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.

Jamie Henn, press@stopthemoneypipeline.com, 415-890-3350
Stop the Money Pipeline, a coalition of over 90 organizations working to end the financing of climate destruction, are warning that an upcoming visit of oil CEOs to the White House on Friday cannot lead to a public bailout of the fossil fuel industry.
See quote sheet below.
Stop the Money Pipeline, a coalition of over 90 organizations working to end the financing of climate destruction, are warning that an upcoming visit of oil CEOs to the White House on Friday cannot lead to a public bailout of the fossil fuel industry.
See quote sheet below.
Republican senators are also lobbying for direct aid to the oil and gas industry. A group of senators issued a letter earlier this week asking the Trump administration to exempt oil and gas companies from paying royalties during the pandemic (even though everyday Americans have to continue to pay their rent). On Thursday, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) sent a letter to Secretary Mnuchin requesting a direct bailout of oil and gas companies.
Economists and experts are in widespread agreement that the economic collapse of the oil and gas sector is due to long term structural problems that have only been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic and oil price war. Over the last decade the industry has taken on enormous debt while spending billions on massive stock buybacks and dividend payments, and continued to pour money into new production, despite clear warnings that their trajectory endangers the planet, economy, and their own viability.
Since the outset of the coronavirus, the fossil fuel industry has attempted to profiteer off the crisis, lobbying the Trump administration for bailouts and the rollback of environmental protections, while pushing forward with the construction of dangerous pipeline projects like Keystone XL, Line 3, and the Coastal Gas Link in Canada. These actions not only exacerbate the ongoing climate crisis, and infringe on Indigenous rights, but endanger public health by increasing air pollution and contributing to the spread of the virus in rural communities and on tribal lands.
Stop the Money Pipeline is particularly focused on the role that Wall Street could play in a potential bailout of the industry. Last week, the coalition sounded the alarm when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) bailed out Capital One for a series of risky commodities swaps the bank had made in the oil and gas sector. The coalition is also closely watching the role that BlackRock will be playing in managing the Fed's corporate debt buying program. Despite BlackRock's rhetoric on climate change, the asset manager is still the world's largest investor in fossil fuels and a key target for the Stop the Money Pipeline campaign.
This April 23, Stop the Money Pipeline is organizing a major online day of action as part of Earth Day Live, three-days of climate action being led by the Youth Climate Strike Coalition around the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day. The April 23 day will focus on ending the flow of money to climate destruction and will include a livestream that features activists, celebrities, community leaders, politicians and more.
Quote Sheet:
"Here in our territory, tiny communities brace for deadly impacts of a pandemic on our limited healthcare infrastructure as Enbridge continues prepping worksites to send Line 3 tar sands through our watersheds," said Tara Houska (Couchiching First Nation Anishinaabe), Giniw Collective. "North American economic priorities are so out of balance -- where is the investment in people and environmental sustainability, not corporate profits and fossil fuel destruction? We're being confronted with our reliance on consumerism and extraction, change is here. Enough of the status quo."
"This meeting is nothing short of wolves in the hen house, and our communities will be left to deal with the bloody aftermath. This crisis demands a response that speaks to the failures of our economic system, not one that doubles down on its ability to diminish our lives. Native communities are rising up and demanding a just transition, now!" said Dallas Goldtooth, Keep it in the Ground Campaigner for the Indigenous Environmental Network
"Superstorm Sandy cost my family everything. Now, Trump and the oil and gas CEOs are plotting bailouts so they can keep profiting while destroying our collective future," said Rachel Rivera, a Sandy survivor and member of New York Communities for Change. "Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer failed us on the coronavirus package. They can even the score in the next big stimulus bill by preventing bailouts for oil and gas CEOs, and helping people instead!"
"When America decided illness and death from smoking was intolerable, we provided tobacco farmers with support to protect their livelihoods while letting the public know about the dangers of smoking," said Robin Schneider, Executive Director of Texas Campaign for the Environment. "Now, we need to support workers who have worked hard through the boom and bust eras of the fossil fuel sector. We need to retool the energy economy and transition their jobs to a more stable, more resilient clean energy economy. We cannot continue with the polluting practices that create climate disasters by bailing out the oil companies."
