

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.

Dani Heffernan, 350.org, dani@350.org, +1 (305) 992-1544, Mark Hefflinger, Bold Nebraska, mark@boldnebraska.org, 323-972-5192
Today, an Indigenous-led coalition of pipeline fighters launched the next phase of their campaign, called "Solar XL," to install solar panels along the route of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline. The solar panels, to be installed in Nebraska and South Dakota, will help power the homes, farms, and Indigenous spirit camps of communities resisting the pipeline. This clean & renewable energy project stands in contrast to the threat posed by Keystone XL to land and water, Indigenous rights, and the climate. The coalition behind the Solar XL campaign includes the Indigenous Environmental Network, Native Organizers Alliance, Brave Heart Society, Dakota Rural Action, Bold Nebraska, and 350.org. The campaign will be supported through crowdfunding.
View the fundraising campaign online: https://nokxlpromise.org/solarxl/
Download photos of previous solar installations for use by media with attribution: https://www.flickr.com/photos/boldnebraska/albums/72157689237546005
This effort builds upon the Solar XL campaign that supported solar installations in Nebraska last summer, on land that farmers and ranchers in the state would've been forced to give up to TransCanada. Shortly after in November of last year, Nebraska's Public Service Commission (PSC) approved an alternate route for Keystone XL, which tribes, farmers, and ranchers continue to challenge in court. These new solar installations along the pipeline's alternate route will include additional solar arrays on Nebraska farmland and mobile solar units built on unceded Indigenous territory near the Yankton Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux Reservations in South Dakota.
The Keystone XL pipeline continues to face challenges in court, including an appeal filed by Nebraska tribes and landowners against the PSC decision and a federal lawsuit against Trump's "presidential permit" for the project. Nearly 17,000 people have also signed the "Promise to Protect" and committed to join future action along the Keystone XL pipeline route when called upon by Indigenous leaders. Though TransCanada has yet to announce a final investor decision on Keystone XL, the pipeline company is expected to begin clear-cutting this Fall to prepare for construction in 2019. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels a day of tar sands oil.
The solar arrays and mobile solar units built through Solar XL will not only provide renewable energy and demonstrate the fossil-free world we need, they will be part of resistance efforts as signers of the "Promise to Protect" rise up to defend them if necessary. Solar energy has been a powerful tool in Native-led efforts to put renewable energy solutions in the path of the problem, from the Lubicon Solar Project near Alberta's tar sands, to the solar-powered 'tiny homes' in the path of the Trans Mountain pipeline in British Columbia, to the Lakota Solar Enterprise bringing clean energy sovereignty to Indian country. If TransCanada moves forward with construction of Keystone XL, thousands of people are ready to defend the renewable solar energy built in its path.
QUOTE SHEET:
Judith LeBlanc (Caddo), Director, Native Organizers Alliance, a national Native organizing and training network: "Our future depends on if we choose to live in harmony and balance with Mother Earth. Projects like Solar XL, built with grassroots financial support and owned by Indigenous communities and family farmers, are our best hope for a future of sustainable energy that delivers us from dependence on fossil fuels and the harm caused by extractive industries."
Mark Hefflinger, Communications Director for Bold Alliance: "We're excited to launch the next phase of Solar XL, and continue to build our clean energy future while standing together to protect our water and land. The new Solar XL installations in Nebraska and South Dakota add to the existing resistance in the path of KXL that also includes the Ponca sacred corn planted inside the route along the historic "Trail of Tears," the #NoKXL Solar Energy Barn, and Rosebud Sioux Spirit Camp in South Dakota."
Lewis Grassrope, Wiconi un Tipi Camp in Lower Brule, South Dakota: "As caretakers of this world, maintaining balance for the generations to come is our responsibility. Solar XL is an effort to support that balance, protecting the land and water by building renewable energy alternatives to dirty fossil fuels. It's time to start looking at and preparing for the future, rather than destroying the only world we have."
Rick Bell, chair of Dakota Rural Action's Black Hills Chapter and the Community Energy Development Committee: "The KXL pipeline represents our persistent reliance on fossil fuels that we know is bad for the environment as well as people's health, etc. It doesn't even make economic sense when the full long-term negative effects are taken into account. Therefore DRA is participating in this effort to install solar systems along the path of the KXL pipeline as a way of demonstrating our commitment to renewable energy and showing that it is a viable alternative rather than continuing to depend on fossil fuels for our energy needs."
