

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.
Brett Benson
Communications Director, MN350 Action
brett@mn350action.org, (651) 368-1226
As most presidential campaigns continue to avoid offering specific and bold proposals to protect our climate, a coalition of national and state environmental groups today launched a grassroots campaign to pressure candidates directly to speak out against the proposed Line 3 oil pipeline in Northern Minnesota.
"If you are running for president of the United States, you need to be at the table," said Winona LaDuke of Honor the Earth, a Native environmental advocacy organization and one of the campaign organizers. "That means candidates running for president of the United States, you need to stand up and oppose climate change. You need to stand up and oppose Line 3."
Canadian oil giant Enbridge Energy has proposed a massive expansion and rerouting of the current Line 3 pipeline from Canada's tar sands region to Superior, Wis. The new pipeline would carry tar sands crude over 200 bodies of water and would contribute carbon pollution equivalent to 50 coal plants.
"We expect clear leadership from those who say they're ready to be president," said Andy Pearson of MN350 Action, another campaign sponsor. "And clear leadership means calling out the incompatibility of expanding fossil fuel infrastructure and fighting the climate crisis. It means promising to put our communities ahead of Big Oil's profits."
Among presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders announced in January 2019 that he opposes Line 3. Sen. Elizabeth Warren followed with a public statement in August. Also in August, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota returned a campaign contribution from an Enbridge employee. But Klobuchar has not spoken out against Line 3, and the rest of the Democratic field has been silent.
"We call on Sen. Klobuchar and the rest of the candidates to join Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders in opposing Line 3, a project that would be disastrous for the climate and for Indigenous communities," Pearson said. "We need you to speak out now."
MN350 Action is affiliated with the national advocacy group 350 Action.
"As we enter the climate decade, real leaders need to stand with Indigenous peoples and communities over fossil fuel billionaires," said John Qua, 350 Action spokesperson. "We stand in solidarity with Minnesotans and people across America demanding all candidates for this country's top office oppose the toxic and unnecessary Line 3 pipeline and fight for a world that puts our health and safety first."
Another campaign sponsor, Oil Change U.S., worked with Bold Nebraska and community partners to successfully lobby 10 Democratic presidential candidates to commit to stopping the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would pass through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, and Pete Buttigieg all signed that pledge while Amy Klobuchar, Deval Patrick and Joe Biden did not.
"Our request for candidates on Line 3 is simple: Stand with Indigenous communities and oppose this climate-wrecking disaster of a pipeline," said Collin Rees of Oil Change U.S. "We know that existing fossil fuel infrastructure is enough to doom the world to climate crisis. The last thing we need is another massive pipeline. It's time for all candidates who want to be climate leaders to publicly oppose Line 3, acknowledge the need to leave fossil fuels in the ground, and get serious about investing in a just transition that leaves no one behind."
Honor the Earth and MN350 Action were two of several organizers of September's Gichi-gami Gathering to Stop Line 3, which attracted 1,200 pipeline opponents to the shores of Lake Superior.
"For the past seven years, we have been fighting a pipeline--760,000 barrels a day of tar sands oil that no one needs," LaDuke said. "We don't need it added to our atmosphere, and we don't need it across our pristine lake country."
350 Action is the independent political action arm of the non-profit, non-partisan climate justice group 350.org.
Even Trump's mail-in ballot was not enough to keep Democrat Emily Gregory from winning the seat over Republican Jon Maples in a district swing of more than 13 points.
A Democrat in Florida running to win a state house seat in the Palm Beach district that includes US President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate was declared the winner in a special election on Tuesday night, defeating the Trump-endorsed Republican in yet another powerful rebuke to the running of the country by the president and his party.
Emily Gregory flipped Florida's House District 87, defeating Republican Jon Maples, who Trump loudly endorsed and cast his vote for personally via mail-in ballot—something he wants to bar other voters nationwide from being able to do. Trump said on Monday that Maples, a financial planner who previously held office at the municipal level, was the choice of "so many of my Palm Beach County friends.”
But with almost all votes counted late Tuesday night, the Associated Press reported Gregory led by 2.4 percentage points, or 797 votes. In 2024, the district went to Republicans by 11 points.
"Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
Political strategist Sawyer Hackett named the obvious implication by saying, at least through November of 2026, "Trump will be represented by a Democrat in the Florida legislature."
“I think it demonstrates where the Florida voter is,” Gregory, who runs a fitness center for postpartum mothers, told Politico in an interview following her victory. “They want someone who is focused on solutions and the issues and not focused on the noise.”
“If Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, imagine what’s possible this November,” said Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, in response to the victory. Williams noted that Gregory's win was the 29th seat that Democrats have flipped from GOP control since Trump returned to office last year.
“Gas prices are spiking, grocery costs are up, and families can’t get by," she said. "It’s clear voters at the polls are fed up with Republicans. A Trump +11 district in his own backyard shouldn’t be in play for Democrats, but tonight proves Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
"These massive facilities are sucking up precious water resources, paving over farmland, driving climate change, and disrupting the fabric of communities," said one supporter of the new legislation.
Two of the leading progressives in the US Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced legislation on Wednesday that would impose a nationwide moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers amid mounting concerns over their insatiable consumption of power and water resources, impacts on the climate, and other harms.
