

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.

U.S.: Jesse Bragg, jbragg@corporateaccountability.org, 1 617 695 2525
Spain: Taylor Billings, tbillings@corporateaccountability.org, 1-504-621-6487
Today, on the third day of the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), representatives from a global coalition delivered a resounding call to governments to hold polluting industries liable and make them pay for the damage they've knowingly caused and for real climate solutions. Nearly 200,000 people and over 200 organizations have endorsed the demand.
The call comes just two months after the coalition was launched at the UN Secretary General's Climate Summit in New York City. Participating organizations and signatories hail from more than 63 countries including Bolivia, The Philippines, and Nigeria.
Fossil fuel industry liability is a growing area of focus for climate experts, academics and governments alike as the industry's long history of denial and the link between industry emissions and climate impacts becomes more evidenced. From U.S. states to Vanuatu to Peru, elected officials and people are exploring holding the fossil fuel industry liable for its long history of deceit and environmental destruction.
Earlier this year, the European Parliament held a hearing investigating Exxon's attempts to mislead the public. The Philippines' commission on human rights is considering the fossil fuel industry's responsibility for human rights violations in connection to climate change. And in Peru, a farmer is suing a German utility for its role in the crisis harming his livelihood.
In the United States, the climate plans of numerous presidential candidates include taking steps to hold the industry liable. And industry attempts to preempt accountability at the city and national level have consistent failed to gain support. A landmark case against Exxon Mobil in New York State is expected to be decided in the next few weeks.
Please see below for quotes from speakers:
"People and governments are already taking steps to hold Big Polluters like the fossil fuel industry liable around the world. The next step is for decision-makers, including those at the UNFCCC, to get on board and hold polluting industries liable for the damage they've knowingly caused, and use the finance to fund the real solutions the world needs," said Sriram Madhusoodanan of Corporate Accountability, "Big Polluters are most responsible for this crisis and must be made to pay for the damages, loss of life, and climate doubt their operations have knowingly created."
"The world's climate culprits are increasingly being brought to court, signaling the beginning of a global boom in climate justice," said Jean Su, energy director with the Center for Biological Diversity. "The evidence can't be any clearer that big polluters have known their dirty fossil fuels are cooking the planet. We're urging all world leaders to hold these corporations accountable once and for all."
"This year's climate talks are a crucial opportunity to hold polluting industries accountable for the climate crisis, especially the 100 fossil fuel companies that are responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. Citizens around the world are rising up to demand climate action, to demand an end to the immense suffering global temperatures are already causing in the Global South. The dirty fossil fuel party is over," said Harjeet Singh, Global Lead on Climate Change for ActionAid International.
"The fossil fuel industry must take full responsibility for the climate change crisis. There is no alternative to cutting down emission at source and the time is now," said Philip Jakpor of Environmental Rights Action.
"At every COP, we address governments as it is they who possess the political power to act on and address the climate emergency. But an important matter we are demanding them to do is to regulate the policies, behavior and operations of corporations.
One of the urgent things that corporations must do is to pay reparations for the huge damage they have caused for so many decades. But not pay so they will be able to continue business as usual and pollute even more. We have to make them pay for the many years of abuse, for the many decades of exploitation of resources for their operations, and for the enormous costs of suffering that we from the South have historically endured," said Lidy Nacpil, coordinator of the Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development.
Quotes from other convening organizations:
"Indigenous Peoples as all of humanity suffer massive and gross violations of their rights by the continuation of fossil fuel emissions. Those directly responsible must exercise some morality and look to their future generations as well as ours,and the continuation of life on Mother Earth as we know it and take immediate steps to stop their emissions at source," said Alberto Saldamando of Indigenous Environmental Network.
"Some of the biggest and dirtiest corporations on the planet are a huge contributor to the climate crisis. We will stand up to those who are destroying the planet and harming communities with impunity. We will push for a transformation of our energy, transport, food and economic systems," said Dipti Bhatnagar, Climate Justice and Energy program coordinator at Friends of the Earth International
"We are in the midst of a global crime scene where millions are being assaulted by unprecedented levels of climate violence. But those destroying the lives and livelihoods of innocent people are not nameless or faceless thugs. The names of these climate criminals are well known - they are big polluting industries whose thirst for profit is destroying people & planet. They must be brought to justice and held liable for the crisis they have caused." Asad Rehman, Executive Director, War on Want
"For decades, Big Polluters have gone to any lengths to block, weaken and delay policy. That time is over. They need to pay for the real solutions and be held liable for their years of abuse." Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory.
The call was organized by the following organizations: ActionAid, Alliance For Food Sovereignty in Africa, Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development, Corporate Accountability, Corporate Europe Observatory, Environmental Rights Action, Friends of the Earth International, Global Forest Coalition, Indigenous Environmental Network, Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement, Platforma Boliviana Frente al Cambio Climatico, Colectivo Viento Sur, and War on Want.
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."
"Outside of armed conflict, premeditated killing is referred to as murder," said one expert.
US President Donald Trump and Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in social media posts late Friday that American forces, in coordination with Venezuelan authorities, killed the alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua gang in a strike on a compound inside Venezuelan territory.
"At my direction, the United States Southern Command delivered a swift and lethal kinetic strike to successfully execute Niño Guerrero, the infamous leader of Tren de Aragua," the president wrote on his Truth Social platform, posting what appears to be footage of the strike. Hegseth later specified that the attack took place inside Venezuela earlier this week and that Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores—known as Niño Guerrero—was "confirmed killed."
The strike that purportedly killed Guerrero, whom the US Justice Department charged last year with multiple crimes including "facilitating acts of terrorism," came in the context of the Trump administration's broader, deadly military campaign in South America and off its coast. Dozens of US bombings of boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean since last September have killed more than 200 people—including possible victims of human trafficking—with the stated goal of stemming the flow of drugs to the US (an objective that experts say has not been achieved).
Leading human rights organizations have characterized the boat bombings as "murder."
Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, called the strike that allegedly killed Guerrero Flores "more lawless, performative killing by the Trump administration."
"Outside of armed conflict, premeditated killing is referred to as murder," Finucane wrote on social media. "There is no indication this strike occurred in an armed conflict. Including because, as best we can tell, TdA doesn't constitute an 'organized armed group.'"
The government of Venezuela, whose president was kidnapped by US forces earlier this year, issued a statement confirming its involvement in the strike this week.
“During the operation, clashes occurred with members of criminal groups, resulting in the death of Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, alias ‘Niño Guerrero,’ the leader of one of these criminal organizations,” the statement reads.
It was not immediately clear if others were killed in the military attack.
"We extend our gratitude to the Venezuelan security forces for their support to the successful joint operation against a Tren de Aragua compound that resulted in the death of the narco-terrorist organization’s leader," said Gen. Francis Donovan, the head of the US Southern Command.
The Associated Press noted that "Trump and administration officials have consistently blamed Tren de Aragua for being at the root of the violence and illicit drug dealing that plague some US cities."
"The president spent months repeating the claim—contradicted by a declassified U.S. intelligence assessment—that Tren de Aragua had operated under Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s control," the AP added.