"Nurses are getting sick and dying because they don't have the protection they need, millions of people lost their jobs in the last two weeks and don't know how they're going to feed their families," said Sunrise Movement Executive Director Varshini Prakash. "Trump should be spending his time helping working people, not meeting up with his corporate cronies. We have a choice to make: will we let the Trump administration spend hundreds of billions bailing out just the financial industry and massive corporations, or will we put millions of people to work tackling the dual crises of COVID and climate change?"
"Sending a financial liferaft to failing fossil fuel corporations while so many are losing jobs and hope for recovery is a slap in the face to hardworking American families. While many are struggling to breathe, oil fat cats are looking for yet another handout for their businesses that pump pollution into our finally clearing air and - lungs. With EPA pollution enforcement sidelined during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Trump administration's rollback of health-based fuel efficiency standards during a climate crisis, now is the time to put the brake - not the gas - on oil company handouts. Let's invest in renewable, safe energy jobs," said Seeding Sovereignty Executive Director Janet MacGillivay
"The U.S. government must not enable the fossil fuel industry to exploit the COVID-19 crisis to line their pockets as the American people face increasing impacts of dire health issues, shortages in medical equipment and protection, loss of jobs and loved ones. Now more than ever we need to address the double crises of the coronavirus pandemic and climate chaos by centering the needs of people and planet. It is reprehensible to offer fossil fuel company bailouts and allow for continued infrastructure development- we cannot continue as we were. Bold economic transformation is necessary, and an immediate managed decline off of fossil fuels and a just transition for workers and care for the people," said Osprey Orielle Lake, Executive Director of the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN)
"America is in dire need of continued support for health professionals, workers and vulnerable communities. Instead of reviewing a wish list from big oil, the president should focus on medical staff working without sufficient protective supplies, on families struggling to pay rent, and on people facing water shut-offs, even as they're being told to wash their hands. Public health and well-being must come first," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "The decisions made in the coming weeks will shape our country for decades. We must start now to provide immediate relief and build a recovery that works for working people, and that avoids exacerbating inequity and the ongoing global climate crisis."
"Let's not be fooled by these CEOs' claims that they don't want bailout money: if they're going to the White House, it's either to ask for yet another spigot of federal government money for corporations or for yet another relaxation of environmental protection rules. It's unacceptable that Trump is more focused on serving corporate interests that are destroying our climate than responding to the urgent needs of workers, the unemployed, and the sick. We need a people's bailout, not a polluter's bailout!" said Moira Birss, Amazon Watch Climate & Finance Director.
"Oil industry execs will no doubt cry big greasy tears at their meeting with the President, but they don't deserve a shred of sympathy. For those huge salaries they get paid, you'd think these CEOs could have figured out that their industry has no future and begun to wind it down. Their workers deserve a break, but their companies don't," said Glenn Fieldman, with Fossil Free California.
"Between base salaries, bonuses, stock options, and other compensation, these seven oil CEOs earned at least a combined $100 million in 2018 alone. But this week -- after oil prices plummeted to around $20 per barrel -- they're heading to the White House to ask President Trump to pull strings in their favor. Now is the time to provide economic relief for workers and families, not a dying industry. When it comes to the oil and gas sector, that means supplying immediate help and long-term security for communities impacted by the fossil fuel industry in the transition to a sustainable energy economy. Not one cent should be given to the billionaires who created and benefited from the climate crisis," said Caroline Henderson, Senior Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace USA.
"Social distancing protocol requires that oil company CEOs avoid the White House until tough climate measures flatten the curve. Alas, this White House does not respect science," said RL Miller of Climate Hawks Vote.
"At a time when not enough is being spent on protective gear for medical professionals, or to help families who are not able to pay their rent, it is disgusting that anyone would even consider propping up the dying industry that is responsible for the other existential threat to our existence: the climate crisis. Now is the time to invest in a just and green recovery, one that invests in health, security, and sustainability," said Cynthia Kaufman of Fossil Free California.
"Oil markets are volatile and the experience of COVID-19 proves that. Oil industry representatives are publicly denying the need for a "bailout," pushing free market ideals instead. To protect itself from oil and gas volatility the U.S. must continue to invest in alternative clean energy sources, instead of trying to beat OPEC+ at their own game. There is an opportunity worth seizing to help secure the U.S.' energy future and help in the fight against climate change," said Mary Cerulli of Climate Finance Action.
"This crisis of corruption is exposing how unsupported our frontline workers are: the nurses, the doctors, the teachers, the grocery clerks, and the sanitation workers. Their care is sustaining the country and they are essential to our communities. As they get sicker, the corporations causing the climate crisis are just getting richer," said Mara Dolan of Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO)
"As people of faith, every one of our religious traditions demands us to care for the most vulnerable amongst us; our neighbors; the stranger at our door. It is a moral imperative that bailout funds go directly to those most impacted by this unprecedented health and economic crisis. It is an affront to all of our moral teachings that even in a global pandemic, the world's richest and most powerful CEOs are trying to capitalize off of a crisis at the expense of vulnerable communities. These are the same fossil fuel CEOs whose industries cause climate-induced disasters that force innocent people around the world to become climate refugees. Now, they are asking for corporate handouts. We, as the millions of people of faith in this country, demand better. We demand a just and equitable bailout," said Reverend Fletcher Harper, Executive Director of GreenFaith.
"Trump should be meeting with the 10 million Americans who have filed for unemployment due to the pandemic. He should be reaching out to the nurses and doctors who are non stop caring for sick patients, without enough protective gear or equipment. It's disrespectful and shameless that instead he's chosen to roll out the red carpet for Big Oil executives," said Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, North America Director at 350.org. "We will not stand for the consistent disregard that endangers millions of lives for the profit of a filthy few. Now is the time to change politics-as-usual. With no leadership in the White House, we demand that Congress hold the line and ensure no more bailouts or regulatory rollbacks of Big Oil. We are rising up as a movement to demand our dignity and rights for people, not polluters."
"Major U.S. banks are playing a dominant and unconscionable role in financing the climate emergency we are facing as a global community. U.S. leadership is needed to lead the transition to a clean energy economy and a healthy future and our policymakers are failing. Banks need to halt their investments in fossil fuels, and fossil fuel expansion, and to respect human and environmental rights," said Fran Teplitz, Executive Co-director of Green America.
"This meeting demonstrates all too starkly how poorly Donald Trump understands leadership, and just how well the oil industry understands Donald Trump. The American people deserve better," said Carroll Muffett, President at Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
"As we triage pandemic and financial wreckage, there is a clear fork in the road of recovery: funding ever larger health and market disasters of climate change, or investing in safe and sustainable energy economies. It's time to choose the road less traveled," said Cheryl Barnds, Climate First!
"If corporations are people, they shouldn't be getting more financial assistance then the American people," say Mary Gutierrez, Executive Director of Earth Ethics, "this isn't the time for bailouts, it's the time for transitioning. We need to be transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. However, this also includes transitioning of the fossil fuel industry workers. Let's be smart on how we move forward; we have the opportunity to shape a better future for us and the earth."
"The government can and should help oil and gas workers and their communities suffering from both the COVID-19 crisis and oil price collapse, but writing a blank check to fossil fuel executives is not the way to do it," said Kathy Mulvey, fossil fuel accountability campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Fossil fuel companies have sought to take advantage of the crisis at the expense of workers' and communities' health and financial wellbeing. Just last week, the industry used the COVID-19 crisis to lobby the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to roll back air pollution protections, which will only increase the risks of fenceline communities already especially vulnerable to respiratory illness."
The Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International is a solutions-based organization established to engage women worldwide in policy advocacy, on-the-ground projects, direct action, trainings, and movement building for global climate justice.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protest," one legal advocate said.
The government has largely won its first case bringing material-support-for-terrorism charges against protesters alleged to belong to "antifa," which President Donald Trump designated as a domestic terror group in 2025 despite the fact that no such organized group exists and the president has no legal authority to designate organizations as domestic terror groups.
A federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas agreed on Friday to convict eight people of domestic terrorism because they wore all black to a protest outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025, at which one of the protesters shot and wounded a police officer. Legal experts say the verdict could bolster attempts by the administration to stifle dissent.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Associated Press.
The administration promised it would be the first such case of many.
"The US lost today with this verdict."
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities—not under President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Friday. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The trial revolved around a nighttime protest at which participants planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the around 1,000 migrants detained inside the Prarieland ICE facility. Some participants brought guns, which is legal in Texas, as The Intercept reported.
Sam Levine explained in The Guardian what happened next:
Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive.
At first, the federal government charged those arrested after the event with "attempted murder of a police officer," according to NOTUS.
However, that changed after Trump's designation of antifa as a terror group in September and the release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which directs federal law enforcement to target left-leaning groups and activities. The next month, the government's case expanded to include terrorism charges.
“This wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo,” one defense lawyer told NOTUS on background.