Faith Spotted Eagle, member of the Yankton Sioux Nation and Brave Heart Society: "The powerful thing about alliances for mother earth is when they create a space to unlearn fear and to relearn leadership. This was true at Standing Rock, and Solar XL is another chance to learn and build a shining example of the future we want. Solar energy is one of the great powers of the universe -- it is constantly present, with a low carbon footprint that respects the earth. Because each of us are players in the survival our planet, our efforts to fight Keystone XL combines the power of solar with the power of the people."
Dallas Goldtooth, Keep it in the Ground Campaigner for the Indigenous Environmental Network: "In the fight against dirty tar sands oil from crossing Indigenous treaty lands, we must also take moments to highlight the things we are fighting for. That is what SolarXL is about. We will not only build renewable energy in America's breadbasket, on Indigenous lands for Indigenous people, demonstrating the goals of a just transition towards sustainable energy, but we will build it in the face of the Keystone XL pipeline. Now's the time to look ahead to a sustainable planet."
Joye Braun, leader of the Wakpa Waste Camp at the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota: "Building Solar XL is about showing what is possible. This partnership between the tribes and many different grassroots organizations is a powerful statement. It shows the unity we have built to go up against this evil zombie of a pipeline that threatens our water, land and our very lives. We've seen the devastation TransCanada has caused, from our relatives living near Alberta's tar sands to the recent pipeline explosion in West Virginia. Now we're showing the world what is possible through a project creating real solutions."
May Boeve, 350.org Executive Director: "The fight against Keystone XL has always been about more than one pipeline -- we're demanding a world free of dirty fossil fuels. Putting solar in the path of this pipeline models the massive overhaul our energy system needs to stop the worst of climate change. While Trump and fossil fuel executives continue to deny the writing on the wall, our resistance must grow stronger. We already know the just way forward is with renewable energy solutions like solar and wind, now we need the will."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
The report shows how a landmark civil rights law "is being cynically misused to squash political dissent and speech that advocates for the human rights of Palestinians," said one AAUP leader.
Under both the Biden and Trump administrations, pro-Israel and far-right advocacy groups have driven a surge of federal civil rights investigations conflating true antisemitism with university professors and students' criticism of the US-backed Israeli government and its genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip.
That's according to Discriminating Against Dissent: The Weaponization of Civil Rights Law to Repress Campus Speech on Palestine, a report published this week by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA).
"Our members, because of their expertise on the region, have long borne the brunt of allegations that falsely equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism," MESA president Aslı Bâli said in a statement. "Complaints like these penalize scholars for teaching basic facts about the region."
The report begins: "Over the past two years, the United States government has taken unprecedented steps to suppress campus speech—including scholarship, advocacy, and protest—opposing the state of Israel's genocidal war against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. This crackdown has paved the way for profound transformations in US colleges and universities."
"A long-standing 'Palestine exception' to the First Amendment now threatens to give way to a new reality: Palestine is less an exception to academic freedom than it is a pretext for erasing the norm altogether, as part of an authoritarian assault on the autonomy of higher education and on the very idea of racial and gender equity," the document warns.
The analysis comes as President Donald Trump continues his sweeping attack, aiming to shut down the Department of Education, deport foreign students critical of Israel, and bully campus leaders into signing an "extortion agreement" for federal funding.
"In effect, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is no longer being used to address racial discrimination in higher education," Bâli told the Guardian, which first reported on the findings. "Instead, Title VI has been repurposed as part of the administration's broader effort to remake higher education in line with its right-wing political and cultural agenda."
AAUP and MESA found that "more investigations were opened in the last two months of 2023 (25) than in all previous years combined (24). Investigations broke record numbers in 2024 (39) and are on track to do so again in 2025 (38, as of September 30)."
"All but one of the 102 antisemitism complaint letters we have analyzed focus on speech critical of Israel; of these, 79% contain allegations of antisemitism that simply describe criticisms of Israel or Zionism with no reference to Jews or Judaism; at least 50% of complaints consist solely of such criticism," the document states.
The report highlights that "the Biden administration opened more antisemitism probes against colleges and universities (65) than for all other types of racial harassment combined (38)," and "the Trump administration appears to have halted racial harassment investigations altogether."
The federal probes "are producing a new system of government surveillance and monitoring of campus speech," the report notes, with over 20 schools agreeing to share internal data on discrimination complaints with the government.
Examining Trump's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, the researchers found that the Department of Education "has continued to open very high numbers of antisemitism probes even as its staff has been slashed by the Trump administration," and "in its high-profile campaigns against prestigious universities, the task force has systematically ignored the procedural requirements of Title VI, unlawfully cutting off vast sums of funding before any meaningful investigation, let alone findings."