Sanders' (I-Vt.) office said in a press release announcing the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act that the construction pause would remain in effect "until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are set to formally introduce their legislation at a press conference on Wednesday at 4 pm ET.
Food & Water Watch (FWW), which last year became the first national organization in the US to call for a total moratorium on the approval of new AI data centers, celebrated the first-of-its-kind bill and called on other members of Congress to "move quickly to sponsor, champion, and pass" it. FWW's groundbreaking call for a national AI data center moratorium was later echoed by hundreds of advocacy organizations at the state and national levels.
“We need a halt to the explosive growth of new AI data center construction now, because political and community leaders across the country have been caught completely off guard by this aggressive, profit-hungry industry," Mitch Jones, FWW's managing director of policy and litigation, said in a statement Wednesday. "It has yet to be determined if—not how—the industry can ever operate in a manner that sufficiently protects people and society from the profusion of inherent hazards and harms that data centers bring wherever they appear."
“Long before the recent spike in global oil prices, Americans throughout the country were dealing with skyrocketing electricity rates due to the egregious consumption and jolting grid impacts levied by Big Tech’s AI data centers," Jones added. "Meanwhile, these massive facilities are sucking up precious water resources, paving over farmland, driving climate change, and disrupting the fabric of communities. We mustn’t allow another unchecked Silicon Valley scheme to profit off our backs while sticking us with the bill."
In a detailed report released last week, titled The Urgent Case Against Data Centers, FWW pointed to some of the "documented harms caused by AI and data centers," including:
Those harms have fueled massive grassroots opposition to AI data centers, with communities organizing to prevent construction in their backyards. One report estimates that between May 2024 and March 2025, local opposition helped tank or delay $64 billion worth of data center projects across the US.
That opposition has pushed local lawmakers to act. According to a tracker maintained by Good Jobs First, "at least 63 local data-center moratorium actions have been introduced, considered, or adopted across dozens of towns and counties," and "some 54 have already passed."
At the state level, Good Jobs First counted "at least 12 in-session states with filed data center moratorium bills this cycle," and noted that some governors have taken or floated executive action to slow or pause AI data center build-outs.
But the Trump administration is trying to move in the opposite direction.
In a national policy framework document unveiled last week, the White House urged Congress to "streamline federal permitting for AI infrastructure construction and operation" and called for a prohibition on state regulation of AI.
Jim Walsh, FWW's policy director, slammed the White House framework as "more of the same nonsense we’ve been hearing for months" and warned that "more data centers mean more climate-killing fracked gas power plants poisoning our air and water, and more stress placed on local communities’ precious water resources."
"The only prudent course of action when it comes to AI," said Walsh, "is to halt the explosive growth of new data center construction now, so that states and communities have the time needed to properly consider their own futures."
"How much death and destruction is enough before they’ll do the right thing and act to end this war?”
The Republican-controlled US Senate voted late Tuesday to block a resolution aimed at ending President Donald Trump's disastrous, illegal, and deeply unpopular war on Iran as the Pentagon approved a deployment of Army paratroopers to the Middle East, the latest escalation in a conflict the White House claims has already been won.
The latest war powers resolution, led by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), failed to advance by a vote of 47-53, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) joining every Republican except Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) in opposing the measure. If enacted, the bill would have forced the withdrawal of US forces from hostilities against Iran.
Murphy said in a statement following the vote that the consequences of the US-Israeli war on Iran, now in its fourth week, "are stunning in their scope: higher prices for American businesses and American families, a potential global recession, the wasting of billions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and new conflicts in the region that didn't exist before the war began."
"If our Republican colleagues will not do their duty, if they are going to engage in an effort to hide the consequences of the war, if they are going to refuse to ask questions of our incompetent national security leaders at the White House, who have waged this war without planning for the foreseeable consequences, then we will force a debate and a vote on this floor," said Murphy. "This war is not going to make more sense the longer it goes.”
The vote came hours after Trump, speaking from the Oval Office, declared that "this war has been won" even as his administration ordered around 2,000 soldiers from the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to begin deploying to the Middle East, heightening concerns that the president intends to launch a ground invasion of Iran.
“We’re keeping our hand on that throttle as long and as hard as is necessary to ensure the interests of the United States of America are achieved on that battlefield," Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday, amid reports that the administration is considering plans to "occupy or blockade" Iran's Kharg Island—which processes the vast majority of Iran's oil exports.
The New York Times reported that the new troop contingent "includes Maj. Gen. Brandon R. Tegtmeier, the division commander, and dozens of his staff members, as well as two battalions, each with about 800 soldiers."
"More of the brigade’s soldiers could be sent in the coming days," the Times noted, citing unnamed officials. "Taken together with some 4,500 Marines already en route to the region, the deployment of the elite Army forces brings the total number of additional ground troops dispatched to the war zone since the conflict started to nearly 7,000."
Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, said late Tuesday that "with a possible ground invasion of Iran being planned that would trigger mass casualties and deepen a global economic and strategic crisis, only 47 senators upheld their duty to the Constitution and the American people who overwhelmingly oppose this war."
"The blowback of this war is only beginning and will continue to mount—for US interests, the global economy, and the people of Iran," Costello warned. "Those 53 senators who voted to allow the war to continue should make clear: Do they support this war escalating? Do they want Donald Trump to commit troops to a war that they don’t even have the courage to authorize? And how much death and destruction is enough before they’ll do the right thing and act to end this war?"