The prosecution argued that the fact that the protesters wore black clothes to the protest was enough to convict them of material support for terrorism.
“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith said during closing arguments, as The Intercept reported on Thursday. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”
The defense, meanwhile, warned the jury about the free speech implications of the charge.
“The government is asking you to put protesters in prison as terrorists. You are the only people who can stop that,” Blake Burns, an attorney for defendant Elizabeth Soto, said, according to The Guardian.
"When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result."
Ultimately, the jury decided to convict eight defendants of material support for terrorism as well as riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive. However, they dismissed attempts by the state to argue that the protest constituted a pre-planned ambush and charge four people who had not shot at the police officer with attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a crime. Only Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter, was charged with one count of attempted murder and three counts of discharging a firearm.
The jury also convicted a ninth defendant, Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, of conspiracy to conceal documents. Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the protest, had simply moved a box of zines out of his wife's home after she was arrested for the protest, according to The Intercept.
"The US lost today with this verdict,” Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said, as AP reported.
Support the Prarieland Defendants said in a statement, "Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: This is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top."
However, the group commended the solidarity that had sprung up among the defendants and their allies and vowed to continue to support them.
"We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges," they said. "What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up."
Outside observers warned about the implication for the right to protest under Trump.
"Remember all the people who dismissed the alarm over NSPM-7 because 'ANTIFA isn't even a real organization'? We told you that didn't matter. When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result," said Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].
Content creator Austin MacNamara said: "The Prairieland trial was given almost zero media coverage because of the blatant lies by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and Police. This verdict now sets a precedent for criminalization of dissent across the board. Noise demos, Black-Bloc, pamphlets/zines/red cards, all of this can be used to imprison you."
Academic Nathan Goodman wrote that convicting people of terrorism based on clothing was a "serious threat to the First Amendment."
The verdict gives new poignancy to what defendant Meagan Morris told NOTUS ahead of the jury's decision: “If we win, I think it shows that Trump’s mandate is not working, that the people understand that you can’t criminalize, you know, First and Second Amendment-protected activities. And I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech."
"Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official," one news network said.
In a move one administration critic described as "fragrantly unconstitutional," Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr wrote a post on social media on Saturday that appeared to threaten the broadcast license of any media outlet that reported information concerning President Donald Trump's war on Iran that the president did not like.
"Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions—also known as the fake news—have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not," Carr's message began.
Carr also shared a screenshot of a Trump post on Truth Social complaining about "Fake News Media" coverage of five US Air Force refueling planes that were reportedly hit and damaged in an Iranian missile strike on Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia.
"The[is] is the federal government telling news stations to provide favorable coverage of the war or their licenses will be pulled," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media in response to the post. "A truly extraordinary moment. We aren't on the verge of a totalitarian takeover. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. Act like it."
Several other media professionals, free speech advocates, and Democratic politicians understood Carr's post as a threat.
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that."
"The FCC is threatening the licenses of news stations that report on the effects of Iranian attacks on the American military," wrote journalist Séamus Malekafzali.
Bulwark economics editor Catherine Rampell wrote, "FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatens broadcast licenses over Iran War coverage."
Journalist Sam Stein posted, "The state doesn't like the war coverage, threatens the license of the broadcasters."
Independent news network MediasTouch wrote: "Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official."
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that," the group continued.
"This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Several pointed out that such a threat would be in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
"Constitutional law 101: It’s illegal for the government to censor free speech it just doesn’t like about Trump’s Iran war," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) posted on social media. "This threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has faced scrutiny from the administration for advising service members to disobey illegal orders, wrote: "When our nation is at war it is critical that the press is free to report without government interference. It is literally in the Constitution. This is overreach by the FCC because this administration doesn’t like the microscope and doesn’t want to be held accountable."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote, "If Trump doesn't like your coverage of the war, his FCC will pull your broadcast license. That is flagrantly unconstitutional."
Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, said: "The president's hand-picked misinformation czar is at it again, singling out 'fake news' that conflicts with his boss' political agenda. The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to censor information about the war it's waging."
Free Press senior director of strategy and communications Timothy Karr responded to Carr with a screenshot of the First Amendment and the words: "Here it is—as it seems you've forgotten what you swore an oath to 'support and defend.'"
This is not the first time that Carr has been accused of putting his loyalty to Trump over his duty to the Constitution. In September, he pressured ABC to take comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air over remarks Kimmel had made following the murder of Charlie Kirk.
