

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.

Leonard Forsman, Suquamish Chairman, 360-340-0986, lforsman@suquamish.nsn.us
Tony Hillaire, Lummi Nation Chief of Staff, 360-393-0890, AnthonyH@Lummi-nsn.gov
Debra Lekanoff, Swinomish Governmental Affairs, 360-391-5296, dlekanoff@swinomish.nsn.us
Francesca Hillery, Tulalip Tribes, 206-395-4048, fhillery@frogfootcommunications.com
Rebecca Bowe, Earthjustice, 415-217-2093, rbowe@earthjustice.org
Opposition to the Trans Mountain pipeline from Coast Salish Tribes on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border continued today with indigenous people of the Salish Sea region testifying before the Canadian National Energy Board. Four U.S. Coast Salish Tribes -- the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Tulalip Tribes, Lummi Nation, and Suquamish Tribe -- shared their concerns alongside Canadian First Nations as part of a Canadian federal government review of the proposed pipeline expansion.
The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion would dramatically increase the number of oil tankers moving crude oil shipments through the Salish Sea, greatly increasing the risk of oil spills. An oil tanker disaster would unleash toxic pollution into a sensitive marine environment and devastate struggling Southern Resident Killer Whales, which hold great cultural significance for Tribes. The project also threatens to violate Tribal communities' treaty-reserved fishing and shellfishing practices.
"The Suquamish people have shared the waters of the Salish Sea for thousands of years," said Suquamish Chairman Leonard Forsman. "We have an obligation to protect our people from increasing threats of vessel traffic and oil spills that may irreparably damage orcas, salmon, shellfish, and our cultural lifeways. It is our duty as stewards to maintain clean water and a healthy ecosystem by opposing the Trans Mountain pipeline."
"The Coast Salish people are separated by an international boundary, but the reality is that our people have lived as a connected whole throughout the waterways of the Salish Sea since time immemorial. Our waters are sacred to us, and our culture is dependent on the integrity of these waters. The Trans Mountain pipeline is a threat to our future," said Marie Zackuse, Tulalip Tribes Chairwoman.
The killer whales of the Salish Sea and the Indigenous Coast Salish cultures have a common bond. "Our connection to the killer whale is personal, is relational, and goes back countless generations," according to Lummi Chairman Jay Julius. "Our name for them, qwe 'lhol mechen, means our relations below the waves."
Lummi Nation hereditary Chief Bill James ("Tsilixw") offered testimony at the hearing. "We all saw the grieving killer whale mother carrying her dead calf," Chief James said. "These are messages from our relatives below the waves. It is our Xa Xalh Xechnging (sacred obligation) to listen and learn from them, and honor them."
"Our Coast Salish way of life, economies, culture, and values are intertwined throughout the Salish Sea. Our Coast Salish people share bloodlines, cultures, and heritage, and like the water, salmon, and her resources, it recognizes no border," said Swinomish Tribal Chairman Brian Cladoosby. "In my 34 years of serving at Swinomish Senate and in my lifetime as a fisherman, I see a fatal future ahead of us. Unless we address the elephant in the room together as governments and citizens, that the reality is the Salish Sea is dying, she has too much pressure from growth, pollution, and vessel traffic, and we need to take bold action together. Just as the salmon and killer whales don't recognize a border, neither will a fatal oil spill."
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, stated, "We are absolutely grateful to our relatives for making the trip north today to stand with First Nations in B.C. in support of Salish Sea killer whales, whose continued existence will be greatly threatened if the Trans Mountain pipeline is expanded. We have a responsibility to do everything in our power to protect these whales, and we will continue to do so, no matter what it takes."
BACKGROUND
The proposed expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline would be built alongside the existing line, connecting Alberta tar sands oil fields to an oil-shipping terminal in Burnaby, B.C. The project would roughly triple the volume of oil delivered via pipeline, from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day. The tar sands crude would be placed on oil tankers and shipped through the Salish Sea, running through the U.S.-Canada maritime border.
Earlier this year, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal overturned prior approval of the crude oil pipeline expansion, finding that the Canadian government had failed to adequately consult with and address the concerns of First Nations opposed to the project. The Court also faulted the National Energy Board for ignoring the impacts of marine vessel traffic, including undisputed and grave threats to imperiled southern resident killer whales (protected as endangered species in both the U.S. and Canada). The proposed project is now owned by the Canadian government, after a purchase from Kinder Morgan. The National Energy Board will make a recommendation to approve or reject the pipeline in the spring of 2019; the final project decision lies with the Canadian federal government and the Trudeau Administration.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460The president has stacked a planning commission with three of his staffers, but organizers hailed a "huge victory" Thursday after the panel delayed a vote following an outpouring of public opposition.
President Donald Trump has gone to significant lengths to ensure the 90,000-square-foot, $400 million ballroom he wants to replace the East Wing of the White House with is constructed swiftly—appointing his own associates and staffers to key commissions that must approve the project.
