SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
December, 02 2018, 11:00pm EDT
Contact:
Cassady Craighill, ccraighill@greenpeace.org,
Greenpeace USA on COP24: The Majority of People in the US Want Climate Action
WASHINGTON
In response to the opening of the COP24 global meeting in Poland, Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard said,
"The inaction of the United States, the world's second largest carbon emitter, on climate change will go down as one of history's darkest injustices. As the consequences of climate change become a daily and devastating occurrence, the backlash against the Trump administration's willful ignorance on climate will only strengthen. The majority of people in the United States desperately want sweeping action on climate change and voted in a new wave of leaders in last month's historic midterm elections to tackle the crisis that is already destroying lives and communities.
There are countless reasons for hope from state leadership to everyday people holding the biggest corporations in the world accountable for their carbon footprint. The United States will rejoin the rest of the world one day in true climate leadership and it will be because the will of the people prevailed over corruption and criminal climate denial."
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000LATEST NEWS
'Blatant Abuse of Power' Blocked as Judge Puts Temporary Halt on Trump's $1.8 Billion Slush Fund
"Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician," said the head of one advocacy group.
May 29, 2026
A federal judge in Virginia on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from moving to create a so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that would use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to reward supporters, including people convicted of seditious and violent felonies during the January 6 insurrection.
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a 2-page order barring any action “pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.”
Brinkema—a nominee of former President Bill Clinton—set a June 12 hearing date for arguments on whether she should extend the pause amid numerous legal challenges to what critics have called a "felon-to-felon slush fund," a reference to President Donald Trump's 34 felony convictions and the serious crimes, including violent assaults on police officers with dangerous weapons, committed by January 6 insurrectionists who were later pardoned by the president.
In January, Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns by a former IRS contractor. Trump’s own Justice Department settled the case earlier this month by agreeing to create the roughly $1.776 billion settlement slush fund for people claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government.
January 6 insurrectionists are expected to be among the fund's beneficiaries. Trump was accused of rewarding political violence by granting clemency to roughly 1,500 Capitol attackers, dozens of whom have since been charged or convicted for serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.
Brinkema's decision came less than 24 hours after plaintiffs in one of the legal challenges to the fund, who are represented by Democracy Forward, filed a motion for emergency relief. Plaintiffs' attorneys told Brinkema that they’re “already being irreparably harmed by the unconstitutional and unlawful creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund," and that such harm "will be permanent if the administration takes action, including by irreversibly disbursing funds, before this court can act."
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said following Friday's ruling, "Today, a federal court recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme before the legality of that program can be fully reviewed by the court."
“This is a victory for transparency, the rule of law, and the American people," Perryman added. "No administration has the authority to spend public money through a political rewards program that Congress never authorized. We look forward to the next stages in this case.”
Case plaintiffs issued a statement following Brinkema's order:
We are pleased that the court granted our request to ensure the administration does not distribute taxpayer funds until our motion has been considered. The court acted quickly to stop this unlawful scheme before money could start flowing out the door. The Trump-Vance administration attempted to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded program that rewards political allies, operates without oversight, and evades the constitutional safeguards that protect our democracy. We are grateful that the court recognized the urgency of the situation and acted to preserve the status quo before further irreparable harm occurred.
Democratic lawmakers welcomed Brinkema's order, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling it "an important win."
"Of all Trump’s corrupt schemes, his insurrectionist slush fund is one of the most depraved," said Schumer, who acknowledged the battle over Trump's fund is far from over. "We’ll keep fighting in the courts and in Congress to make sure this $2 billion giveaway to cop beaters, criminals, and MAGA cronies never sees the light of day."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) posted on social media: "I’ve said from the start that this is an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars. This needs to be stopped permanently."
Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said in a statement that “today’s ruling is a critical reminder that no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States."
"Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund for his friends and diehard loyalists—including those who tried to overthrow our democracy on January 6—is a blatant abuse of power, and the court rightly blocked it," Harvey added. "Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Let's Call This What It Is: Censorship': Fired '60 Minutes' Journalists Speak Out
Cecilia Vega, one of several journalists ousted from the show, said many of her colleagues "have had to fight to maintain editorial independence" under CBS News' new Trump-aligned corporate owners.
May 29, 2026
A group of veteran “60 Minutes” journalists was fired on Thursday as CBS News’ recently installed right-wing editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, moves to reshape the network in her image. Some of the ousted employees are describing their mass firing as a clear act of political “censorship.”
