

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.

Julie Macuga, 350VT Extreme Energy Organizer: resist@350vt.org
Maeve McBride, Director 350VT: Maeve@350vt.org
Kanika Gandhi, VPIRG Clean Energy Advocate: kgandhi@vpirg.org
Mari Cordes, State Representative (introduced H.175): mcordes@leg.state.vt.us
Mary Sullivan, State Representative (introduced H.51): msullivan@leg.state.vt.us
Over 130 people flooded the State House Tuesday night for a public hearing on bills regarding fossil fuel infrastructure. The largest hearing room quickly filled, and an overflow room with live-streaming was set up for others. Sixty people testified in support of bills that would limit any new large-scale fossil fuel infrastructure, far outnumbering just four people against the bills. 350Vermont, Sunrise Middlebury, Vermont Interfaith Power & Light and other groups had requested a public hearing with the Vermont House Energy and Technology Committee. This came just two weeks after 350Vermont's Next Steps Climate Walk brought 300 to the State House to push for the hearing and demand action on climate change.
"There are many reasons to pass these bills," said Julie Macuga, Extreme Energy Organizer for 350Vermont. "Even if we could ignore the cataclysmic effects of climate change, our newest pipeline, which carries fracked gas from Canada, is still under investigation for safety issues. The industry tries to paint a picture of sustainability, but we're not buying it."
The bills include H.51, introduced by Mary Sullivan, which would ban new large-scale fossil fuel infrastructure in the state, and H.175, introduced by Mari Cordes, which would ban the use of eminent domain to take land for the construction of fossil fuel projects.
Said Cordes, "Especially with the omnipresent force of moneyed power, we must join in collective action to avert more of the havoc already caused by the climate crisis. We legislators must listen to our communities and join in calling everyone in to change direction, including fossil fuel companies."
Rep. Sullivan said of the legislation, "If fossil fuel pipelines are still allowed to be built we will be strapping ratepayers for years to come with the cost of this infrastructure. We desperately need to be moving to renewable energy - both for our economy and our planet. Let's not leave Vermont behind."
The Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) have also been working to advance the bills.
Kanika Gandhi, Clean Energy and Environmental Advocate VPIRG, said, "No matter how you spin it, fracked gas is not clean energy. Vermonters know that our future depends on conservation and renewable energy. That's where we should be investing our resources."
There was a strong intergenerational presence at the hearing, including many students from Middlebury and Burlington Sunrise Movement, a group that has been advocating for the Green New Deal nationally.
Clarissa Sprague, UVM student Sunrise member said, "We are politically spinning our wheels, overlooking and delaying discussion on many transformative climate bills this session. In my home state, Portland Oregon has already successfully, passed a city ordinance banning new fossil fuel infrastructure. This has and can be done." Olivia Sommers, of Middlebury, said, "This bill is about more than banning fossil fuel infrastructure. This bill is about whether this state legislature cares about my future and my family's future. Banning fossil fuel infrastructure is the least we can do."
At the conclusion of the hearing, the audience erupted in song, as the legislators made their way out of the hearing room. The people sang, "There are more waters rising" in a somber tone, echoing some of the heart-wrenching testimonies about species decline, personal stories of losses from forest fires, and families torn from their homes. Those in attendance indicated that they will continue to escalate their actions and raise the alarm on the climate crisis until legislators act with the urgency demanded in this moment.
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.
Critics pointed out that Trump has often endorsed violence against protesters when they opposed him.
President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to attack Iran on Thursday in response to its government's increasingly violent crackdown on ongoing protests.
"If they start killing people, which they tend to do during their riots—they have lots of riots—if they do it, we're going to hit them very hard," he said.
Addressing the Iranian people, he added: "You must stand up for your right to freedom. There is nothing like freedom. You are a brave people. It’s a shame what’s happening to your country."
The Norway-based Iran Human Rights (IHR) reported on Thursday that Iranian security forces have killed at least 45 protesters since demonstrations against the regime began in late December. Wednesday was the bloodiest day yet, with 13 people reportedly killed.
On Thursday, Iranian authorities shut down internet access for the population, which has limited the flow of information in and out of the country.
The protests kicked off in response to the sudden collapse in the value of Iran's currency, the rial, which exacerbated the country's already spiraling cost-of-living crisis, heightening inflation and putting many basic goods out of reach for many Iranians.
This economic crisis has been shifted into hyperdrive since Trump returned to office last year and re-implemented his “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran, including more severe economic sanctions and a 12-day war in June during which the US struck several Iranian nuclear sites. Over the past year, the average cost of food has increased by 70%, while the cost of medicine has increased by 50%.
The rial has lost 95% of its value since 2018, when Trump withdrew the US from the nuclear agreement with Iran, which included sanctions relief.
Last Friday, just one day before he bombed Venezuela as part of an operation to overthrow its leader Nicolás Maduro and seize the nation's oil reserves, Trump wrote on Truth Social that "if Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go."
On Tuesday, US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a leading proponent of regime change, warned Iran's leaders that "if you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life—Donald J. Trump is going to kill you." Just days before, Graham said that Iran's "weakened" state was thanks in part to Trump's efforts to "economically isolate" the country.
Iran has blamed the unrest on "interference in Iran’s internal affairs” by the United States. The nation's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has urged authorities to exhibit the “utmost restraint” in handling protesters. But earlier this week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini said "rioters" must be "put in their place," while a top judge accused demonstrators of being agents of the US and Israel.
The latest swell of protests began after Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince and son of Iran's former US-backed shah, called for demonstrators to take to the streets. On Thursday, Pahlavi, who has lived most of his life in the US after the royal family was run out of Iran during the 1979 revolution, met with Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog.
Critics pointed out that Trump has often endorsed violence against protesters when they opposed him. Just a day before he issued his latest threat, he defended a federal immigration agent who fatally shot an unarmed mother in Minneapolis, while members of his administration falsely described her as a "domestic terrorist."
He has previously advocated for the US military to be deployed to use force against protesters and threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell peaceful protests, including the No Kings demonstrators who mobilized nationwide in October.
"The most urgent need now is for the DOJ to produce all the documents and electronically stored information required by the act."
The congressmen behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act on Thursday asked a federal judge to appoint a "special master and/or independent monitor" to ensure that the Trump administration actually releases the documents from the trafficking case against deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as required by the new law.
Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) led the monthslong congressional effort to pass the legislation, which Trump—a former friend of Epstein who's repeatedly mentioned in the files—signed in November. Since then, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has published some heavily redacted materials but blown the December 19 deadline to release everything.
"We have offered for six months to meet with the Justice Department to help them get the right documents out, and we're now going to be intervening with the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to ask those judges to appoint a special master and ensure that all the documents are released," Khanna told NPR last week.
Khanna and Massie did so with a Thursday letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, writing to the appointee of former President Barack Obama that "we have urgent and grave concerns about DOJ's failure to comply with the act as well as the department's violations of this court's order."
As MS NOW—which initially reported on the letter—explained, "Engelmayer oversees the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and last month, the Justice Department obtained Engelmayer's permission to release grand jury materials and other evidence provided to Maxwell in discovery that were redacted or sealed per a court order."
On December 24, the DOJ announced that it had received over a million more documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and SDNY "to review them for release, in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, existing statutes, and judicial orders." The department added then that "due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks."
Khanna and Massie noted in their letter that the DOJ's most recent court filing on Monday states the department has only produced "approximately 12,285 documents (compromising approximately 125,575 pages)" and there is still "more than 2 million documents potentially responsive to the act in various phases of review."
As the lawmakers pointed out: "Other reports suggest that the DOJ may be reviewing more than 5 million pages. Because these figures are self-reported and internally inconsistent with prior representations, there is reasonable suspicion that the DOJ has overstated the scope of responsive materials, thereby portraying compliance as unmanageable and effectively delaying disclosure."
According to their letter:
The conduct by the DOJ is not only a flagrant violation of the mandatory disclosure obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but as this court has recognized in its previous rulings, the behavior by the DOJ has caused serious trauma to survivors.
In addition, the DOJ has not complied with Section 3 of the act, which requires the attorney general, within 15 days of the deadline for release, to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary committees identifying the categories of records released and withheld and summarizing all redactions and their legal bases. To date, no such report has been provided. Without it, there is no authoritative accounting of what records exist, what has been withheld, or why, making effective oversight and judicial review far more difficult.
Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the act.
Khanna and Massie added that "while we believe that criminal violations have taken place and must be addressed, the most urgent need now is for the DOJ to produce all the documents and electronically stored information required by the act."
The pair has threatened to bring inherent contempt proceedings against US Attorney General Pam Bondi. Asked about that on Tuesday, Massie told MS NOW that they were assessing the situation and still hoped for DOJ compliance.
"Hopefully, we don't have to do it," the congressman said. "But when we feel like we need to do it, we'll do it."
The vice president's remarks came after analysis by both the New York Times and Washington Post undercut the Trump administration's claims about Good's killing.
Vice President JD Vance on Thursday lashed out at the media and "left-wing" activists whom he blamed for the death of Minneapolis resident Renee Good at the hands of a federal immigration enforcement agent.
During a press conference at the White House, a reporter asked Vance if there was anything he could say to unite America in the wake of Good's killing by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, and Vance responded by immediately attacking the media.
"The reporting over this has been one of the biggest scandals I've ever seen in media," Vance complained. "I've never seen a case so misrepresented and misreported. We have a guy who was defending himself, who is now being treated as some sort of federal assassin by so many of the people in this room."
Vance also described Good as "a woman who aimed her car at a law enforcement officer and pressed on the accelerator."
JD Vance on the killing of Renee Good: "The reporting over this has been one of the biggest scandals I've ever seen in media. I've never seen a case so misrepresented and misreported." pic.twitter.com/GLWad9g2Qt
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2026
In-depth video analyses of Good's killing published by both the New York Times and the Washington Post on Thursday undercut the Trump administration's claims that the she was trying to run over the ICE agent before he fatally shot her.
The Times analyzed footage from three different camera angles and concluded that Good's vehicle "appears to be turning away from a federal officer as he opened fire."
The Post, meanwhile, found that the agent fired "at least two of three shots from the side of the vehicle as it veered past him."
Observers of various footage circulating online have reached similar conclusions.
Elsewhere in the press conference, Vance baselessly asserted that Good had been indoctrinated by left-wing politics.
"There is a part of me that feels very sad for this woman," he said. "And not just because she lost her life, but because I think she is a victim of left-wing ideology. What young mother shows up and decides they're going to throw their car in front of ICE officers who are enforcing law? You've got to be a little brainwashed to get to that point."
Vance also accused unnamed people and institutions of funding violent attacks on ICE agents.
JD Vance on Renee Good: "I think she's a victim of left-wing ideology. What young mother shows up and decides they're gonna throw their car in front of ICE officers who are enforcing law? You've got to be a little brainwashed." pic.twitter.com/7sdh0WT69Y
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2026
"If you are funding violence against our law enforcement officers... my guess is that's not the sort of thing that earns capital punishment, but it should sure as hell earn you a few years in prison," Vance said.
JD Vance: "If you are funding violence against our law enforcement officers, I'm not a prosecutor, my guess is that's not the sort of thing that earns capital punishment. But it should sure as hell earn you a few years in prison." pic.twitter.com/2AklZQtKFh
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2026
The vice president's remarks about organizations purportedly "funding" attacks on law enforcement come just weeks after it was revealed that US Attorney General Pam Bondi had written a memo directing the US Department of Justice to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”
The memo identified the “domestic terrorism threat” as organizations that use “violence or the threat of violence” to advance political goals such as “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality.”