But even under the leadership of chairman Will Scharf, Trump's former personal lawyer and the White House staff secretary, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) on Thursday was forced to delay a planned vote on approving the ballroom until April 2—unable to ignore tens of thousands of public comments that have poured in denouncing the proposed ballroom as well as a parade of dozens of people who showed up at the commission's meeting to express opposition.
Scharf “cited the expected length of testimony from the more than 100 people who had signed up to say what they thought of the project, which he said might require the meeting to stretch into Friday," reported the Washington Post.
A longtime architect, David Scott Parker, told the panel that he had "grave concerns" about the exaggerated size of the planned ballroom, which "is nearly three times the original White House, in violation of classical architecture principles mandating balance.”
Rebecca Miller, executive director of the DC Preservation League, told the commission—which also includes two other White House staffers, deputy chief of staff James Blair and chief statistician Stuart Levenbach—that the proposed ballroom "is disproportionately large and impersonal and will detract from the dignified atmosphere that has characterized presidential events for centuries,” while Kyle Rowan, who described himself as an "ordinary citizen," had a succinct criticism.
“It’s ugly,” Rowan told the commissioners. “It’s too much.”
Just one speaker out of 30 expressed approval of the project.
The critics who arrived at the commission's meeting in person represented just a fraction of the criticism that has inundated officials since the panel began collecting public comments on the proposed ballroom.
More than 35,000 comments were sent in, and a New York Times artificial intelligence-powered analysis of the responses found that 98% of them were negative. The Post also used AI to determine that more than 97% of the comments were critical, and measured that finding against a sampling of comments that were manually checked.
Some of the remarks alluded to Trump's plan to fund the ballroom construction through private donations, which he has insisted will benefit taxpayers—but which Democratic lawmakers and government watchdogs have warned is an example of blatant corruption, as companies with billions of dollars in federal contracts, including Amazon, Google, and Palantir, are among the donors.
"I am sick that Trump has torn down the East Wing of the People’s House, our house, and plans to build a monstrosity ballroom funded by not 'We the People' but by corrupt, out of touch, unaccountable to anyone, billionaires. It is beyond sickening," wrote a commenter named Donna Smith.
Julie Mason added that the ballroom plan has "opened the door to excessive corruption by the president and his billionaire backers through quid pro quo," and a South Carolina resident named Barbara Bryant added that the "financing of the project is perhaps its most troubling aspect."
"The $400 million private corporate donation scheme is a blatant attempt to evade congressional oversight," Bryant wrote. "By allowing corporations with active business before the government to fund a presidential vanity project, the administration has created a fertile ground for corruption, turning a national landmark into a billboard for private interests."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed without evidence on Thursday that the public comments "are clearly stemming from an organized campaign of Trump-deranged liberals who clearly have no style or taste."
"It’s a shame that some people in this country are so debilitated with Trump derangement syndrome, they can’t even recognize or respect beauty when they see it," said Leavitt.
An Economist-YouGov poll taken last month found that 58% of Americans opposed tearing down the East Wing to build the ballroom, while just 25% supported it.
The public comments echoed those of protesters who assembled outside the NCPC's offices on Thursday at a demonstration organized by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. The group has closely followed Trump's decision to staff the commission with his own administration officials and the "myriad of conflicts of interest concerns" that have arisen as wealthy corporations have lined up to fund the ballroom.
Jon Golinger, a democracy advocate for Public Citizen who testified at the NCPC meeting Thursday, noted that one federal judge had accused the Trump administration of erecting a "Rube Goldberg contraption" to collect donations from "corporations, billionaires, and an unknown number of secret donors" while evading "congressional and public oversight and [shielding] the donors and recipients of the money from scrutiny."
“According to news reports, the expectation is that those names will be etched on the White House as part of the ballroom's brick or stone," said Golinger. "It is outrageous that the Trump administration would engrave the names of corporations with government contracts who gave them checks on the White House like a big tacky advertising billboard. I urge NCPC to explicitly prohibit them from doing so.”
At the meeting, Golinger condemned Trump's decision to stack the commission with his own staffers and said Scharf, Blair, and Levenbach lack the legally required experience in city or regional planning to sit on the panel.
“The fix is in for this project and this vote,” said Golinger.
Scharf argued he is qualified for the position due to his past work in the Missouri governor's office.
At the protest, Golinger said the commission's decision to delay the vote on the ballroom was a "huge victory," considering Trump has filled the commission with his "cronies."
"Public pressure has mattered," he said. "It's not the end of the fight, no doubt they're going to come back and try to ram it through next time, but this [delay] isn't something I even conceived."
"Both practically and politically, a vote to fund the war is a vote for the war—a war Americans cannot afford and do not want."
Democratic members of Congress are facing renewed pressure to oppose any Trump administration funding requests to help bankroll its illegal, open-ended war on Iran after congressional Republicans—along with a handful of pro-war Democrats—voted this week to defeat efforts to end the assault, which is costing US taxpayers roughly $1 billion per day.