News had already broken earlier this week that correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi was on the way out after more than ten years on the flagship news program, after she'd publicly criticized Weiss' decision to delay her story on the Trump administration's deportation of immigrants to a notorious Salvadoran torture prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), late last year.
But Alfonsi's departure was rumored to be part of a larger shakeup by Weiss, who has been accused of molding the network into a mouthpiece for the Trump administration following the government-approved acquisition of CBS's parent company, Paramount, by billionaire David Ellison, owner of Skydance.
On Thursday, the hammer finally fell. In addition to the formal firing of Alfonsi, The Washington Post reported that Weiss had also fired Tanya Simon, who’d worked on the show for a quarter-century and had recently taken on the role of executive producer. Correspondent Cecilia Vega—who had also covered CECOT for the network before Weiss' arrival—was canned as well, even though her contract was not set to expire until March 2027. So was executive editor Draggan Mihailovich.
In a memo to staff on Thursday, Weiss and CBS News President Tom Cibrowski said the firings were the result of them “building a show that thrives in the 21st century.”
“That requires a new approach,” they said, outlining their goals of “expanding ‘60 Minutes’ beyond a one-hour television broadcast, deepening its role across CBS News, and holding everything we produce to the ambition, fairness, and fearlessness that have defined ‘60 Minutes’ at its best.”
To fill the role of executive producer, Weiss brought in a network outsider, Nick Bilton, a former technology columnist at The New York Times and producer of documentaries for HBO and Netflix. Weiss called him “one of the most entrepreneurial journalists of our time and the perfect leader for one of the most entrepreneurial news brands of all time.”
Though Weiss reportedly viewed Simon as a “bad leader” who “couldn’t control the staff,” according to one source who spoke anonymously with The New York Post, Simon announced her departure with warm words for those who’d continue working on “60 Minutes.”
“While leadership has decided it is time for a new chapter—I want to be unequivocally clear about one thing: It has been an immense privilege to lead this broadcast, and I could not be prouder of what we have built, fought for, and delivered together over the last year," Simon said in a statement published Thursday. "'60 Minutes' has always been more than just a broadcast: It is an institution built on independence, grit, and rigorous search for the truth.“
But Vega gave a more candid explanation for her and her colleagues' firings.
"In recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories," she said in a statement Thursday. "Reporting teams have held back on submitting story pitches about important news topics out of fear of the internal repercussions."
"Let's call this what it is: censorship, both imposed and self-driven," she continued. "It is dangerous for the show and dangerous for democracy."
Vega's criticisms mirror those made earlier this week by Alfonsi, who said her firing was "a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting."
In December, Weiss abruptly pulled Alfonsi's story featuring the testimony of some of the men who were tortured in the CECOT prison shortly before it was set to air, citing a lack of commentary in the segment from Trump administration officials, who had repeatedly ignored the journalists’ requests for an interview. At the time, Alfonsi said Weiss had effectively given the government a “kill switch” on critical reporting. The segment eventually went to air the next month with some editing.
Following her ouster on Thursday, Vega described her own efforts to oppose what she viewed as politically-motivated meddling by network higher-ups.
"I held the line and refused to incorporate suggestions that offend the conscience," she said. "I know from many conversations with colleagues that many producing teams and correspondents working on the show today have had to fight to maintain editorial independence with regularity."
“I am far from the only ‘60 Minutes’ correspondent who has asked herself, ‘What is my personal red line? How much can I push back before I pay the price?'" Vega added.
She said she was proud of her work at '60 Minutes' and cited her reporting on CECOT for the program, which won a DuPont Columbia journalism award, as one of her finest achievements.
Weiss' overhaul of '60 Minutes' comes as Ellison eyes the merger of Paramount with another major media conglomerate, Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.
President Donald Trump has said it's “imperative” that any acquisition of Warner Bros. includes CNN and has publicly denounced a rival bid for the company by Netflix.
Earlier this week, Reuters reported that antitrust regulators at the Department of Justice appeared ready to approve a $110 billion takeover by Paramount following meetings with Ellison and other company executives.
A group of journalists—including tech reporter Kara Swisher, former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, and NBC News legal analyst Katie Phang—warned at an event hosted earlier this week by a coalition of press freedom groups that, especially in the wake of Alfonsi's firing, the government-approved consolidation of media posed a dangerous threat to the future of journalistic freedom.
