ultimately benefited the firm that employed her husband was innocuous because she wasn't responsible for awarding the contracts.
"My entire life, I have heard from the political system that all of these very obvious mechanisms of corruption aren't actually corruption," he said. "That when we see people appropriating funds, when we see procurement systems in place, that the money comes from appropriations from the Senate and from the House, that somehow these things are entirely divorced, and it's just sheer coincidence that people who are connected to those in power wind up receiving lots of extra money."
"Obviously that's false," Platner added. "Any normal person can see that if you are directly tied to the power of the United States senator and you yourself benefit from it, and that senator's household benefits from it, that there's obviously some form of connection there."
Watch:
In addition to the "Collins Rule," Platner's anti-corruption agenda calls for barring members of Congress and their spouses from trading stocks, "under penalty of imprisonment."
"As long as sitting members of Congress are allowed to hold and trade stock connected to the industries they have a hand in regulating, the public will keep asking whether their policy decisions serve our best interest—or their own bank accounts," the agenda reads.
Collins has opposed bipartisan legislation that would ban congressional stock trading, arguing for better enforcement of existing laws such as the STOCK Act—which the Maine Republican has violated dozens of times by missing the 45-day deadline to report her husband's trades.
NOTUS reported earlier this year that Daffron "purchased a Pfizer corporate bond worth from $15,001 to $50,000 on February 3, but Collins didn’t disclose the purchase to the Senate" until late March. Collins, whose net worth skyrocketed following her marriage to Daffron, says she has never owned or traded individual stocks during her three-decade Senate career.
Platner's agenda calls for "dramatically" increasing penalties for STOCK Act violations, which typically amount to a minuscule $200 fine. The Democratic candidate argues that "criminal prosecution—including imprisonment—[must be] on the table for the worst offenses, not a $200 parking ticket."
The Platner campaign's "Corruption Crackdown" also calls for overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, shuttering the revolving door between Washington and corporate America by permanently banning former lawmakers from lobbying Congress, prohibiting candidates for federal office from receiving corporate PAC money, and requiring the Pentagon to pass an audit before it receives any additional funding.
"The establishment has rigged the system with legalized corruption and poisoned our elections with billionaire money and a politics that enriches the powerful at the expense of working people," Platner said Thursday. "We’re taking this fight directly to Susan Collins and her billionaire donors, and we won’t stop until power is returned to the working people of Maine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular