

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.

Patrick Davis, (202) 222-0744, pdavis@foe.org
A new peer-reviewed study shows an explosion in the toxicity of U.S. agriculture for insects over the past 25 years since neonicotinoid pesticides were introduced. The study found that U.S. agriculture is 48 times more toxic to insect life, and that neonicotinoids account for 92 percent of the increase in toxicity.
"It is alarming that U.S. agriculture has become so much more toxic to insect life in the past two decades," said Kendra Klein, Ph.D., study co-author and senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth. "We need to phase out neonicotinoid pesticides to protect bees and other insects that are critical to biodiversity and the farms that feed us."
Published in the journal PLOS ONE, An assessment of acute insecticide toxicity loading of chemical pesticides used on agricultural land in the United States, is the first study to quantify how hazardous our agricultural lands have become for insect life by providing a way to compare changes in the toxicity of U.S. agriculture year-to-year.
The increase in toxic load measured by the study is consistent with recent reports of dramatic declines in beneficial insects and bird populations. The study comes on the heels of the first meta-analysis of global insect decline, which found that 40 percent of insect species face extinction in coming decades, leading the authors to warn of "catastrophic ecosystem collapse" if we don't change the way we farm.
The new study found that the persistence of neonicotinoids creates a cumulative toxic burden in the environment that is much higher than that experienced by insects 25 or more years ago. This is because neonicotinoids are considerably more toxic to insects and far more persistent in the environment than other commonly used insecticides. While others break down within hours or days, neonicotinoids can be effective at killing insects for months to years after application.
"Congress must pass the Saving America's Pollinators Act to ban neonicotinoids," said Klein. "In addition, we need to rapidly shift our food system away from dependence on harmful pesticides and toward organic farming methods that work with nature rather than against it."
A growing body of evidence points to neonicotinoids as a factor in insect declines, along with climate change and habitat destruction, leading some scientists to warn of an "insect apocalypse." Insects make up the basis of the food webs that sustain life on Earth and play a critical role in the agricultural production of crops that feed us all. Pollinators, like bees, are responsible for one in three bites of food we eat.
The new study shows a dramatic increase in the toxic load of U.S. agriculture beginning in the mid-2000s. This is when neonicotinoids first started being used to coat the seeds of commodity crops like corn and soy. The findings show that corn and soy have contributed more than any other crops to the increase in toxic load. Research, including an Environmental Protection Agency assessment, shows that neonicotinoid seed coatings provide little to no economic benefits to farmers but come at a high cost to the environment.
The study found that the three neonicotinoids that contributed most to the increasing toxic load are imidacloprid and clothianidin, manufactured by Bayer, and thiamethoxam, a product of Syngenta-ChemChina.
Based on the study analysis, the authors assert that existing regulations for the registration of pesticides in the U.S. are not adequate to prevent the introduction of chemicals that can cause catastrophic harm in the environment. The study presents a new method that could be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to assess future potential risks to biodiversity before introducing new pesticides into the environment.
DiBartolomeis, M., Kegley, S., Mineau, P., Radford, R., and Klein, K. 2019. An assessment of acute insecticide toxicity loading (AITL) of chemical pesticides used on agricultural land in the United States. PLOS ONE. 14(8): e0220029.
For more information go to https://foe.org/toxic-acres/
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) 783-7400Reporting in The New York Times reveals Vance wanted to use the military "to crush the unrest in Minnesota."
A Monday report in The New York Times revealed what it described as the "alarm" felt by some White House lawyers at proposals made earlier this year by Vice President JD Vance and Trump adviser Stephen Miller as the administration was forced to contend with widespread anger over its anti-immigration agenda.
Among other things, the Times reported that Vance pushed for President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow for the US military to be deployed on American streets, in an effort to shut down mass protests in Minnesota against federal immigration enforcement operations in the state.
A few days after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers fatally shot demonstrator Alex Pretti in the streets of Minneapolis, the Times reported that Vance—who had also elevated a baseless claim by Miller that Pretti had been a "would-be assassin"—said invoking the Insurrection Act was necessary "to crush the unrest in Minnesota."
Vance also believed invoking the law would send a “message” that “paid agitators could not get away with disrupting ICE operations”—even though, as the Times noted, there is no evidence that Pretti; demonstrator Renee Good, who was also killed by federal agents; or any other organizers in Minnesota or elsewhere received any money in exchange for protesting.
However, right-wing attorney Will Scharf quickly shot down Vance's suggestion, noting that the Insurrection Act is an instrument aimed at putting down armed rebellions rather than groups of citizens blowing whistles at ICE officers.
Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair then made the political case against invoking the Insurrection Act.
"The scenes of federal agents in Minnesota already looked chaotic, he said, and the public was recoiling," reported the Times. "He put three questions to the room: What does the Insurrection Act give us that we don’t already have? What changes on the ground would be worth the heat? What else could they win that would justify the public relations cost?"
"The room was quiet," the Times added. "Nobody had a good answer."
The Times report also revealed that Trump adviser Stephen Miller, Trump's homeland security adviser and deputy chief of staff, repeatedly pushed the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants, which would give the administration the power to carry out mass deportations without being subjected to judicial oversight.
As in the case of Vance's proposal, Scharf pushed back against Miller's suggestion, noting that courts have long held that habeas corpus cannot be suspended unilaterally by the president and must be done by an act of Congress.
"Even where Congress has explicitly suspended habeas corpus rights," Scharf wrote in a legal memo obtained by the Times, "the Supreme Court has held that some alternative process must be provided to defendants, with procedural safeguards akin to a habeas corpus action."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said the Times' reporting showed Miller "would happily shred the Constitution into little pieces if he could," before hopefully noting that "even he wasn’t powerful enough to do it" in this instance.
University of Michigan Law School Professor Leah Litman argued that the Times report showed some in the administration were at least still somewhat conscious of public opinion when making decisions.
"In the story about the administration weighing suspending habeas corpus and invoking the Insurrection Act, what moved the needle against the Insurrection Act was concern about 'public relations,'" Litman wrote. "Public pushback, agitation, and outcry can work. Even now. Keep it up."
The announcement, said one advocate for the end of the conflict, "should mark not merely the end of this war, but the beginning of a new US approach rooted in diplomacy, accountability, and the simple truth that peace is the only way forward.”
After the Trump administration in the United States and the government of Iran both acknowledged late Sunday that a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, had been reached to end the war initiated by the US and Israel in February, advocates for peace heralded the interim deal but also noted difficult hurdles remain to secure a lasting peace in the region.
"This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region. Many presidents have tried to make Peace with Iran, and all have failed before me," declared a social media post from President Donald Trump, who failed to mention that he was the one who started the war, alongside Israeli forces, on February 28.
While the MOU, a text of which has yet to be formally released but scheduled to be signed Friday in Geneva, reportedly includes an end to hostilities for 60 days, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz as soon as this week, and a halt to the US-imposed naval blockade on Iran. Tougher issues—including Iran's nuclear program, the release of seized Iranian assets, possible war reparations, and Israel's ongoing assault on Lebanon—have yet to be fully ironed out.
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said a broader deal that would cover sanctions relief for Iran would be worked out during the 60-day ceasefire.
“We have incorporated all our important positions into the draft MOU,” Gharibabadi said Sunday. “This memorandum does not mean trusting the enemy; it has been written with active distrust. We will monitor the implementation of US commitments.”
Speaking Monday on state television, Gharibabadi reiterated that "Iran’s approach combines diplomacy with readiness for defense," stressing that even with agreements in place, Iran "remains fully prepared to counter any future threats" from the US and Israel.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres was among those to welcome the diplomatic development, calling it a “critical step” toward resolving the regional conflict that has caused global economic pain far beyond the Middle East. In a statement from Guterres' office, the UN chief expressed hopes "that the parties will build on this new momentum and redouble their efforts towards a final resolution of the conflict" that includes a “durable and comprehensive peace."
Foreign policy experts said the deal must be embraced, even if all the details are not yet clear, in order to bring about a much needed peace and as a way to begin to heal the human and economic suffering it unleashed.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said the deal to "end the disastrous US-Israeli war on Iran" should be seen as "welcome news," but noted that the situation—not forgetting previous claims of a resolution that turned out to be false—remains fragile.
The deal, said Abdi, "was finalized despite the considerable effort of [Israel Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu to sabotage it, striking into the southern suburbs of Beirut in a clear provocation intended to deter Iran from signing the deal. It didn’t work—this time—but his motivation to drag the US back into war with Iran will remain so long as he is in office. President Trump was right to sharply criticize Netanyahu again, and he will have to keep one eye on the Israeli Prime Minister if he wants his peace with Iran to stick."
While an end to Israel's bombing and incursion into southern Lebanon has been a key demand of Iran since the war began, Israel has continued to pound targets, including civilian infrastructure, as part of its ongoing effort to sabotage peace efforts in the region. Israel's Defense Minister Israel Katz told Haaretz on Monday that Israeli forces would not withdraw from positions in occupied Syria, Lebanon, or the Gaza Strip.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said, "Trump's agreement doesn't bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States; we are an independent and sovereign state."
Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned from the Trump administration in March in protest over the Iran war, said a change of US policy towards Israel is vital if the peace deal is to hold.
"We can strengthen our chances of this deal holding," said Kent, "by cutting all military and intelligence assistance to Israel, [which] took every opportunity to tank this deal and will likely do so again unless we take action."
US lawmakers opposed to Trump's invasion and ongoing policies in the region also welcomed the news of the agreement.
"The ceasefire agreement with Iran with the opening of the Strait of Hormuz is welcome news," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in a statement late Sunday. "Democrats should support it. I am glad it includes a provision for mutual respect of the US and Iran's sovereignty so we do not launch a dumb war of choice again."
"The war was a costly lesson for the US," added Khanna. "As expected, Trump failed to bring about regime change. The terms seem no better than what [President Barack] Obama secured under the [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] JCPOA nearly a decade ago. America lost 14 precious service members and wasted billions of dollars on this foolish endeavor. But today, we can be relieved that gas and food costs will start coming down for Americans. And that no more American or civilian lives will be lost."
According to Abdi at NIAC, the US policy choice with Iran was always "between peace and war," but the deal on the table now means there are no excuses not to choose peace going forward.
"We know the price of war, and so we must do the hard work to forge a stronger peace. We have seen where maximum pressure, sabotage, and military escalation lead: impoverishment, repression, regional instability, and finally a disastrous war with global consequences. The lesson could not be clearer," Abdi said.
"The United States and Iran must now implement this deal in good faith, resist efforts to sabotage it, and use this opening to build a broader path away from sanctions, war, and collective punishment," he continued. "Today’s announcement should mark not merely the end of this war, but the beginning of a new US approach rooted in diplomacy, accountability, and the simple truth that peace is the only way forward."
Iran's chief negotiator accused the Trump administration of giving the Israeli government a "green light" to continue attacking Lebanon and undermining diplomatic talks.
Update:
US President Donald Trump, Pakistan's prime minister, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry said Sunday that the US and Iran have reached an agreement on a framework to end the war that Trump launched in late February.
Iran's deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, said the terms of the deal will be made public after the memorandum of understanding is signed on Friday in Switzerland. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif wrote on social media that "both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon."
The memorandum of understanding is expected to extend the current ceasefire agreement by 60 days while detailed negotiations take place.
Gharibabadi said the start of the 60-day negotiations will be contingent on the US lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports, "ending the state of war and military operations," and "releasing Iran's frozen funds."
Earlier:
The Israeli military bombed the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday just as Iranian and US officials voiced optimism that a diplomatic agreement is in reach, prompting accusations that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to derail the negotiations.
Israel's strikes reportedly targeted a five-story apartment building, killing at least three people, according to Lebanese authorities. Netanyahu said the bombing was a response to Hezbollah rocket fire into northern Israel.
The latest bombing of Beirut came hours after US President Donald Trump said he expected a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to be signed as early as Sunday, potentially setting the stage for negotiations to end the illegal war Trump started in late February. Iranian officials have pushed back on the US president's claim that the MOU will be signed Sunday, but Iran's foreign minister said Friday that an agreement had "never been closer."
The Associated Press reported Sunday that Israel's new strikes on Beirut "threatened to hamper negotiations over a deal, which in its current form is a deep disappointment to Israel’s government."
"The last time Israel struck the Beirut suburbs a week ago, it set off the most serious escalation of fighting between Iran and Israel since the tenuous ceasefire took hold April 7," AP added.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote on social media that "as a US-Iranian deal seems like it might be closer, Israel predictably bombs the Beirut suburbs, evidently hoping to sabotage the deal."
"Why does Trump put up with this and continue to arm and fund such obstructionism?" Roth asked.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran's chief negotiator and speaker of parliament, said Israel's strikes indicate that the US "either does not have the will or the ability to fulfill its obligations."
"You cannot gain concessions by giving [Israel] a green light," he added. "The good cop, bad cop routine has become old. If you do not have the will or the ability to fulfill your commitments, then there is no basis for talking about continuing down this path."
As the US & Iran reportedly near a deal that includes ending the war in Lebanon, Israel is attacking Beirut again.
Either Trump can't restrain Netanyahu, or the deal is already being violated before it's signed.
Either way, it undermines the deal's value for Iran. pic.twitter.com/v08c21i7wa
— Sina Toossi (@SinaToossi) June 14, 2026
While the MOU that's reportedly under consideration has not been released in full, its broad outlines have been reported in media outlets and divulged by Iranian and US officials in recent days. Reuters reported Sunday that "a final draft of the memorandum of understanding with the US covered a range of issues, from Tehran’s nuclear work to reopening the Strait of Hormuz and US waivers on oil sanctions, with a final deal to be discussed in the 60 days following agreement by the two sides."
Under the MOU, Iran would immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the US would end its illegal blockade of Iranian ports, according to Reuters. The US would also agree to waive oil sanctions on Iran and release $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets, while Iran would agree to "maintain the current status of its nuclear program, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities."
Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, said in a television interview on Friday that the MOU's proposed 60-day ceasefire extension would include Lebanon.
Axios reported that Netanyahu has "found himself in the dark" as US-Iran negotiations have progressed in recent days, "calling allies close to the Trump administration to try and gather information."
Following Sunday's strike on Beirut, Trump told Axios' Barak Ravid that Netanyahu "has no fucking judgment."
"I passed this message on to him—that I am very unhappy with the attack in Beirut," said Trump, whose administration has approved billions of dollars worth of weapons sales to the Israeli government.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned that "Israel will do more sabotage unless Trump imposes a cost on Israel."
"Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing and is judging that an attack on Beirut—rather than southern Lebanon—is exactly what's needed to derail the pending US-Iran deal," Parsi argued.