In a statement after House Republicans and four Democrats voted down an Iran war powers resolution late Thursday, the ACLU implored Congress "to use its funding authority to block all supplemental funding requests for war funding from the Department of Defense while President Trump is engaging in this unconstitutional war."
"Without Congress authorizing additional funds, the military will simply run out of money to spend on the war," the group added.
The Trump administration is reportedly crafting a $50 billion supplemental funding request aimed at financing its war, which has killed more than 1,000 Iranians and counting. Politico reported Thursday that Republicans are "debating whether to attach wildfire aid and $15 billion in tariff relief for farmers" to the supplemental funding measure in an effort to attract Democratic support.
The National Priorities Project (NPP) has noted that $50 billion would be enough to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for a year, restore federal nutrition assistance to millions who are set to lose it due to the Trump-GOP budget law, and expand Medicaid to nearly 2 million people.
"The question isn’t whether the money exists—it's what we choose to spend it on," NPP's Alliyah Lusuegro and Lindsay Koshgarian wrote Thursday. "There’s never been a better time to call your members of Congress. We need to oppose this war before it’s too late."
"Any member of Congress who rubber stamps another dime for this war of choice should expect to hear from our members."
Some Senate Democrats—including Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee—have not ruled out voting for a possible supplemental funding bill for the Pentagon, even as the annual US military budget cleared $1 trillion.
“We have to look at what they need,” Reed said earlier this week. “Some of it might be to fill in critical issues and other theaters of war they’ve taken things from.”
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told HuffPost that she "would like to understand the goals of the war before I decide how I feel about the funding of the war."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Thursday that "both practically and politically, a vote to fund the war is a vote for the war—a war Americans cannot afford and do not want."
The progressive advocacy group MoveOn said its members "consider a vote for the supplemental a vote in favor of Donald Trump's war."
"Any member of Congress who rubber stamps another dime for this war of choice should expect to hear from our members," the group added.
To break the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate, Republicans would need at least seven Democrats to cross the aisle.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) expressed emphatic opposition to the floated supplemental funding bill in a social media post on Thursday.
"I’m a hell no on funding for Trump’s illegal, disastrous Iran War," Murphy wrote.
“Month after month, the data shows Donald Trump’s economy is failing American families.”
President Donald Trump's self-proclaimed "greatest" economy in history took another major blow on Friday as the US Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that the American economy lost 92,000 jobs in February.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, described the report as "dismal," while noting that the US economy as a whole has actually lost jobs since Trump announced his "liberation day" global tariffs in April 2025.
"Total job gains since from May 2025 to February 2026 are now -19,000," she wrote. "Companies are not hiring in the face of all of these headwinds and uncertainty. And even healthcare is starting to slow down."
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers argued that "the economic story just changed dramatically" because of the jobs report, which also showed downward revisions to the estimated jobs created in December and January.
"Recession questions are back on the menu," he said.
Mike Konczal, senior director of policy and research at the Economic Security Project, zeroed in on the surprise loss of healthcare jobs in February as particularly concerning given that healthcare has been the lone industry to consistently add jobs in recent months.
"This is the first month in years where healthcare jobs went negative, really changing the dynamic," he said. "Cuts to Medicaid, cuts to ACA... suddenly the thing that was 187% of private jobs since liberation day, holding it together, may be giving out?"
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said that the terrible jobs report was a direct reflection of Trump's economic mismanagement.
"Month after month, the data shows Donald Trump’s economy is failing American families," Boyle said. "The job market is weakening, costs remain high, and Trump’s illegal tariff taxes continue to hurt businesses and workers. Trump and his allies in Congress know their agenda isn’t working. Instead of helping working families, they are pushing more tariff taxes and more tax breaks for billionaires. It is clear Republicans in Washington simply do not care about working families."
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, declared that "the deterioration in the labor market is visible from space," and pinned the blame on "Trump’s reckless economic agenda."
"As the president piles on blanket tariffs and oil prices soar," Jacquez said, "today's report confirms he's sent the economy straight into a stagflation spiral."
University of Pennsylvania economist Heather Boushey said weakness in the US economy had been evident for several months, although Friday's jobs report showed the largest job losses of any month during Trump's second term.
"Today's data should not come as a shock as there have been signs of weakening in the US labor market for quite some time," she said. "The Trump administration’s focus on undermining the US economy rather than investing in America may be coming home to roost."
Daniel Hornung, policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, said that the bad jobs report will make things even harder for the US Federal Reserve when it comes to making interest rate cut decisions.
"This morning’s report... comes at a difficult moment, with inflation still above target and an oil price shock threatening to raise inflation further," Hornung said. "The report complicates the Fed’s efforts to keep both unemployment and inflation low, and it makes it difficult for the [Trump] administration to argue heading into the midterms that their policies are leading to the kind of growth or improvement in living standards that they’ve long promised."