For at least 78% of the complaints examined by AAUP and MESA, pro-Israel and right-wing advocacy organizations—including those without any campus presence—served as complainants or represented them. Such groups have also been involved with private lawsuits intended to redefine antisemitism as including criticism of Israel and restrict such criticism at universities.
"Antisemitism lawsuits surged after October 7, 2023 (two filed before that date, 26 since)," according to the analysis. "No court has yet made a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs. In nine cases, Title VI claims have been dismissed, including on free speech grounds; nine lawsuits have settled, some of which resulted in even more draconian policy changes on campuses than government investigations."
AAUP general counsel Veena Dubal said that "the findings in this report underscore how the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which passed in response to years of nonviolent civil disobedience against racial injustice—is being cynically misused to squash political dissent and speech that advocates for the human rights of Palestinians."
"This is a perverse outcome," Dubal declared, as AAUP prepares for Friday protests pressuring leaders at over 100 institutions to reject the president's "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education" and make schooling more affordable.
As AAUP president Todd Wolfson said in a statement about the day of action earlier this week, "From attacks on academic freedom in the classroom to the defunding of lifesaving scientific research to surveilling and arresting peaceful student protesters, Trump's higher education policies have been catastrophic for our communities and our democracy."
"We're excited to help build a coalition of students and workers united in fighting back for a higher education system that is accessible and affordable for all and serves the common good," he added. Other supporting groups include Campus Climate Network, College Democrats of America, Gen-Z for Change, Indivisible, Jewish Voice for Peace, March for Our Lives, and Sunrise Movement.
"Big Tech is building a mountain of speculative infrastructure," warned one critic. "Now it wants the US government to prop up the bubble before it bursts."
Tech giant OpenAI generated significant backlash this week after one of its top executives floated potential loan guarantees from the US government to help fund its massive infrastructure buildout.
In a Wednesday interview with The Wall Street Journal, OpenAI chief financial officer Sarah Friar suggested that the federal government could get involved in infrastructure development for artificial intelligence by offering a "guarantee," which she said could "drop the cost of the financing" and increase the amount of debt her firm could take on.
When asked if she was specifically talking about a "federal backstop for chip investment," she replied, "Exactly."
Hours after the interview, Friar walked back her remarks and insisted that "OpenAI is not seeking a government backstop for our infrastructure commitments," while adding that she was "making the point that American strength in technology will come from building real industrial capacity, which requires the private sector and government playing their part."
Despite Friar's walk-back, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said during a podcast interview with economist Tyler Cowen that released on Thursday that he believed the government ultimately could be a backstop to the artificial intelligence industry.
"When something gets sufficiently huge... the federal government is kind of the insurer of last resort, as we've seen in various financial crises," he said. "Given the magnitude of what I expect AI's economic impact to look like, I do think the government ends up as the insurer of last resort."
Friar and Altman's remarks about government backstops for OpenAI loans drew the immediate ire of Robert Weissman, co-president of consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, who expressed concerns that the tech industry may have already opened up talks about loan guarantees with President Donald Trump's administration.
"Given the Trump regime’s eagerness to shower taxpayer subsidies and benefits on favored corporations, it is entirely possible that OpenAI and the White House are concocting a scheme to siphon taxpayer money into OpenAI’s coffers, perhaps with some tribute paid to Trump and his family." Weissman said. "Perhaps not so coincidentally, OpenAI President Greg Brockman was among the attendees at a dinner for donors to Trump’s White House ballroom, though neither he nor OpenAI have been reported to be actual donors."
JB Branch, Public Citizen’s Big Tech accountability advocate, said even suggesting government backstops for OpenAI showed that the company and its executives were "completely out of touch with reality," and he argued it was no coincidence that Friar floated the possibility of federal loan guarantees at a time when many analysts have been questioning whether the AI industry is an unsustainable financial bubble.
"The truth is simple: the AI bubble is swelling, and OpenAI knows it," he said. "Big Tech is building a mountain of speculative infrastructure without real-world demands or proven productivity-enhancing use cases to justify it. Now it wants the US government to prop up the bubble before it bursts. This is an escape plan for an industry that has overpromised and underdelivered."
An MIT Media Lab report found in September that while AI use has doubled in workplaces since 2023, 95% of organizations that have invested in the technology have seen "no measurable return on their investment."
Concerns about an AI bubble intensified earlier this week when investor Michael Burry, who famously made a fortune by short-selling the US housing market ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, revealed that his firm was making bets against Nvidia and Palantir, two of the biggest players in the AI industry.
This has led to some AI industry players to complain that markets and governments are undervaluing their products.
During her Wednesday WSJ interview, for instance, Friar complained that "I don’t think there’s enough exuberance about AI, when I think about the actual practical implications and what it can do for individual."
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, meanwhile, told the Financial Times that China was going to beat the US in the race to develop high-powered artificial intelligence because the Chinese government offers more energy subsidies to AI and doesn't put as much regulation on AI development.
Huang also complained that "we need more optimism" about the AI industry in the US.
Investment researcher Ross Hendricks, however, dismissed Huang's warning about China winning the AI battle, and he accused the Nvidia CEO of seeking special government favors.
"This is nothing more than Jensen Huang foaming the runway for a federal AI bailout in coordination with OpenAI's latest plea in the WSJ," he commented in a post on X. "These grifters simply can't be happy making billions from one of the greatest investment manias of all time. They'll do everything possible to loot taxpayers to prevent it from popping."
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," stressed one of the war powers resolution's co-sponsors.
As the Trump administration argues that it can continue its extrajudicial assassination spree of alleged drug runners on the high seas without congressional approval, the US Senate is set to vote Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block military action against Venezuela absent lawmakers' assent—as required by law.
Last month, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution to block US military "hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress," citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and Congress' sole ability to declare war under the Constitution.
Posting on X ahead of Thursday's vote, Schiff said that the measure's co-sponsors "are forcing a bipartisan vote to block the administration from dragging this country into war in South America."
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," he added.
Trump has PUBLICLY threatened land strikes in Venezuela—after already killing at least 66 unknown people on boats in the Caribbean—unnecessarily putting the U.S. at risk of war. Here’s what @schiff.senate.gov, Senator Paul, and I are doing about it:youtube.com/shorts/TQKsF...
[image or embed]
— Senator Tim Kaine (@kaine.senate.gov) November 6, 2025 at 8:29 AM
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, a Washington, DC-based think tank, said Thursday that President Donald Trump "talks about himself as a historic peacemaker while continuing to order reckless military strikes and threatening to invade countries around the world."
"His actions violate both the Constitution and his own promises to be an anti-war president," he added.
This is the second time Kaine and Schiff have tried to introduce a Venezuela war powers resolution. Last month, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman joined his GOP colleagues in voting down a similar measure. Paul joined Democrats and Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) in voting for the legislation.
Since September 2, Trump has overseen 16 reported attacks on vessels allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America, killing at least 67 people. Venezuelan and Colombian officials, as well as relatives of some of the slain men, assert that some victims were fishers and condemned the attacks as war crimes.
Trump—who deployed an armada of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of Venezuela—has also approved covert CIA action and, along with senior administration officials, threatened to attack targets on land inside the oil-rich country, which has long been subjected to US meddling, regime change, and deadly sanctions. Late last month, the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said that his country’s security forces captured a group of CIA-aligned mercenaries engaged in a "false-flag attack" against the nation.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—was enacted during the Nixon administration at the tail end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to empower Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days.
That 60-day door closed on Monday. However, according to The Washington Post, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel T. Elliott Gaiser told lawmakers this week that Trump is not bound by the War Powers Resolution, as the administration does not believe that the boat strikes legally meet the definition of "hostilities" because the victims of the attacks aren't fighting back.
The dubious argument that acts of US military aggression aren't hostilities isn't new—the Obama administration asserted similar immunity from the War Powers Resolution when it decided to attack Libya in 2011, leading to the ouster of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi and over a decade of enduring conflict and division.
As Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who is now a senior official at the International Crisis Group, wrote for Just Security this week:
There are many flaws with the Trump administration’s reported interpretation of hostilities. As indicated in the legislative history, Congress understood the term “hostilities” to apply broadly, more broadly than “armed conflict.” The Obama administration’s prior attempt to restrictively interpret the term garnered strong bipartisan congressional opposition...
That the Trump administration would resort to creative lawyering to circumvent the limits of the War Powers Resolution is hardly a surprise... It nonetheless is yet another legal abuse and arrogation of power by the executive. And it is a power grab in the service of killing people outside the law based solely on the president’s own say-so.
"Congress needs to push back against this attempt by the White House to further encroach upon its constitutional prerogatives on the use of military force," Finucane added. "The legislative branch should reject the executive’s strained legal interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, including possibly in legislation. Congress should also continue efforts to halt these killings at sea and block an unlawful attack on Venezuela."