“I think what’s happening right now is pretty dangerous,” Acosta said. “To essentially announce the departure of Sharyn Alfonsi from 60 Minutes is a very in-your-face move by some people who don’t care very much about the First Amendment.”
“Folks need to use a little bit of their imagination here to recognize what may be coming down the pike,” he said, warning that the Trump administration was building a “strange oligarchical empire… attempting to do state media.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Official Tells Millions Kicked Off Food Aid That They’re ‘Moving Into the American Dream’
"Unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins," said one expert.
May 29, 2026
The head of the US Agriculture Department on Thursday celebrated that millions of people have lost federal nutrition assistance under the second Trump administration, declaring that families who have seen their modest aid disappear are closer to realizing "the American dream."
Speaking at an event in Arizona, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins—who has an estimated net worth of around $15 million—said that the Trump administration has "moved about 4 million off of SNAP," referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Rollins suggested, without evidence, that some of those who have lost SNAP benefits were receiving them fraudulently.
But others, claimed Rollins, are "moving into the American dream and off of welfare."
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), wrote in response that "unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins."
Watch Rollins' remarks:
Brooke Rollins: "As we've moved about 4 million off SNAP, we don't have the exact data of how much of that is fraud, how much of that is people moving into the American dream and off of welfare." pic.twitter.com/oSFkCtS79I
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 28, 2026
Trump administration officials, including President Donald Trump himself, have repeatedly used euphemistic language to describe the large-scale loss of food aid following passage of the Republican budget reconciliation package last summer. That measure contains $186 billion in SNAP cuts over the next decade—the largest in the program's history.
During his State of the Union address in February, Trump boasted that his administration has "lifted" millions of Americans off SNAP, falsely suggesting that the mass loss of benefits was attributable to stronger economic conditions rather than deliberate policy changes designed to boot people from the program.
"Economic conditions haven’t been improving as the number of people receiving SNAP has plummeted in recent months, representing the sharpest decline in decades," CBPP noted in a recent analysis. "The last time there was such a steep decrease in participation in such a short period of time (other than temporary spikes following natural disasters) was nearly three decades ago, after Congress enacted very deep cuts to SNAP (then the Food Stamp Program) in 1996."
"SNAP participation has fallen in every state," the think tank added, "and in some, the drop is particularly alarming."
"The government hasn’t 'lifted' Americans facing food insecurity; it’s simply decided to kick them down the elevator shaft."
Arizona, the state Rollins visited on Thursday, saw a roughly 50% decline in the number of people receiving SNAP benefits between January 2025 and February of this year, with hundreds of thousands of people losing benefits.
"We certainly are not seeing a drop in the number of folks that are participating because we’ve solved hunger," Adrienne Udarbe, executive director of the nonprofit group Pinnacle Prevention, told AZFamily earlier this week.
One Tucson, Arizona resident, a single mother of three, told the Unrig Our Economy coalition on Friday that "even working full-time, I’ve been unable to access SNAP benefits since March thanks to Republicans’ cuts."
"Costs are already rising everywhere because of Republicans’ tariffs and their war in Iran, and cutting food assistance is pushing families like mine over the edge," said the mother, identified as Angelica G. "It’s difficult to work so hard to make ends meet just to watch Republicans in Congress give even more tax breaks to billionaires while cutting food services that families like mine rely on.”
In Kansas, more than 21,000 people have lost SNAP benefits since July. Haley Kottler, senior campaign director at the advocacy group Kansas Appleseed, said in a statement Thursday that "these are not just abstract numbers."
"These are Kansas kids losing access to food," said Kottler. "This has real implications for Kansas children to access the nutrition they need to learn, grow, and thrive."
Rollins' comments Thursday came amid a flurry of data showing the weakness of the US economy and the struggles of working-class families under Trump's leadership, from rising inflation to falling personal savings rates.
Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released an analysis showing that the US has seen "a remarkable increase in food insecurity" in recent months, "particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children."
Political analyst Steve Benen wrote in a column for MS NOW on Tuesday that "Republicans seem to think this is worth bragging about."
"Trump’s routine use of the word 'lift' makes it sound as if struggling families were put onto an elevator that carried them to a stronger and more secure position," wrote Benen. "That turns reality on its head: Thanks to the inaptly named One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the government hasn’t 'lifted' Americans facing food insecurity; it’s simply decided to kick them down the elevator shaft, depriving much of the public of food aid."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular