

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.

Jennifer K. Falcon, Communications Coordinator, jennifer@ienearth.org
Monica Mohapatra, U.S. Communications Specialist, monica.mohapatra@350.org
Early Friday morning, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued a decision denying the landowners' appeal and upholding the Nebraska Public Service Commissions decision on the in-state route of Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska. The appeal was struck down after a year of work by grassroots advocates to highlight the many ways in which the pipeline would damage their communities and resources.
Faith Spotted Eagle, member of the Yankton Sioux, Chair of the Ihanktonwan Treaty Committee and Brave Heart Society Grandmother said: "The NE decision to approve the KXL route is not a surprise but we had hoped they would be courageous to protect the earth, water and wishes of the Indigenous people and our allies. These courts represent the incongruity between Indigenous values and capitalism which is of a predatory nature. No one wins, least of all the people of the heartland and our grandchildren. The fight is not over, the prayers are still traveling and we never will give up on protecting sacred lands and water. I am hoping that the investors will regain their humanity and realize that they are threatening the lives of our frontline communities, where they do not live and that they will move towards divestment. And we out here on the Northern Plains will fight harder as we have all of our lives."
John Harter, landowner along the route in South Dakota and member of Dakota Rural Action said:
"I want to thank the Nebraska Landowners who've stood up to this pipeline and the powerful forces supporting it. We're disappointed that people don't value water above money. Our land and water has more value to many people than this pipeline has for greed of a few people. I and the members of Dakota Rural Action are proud to stand with you as we all continue to fight."
Judith LeBlanc, Director, Native Organizers Alliance:
"This week, every presidential candidate who attended the Native Presidential Forum pledged to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline. The issue was settled under the Obama Administration, yet TC Energy continues to drive forward hoping to build the pipeline while President Trump is in the White House. No matter where they build the Keystone XL Pipeline, the impact on Mother Earth will be the same. There is no alternative to clean water."
Dallas Goldtooth, Keep It In the Ground Organizer, Indigenous Environmental Network said:
"Today's ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court although frustrating is not the nail in the coffin for us. Our resistance has shown over the years that we will not give up, we will protect the sacred. From the tar sands region to the gulf coast, Indigenous communities and non-native landowners will continue to fight this dirty tar sands pipeline."
Lewis Grassrope, Wiconi Un Tipi Resistance Camp said:
"We are disheartened by the decision from the Nebraska Supreme Court to move forward with this black snake. We have a collective responsibility and commitment to stop Keystone XL from being built and we will not stop. We will continue with our perseverance and fortitude to ensure our safety and livelihood continues within our ancestral lands."
350.org's Associate Director of US Campaigns, Sara Shor said:
"The Amazon is burning. The Arctic is burning. This decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court to green light Keystone XL is outrageous. By ruling in favor of the Public Service Commission, the state Supreme Court has ruled against the community. The climate impacts of this route have not been thoroughly studied, nor were Tribes or landowners properly consulted. What we already know that this pipeline will have long lasting and devastating huge impacts on the climate, water and land, none of which have properly been assessed by a body with the capacity to understand the environmental impact. At such a critical juncture for the fight to keep fossil in the ground, where big oil corporations are doing their best to stifle pipeline protest, this decision is heartbreaking. We will continue to fight with communities Keystone XL with every available means."
Established in 1990 within the United States, IEN was formed by grassroots Indigenous peoples and individuals to address environmental and economic justice issues (EJ). IEN's activities include building the capacity of Indigenous communities and tribal governments to develop mechanisms to protect our sacred sites, land, water, air, natural resources, health of both our people and all living things, and to build economically sustainable communities.
"Oil company executives seem to know more about Trump's secret plan to 'run' Venezuela than the American people," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "We need public Senate hearings NOW."
Democrats in the US Senate on Wednesday launched a formal investigation into possible dealings between the Trump administration and oil company executives related to Saturday's military assault on Venezuela, the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro, and the effort now underway to seize and control the Latin American nation's vast oil reserves.
Led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)—ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)—the Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and others, want to know more about "communications between major U.S. oil and oilfield services companies and the Trump Administration surrounding last week’s military action in Venezuela and efforts to exploit Venezuelan oil resources."
Following Saturday's strikes on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—which international law experts have said were clear breaches of both international law and US constitutional law–Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday that he had spoken to oil executives both "before and after" the covert military actions.
While other White House officials walked back Trump's statements, the senators behind the investigation say they want to know more about what was discussed, with whom, and when.
According to a statement, the lawmakers are "requesting documents and information regarding the companies’ knowledge of the strikes, discussions with Trump Administration officials before and since the operation, and plans to invest in Venezuela from the CEOs of BP America Inc., Baker Hughes, Chevron, Citgo Petroleum Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Continental Resources, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, SLB, Shell USA, Inc., and Weatherford International."
In a series of letters to the heads of those oil giants, the senators said, “President Trump’s own statements justifying the operation in terms of access to foreign energy resources and benefits to the US oil industry, reported repeated engagement between industry and government, and the suggestion that taxpayers could pay the cost of rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure raise serious concerns about how the Trump Administration engaged with the oil companies prior to his decision to use military force in Venezuela."
“We would like to know," the letters continue, "the extent to which US oil and gas companies such as yours had either advance knowledge of or the ability to shape American foreign policy decisions—especially given that Congress was kept in the dark concerning the use of force until after the strikes occurred.”
The lawmakers noted that Trump has also suggested that US taxpayer funds would be used to "help companies cover their costs to rebuild Venezuelan oil infrastructure," spend they warned could "cost American taxpayers billions more in the form of subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, which already benefits from over $700 billion annually in subsidies," citing analysis by the International Monetary Fund.
A trio of ex-officials filed a formal complaint demanding an investigation into the Justice Department lawyers who authored the legal rationale justifying the US abduction of Venezuela's president.
A group of former US ethics officials filed a complaint Wednesday demanding an investigation into the Justice Department lawyers who crafted the legal rationale justifying the Trump administration's patently unlawful assault on Venezuela and ongoing effort to plunder the country's natural resources.
The trio of ex-officials, who worked under both Republican and Democratic presidents, specifically called for an immediate ethics probe into whether attorneys at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) "violated their professional legal responsibilities in providing guidance justifying the recent invasion of Venezuela and abduction of its president, Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, as well as legal advice that has apparently been given by the Department to President Trump to justify his recent threats to take additional military action against Venezuela, Columbia, Cuba, Iran, and Denmark."
"Such unilateral use of military force absent an imminent threat to the United States violates international law and furthermore unconstitutionally intrudes on the power that rests with Congress alone to declare war," wrote Norman Eisen, Richard Painter, and Virginia Canter in their complaint. "In sum, the president and the Department of Defense, presumably relying on yet another confidential and classified memorandum from OLC, or perhaps more than one memorandum, have engaged in illegal acts of war and threats of illegal acts of war against sovereign nations."
The complaint was announced after Trump administration officials reportedly told US lawmakers in closed-door meetings this week that the Justice Department developed a new legal opinion in an attempt to justify the abduction of Maduro, an operation that killed at least 100 people, according to Venezuelan officials.
US Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that he believes the OLC opinion will declare the deadly military assault on Venezuela legal "because it was assisting a law-enforcement action."
BREAKING: Trump & enablers may THINK they can get away with invading Venezuela to seize its oil
But we @DDFund_ are not going to let them
Our push for legal accountability starts with our ethics complaint against the lawyers authorizing this illegality 👇
Much more to come... pic.twitter.com/ZJYgPb0GVM
— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) January 8, 2026
The former ethics officials behind the new complaint against the Trump Justice Department said they are also filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding that the OLC memo on the Venezuela assault be made public.
"Even before the weekend’s outrageous events, that illegality was on sharp display through Trump’s attempted escalation into a conflict with Venezuela through dozens of illegal strikes on alleged drug smugglers in international waters," the former ethics officials wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. "But the invasion of Venezuela represents a new—and wholly illegal—escalation."
The ex-officials emphasized that their push for transparency is just part of what must be an all-hands-on-deck effort to stop the administration's military assault on Venezuela and potentially other sovereign nations.
"Congress must look at other vehicles to limit the president’s unlawful aggression, perhaps with terms in spending bills that he could not so easily veto. The responsibility now lies with Congress to stop Trump," the former officials wrote, noting that GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate are likely to vote down War Powers Resolutions aimed at constraining the lawless president.
"But it does not end there," they added. "Others must step up as well, and that is why we are launching our dual legal actions of an ethics complaint and a FOIA demand. The cost of inaction against Trump’s forays into foreign wars is too high, and the window for safeguarding our nation from his illegal and corrupt blood for oil adventurism is narrowing."
"Republicans shamefully voted it down—demonstrating once again that they have never cared about law and order or keeping our communities safe," said the congresswoman.
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley told her fellow members of the US House Oversight Committee on Wednesday that a motion she was introducing during a hearing was "pretty straightforward": The committee, she said, should conduct oversight regarding a federal agent's fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good, a woman in Minneapolis who was killed in her car earlier in the day.
But the motion failed, with every Republican on the panel voting against it.
Pressley (D-Mass.) introduced the motion during a hearing regarding a fraud scandal in the state, hours after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot Good, who was in the driver's seat of her car as multiple officers approached her. Good was acting as a legal observer, according to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), monitoring ICE actions following the Trump administration's surge of federal agents into Minnesota, in part to target members of the Somali community.
Footage of the shooting shows an officer trying to open the car door and the driver turning the wheel before starting to drive forward. An agent who had approached the driver-side bumper draws his gun and shoots the driver multiple times.
Despite what is shown in the widely available video, President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Vice President JD Vance were quick to place blame on Good. Trump said she “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over” the ICE agent, while Noem said Good had committed an "act of domestic terrorism."
Pressley called on the congressional committee to investigate the case.
"Since this committee is responsible for oversight of federal law enforcement, we must investigate," she said. "This subpoena will get to the truth, and it should have bipartisan support."
Pressley condemned her GOP colleagues for blocking the effort to get to the bottom of what happened in Minneapolis, which has also been described by multiple eyewitnesses who dispute the Trump administration's narrative.
“DHS’ claim that an agent shot in self-defense is a bold-faced lie and the video footage is damning," said Pressley. "But after I moved to subpoena all records and footage related to this killing, Republicans shamefully voted it down—demonstrating once again that they have never cared about law and order or keeping our communities safe.
“What happened today is a despicable consequence of Donald Trump’s campaign of terror, fear, and demonization of vulnerable communities and we cannot allow it to be normalized in America," said Pressley. "I demand a thorough and independent investigation into this tragedy so the victim, her loved ones, and the public get the accountability and transparency they deserve. It’s time for the Trump administration to end its cruel, unlawful mass deportation agenda once and for all.”
The ACLU on Wednesday noted that Good was killed as Congress negotiates the Department of Homeland Security's budget for the coming year, months after lawmakers voted to add "an unprecedented $170 billion to the Trump administration’s already massive budget for immigration enforcement."
“For months, the Trump administration has been deploying reckless, heavily armed agents into our communities and encouraging them to commit horrifying abuses with impunity, and, today, we are seeing the devastating and predictable consequences,” said Naureen Shah, director of policy and government affairs at ACLU. “Congress must rein ICE in before what happened in Minneapolis today happens somewhere else tomorrow. That means, at a minimum, opposing a Homeland Security budget that supports the growing lawlessness of this agency.”