While ABC eventually reinstated Kimmel's show following public backlash, free speech advocates warned at the time that the Trump administration would not stop trying to censor opposing views.
“The Trump regime’s war on free speech is no joke—and it’s not over," Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron said at the time.
Indeed, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote of Carr's Saturday statement: "This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Carr's note comes at a particularly urgent time for independent media coverage in the US, as Paramount Skydance, which is run by the son of pro-Trump billionaire Larry Ellison, is set to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN. The Trump administration has often criticized CNN's coverage, including of the war.
On Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters, “The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” as he complained about a CNN report on how the Pentagon underestimated the risk that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US aggression.
Carr has already spoken out in favor of the merger, telling CNBC he thought it was a "good deal, and I think it should get through pretty quickly."
This piece has been updated with quotes from Sens. Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, and Mark Kelly.
“Mandating a restart of these defective oil pipelines won’t curb high gas prices, but it will put coastal wildlife at huge risk of another oil spill," one advocate said.
State leaders and environmental advocates responded with outrage after the Trump administration on Friday ordered the restarting of a California pipeline that caused one of the largest oil spills in the state's history, a move that comes as oil prices have skyrocketed following President Donald Trump's launching of an illegal war against Iran and Iran's subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
After Trump issued an executive order on Friday authorizing the Department of Energy (DOE) to ramp up oil and gas development under the Defense Production Act, Energy Secretary Chris Wright ordered Sable Offshore Corp. to restart operations on the Santa Ynez Unit and Pipeline System, which include an offshore rig and a network of offshore and onshore pipelines along the Santa Barbara coast. Among them is a pipeline that ruptured in 2015, spilling around 450,000 gallons of oil into Refugio State Beach and killing hundreds of marine mammals and sea birds.
“Californians have repeatedly rejected dangerous drilling off our coast for decades," Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Now, after dragging the US into a war with Iran and driving up oil prices, the Trump administration is trying to exploit this crisis to further enrich the oil industry at the expense of our communities and our environment."
In his statement, Wright emphasized the defense benefits of resuming drilling, arguing that "today’s order will strengthen America’s oil supply and restore a pipeline system vital to our national security and defense, ensuring that West Coast military installations have the reliable energy critical to military readiness.”
“Directing a private oil company to push its project through without safety checks and adherence to California laws that keep our coast safe is appalling and illegal."
The DOE added that "Sable's facility can produce approximately 50,000 barrels of oil per day, a 15% increase to California’s in-state oil production, that can replace nearly 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude each month."
Yet, far from a novel response to an unexpected emergency, the order is actually an escalation in a preexisting battle between California and the Trump administration over the future of the pipeline system. The state's Attorney General Rob Bonta sued to stop the administration from a federal takeover of two of the pipelines in January.
Sable also faces several lawsuits due to its attempts to restart the system after it purchased it from ExxonMobil in 2024, and has not yet cleared all of the state permitting requirements, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.
"In its latest brazen abuse of power, the Trump administration is attempting to seize exclusive federal control over two of California’s onshore pipelines," Bonta said on social media Friday evening. "We will not stand by as this administration continues their unlawful all-out assault on California and our coastlines, and we are reviewing all of our legal options."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against Wright's announcement.
"Trump knew his war with Iran would raise gas prices," he wrote on social media. "Now he wants to illegally resurrect a pipeline shut down by courts and facing criminal charges. And it won't even cut prices. I refuse to let Trump sacrifice Californians, our environment, or our $51 billion coastal economy."
The Center for Biological Diversity noted that this order would mark the first time that the Defense Production Act was used to force an oil company to restart out-of-use Infrastructure and to disregard the state permitting process.
“This is a revolting power grab by an extremist president. Trump is misusing this Cold War-era law just to help a Texas oil company skirt vital state laws that protect our coastline, and Californians will pay the price,” Talia Nimmer, an attorney for the center, said. “Mandating a restart of these defective oil pipelines won’t curb high gas prices, but it will put coastal wildlife at huge risk of another oil spill. Overriding state law to let an oil company restart pipelines sets a radically dangerous precedent. It’s clear that no state is safe from Trump.”
The center also promised to push back against the order.
“Directing a private oil company to push its project through without safety checks and adherence to California laws that keep our coast safe is appalling and illegal,” Nimmer said. “We’re exploring all legal avenues. This dangerous action should be swiftly blocked by the courts.”