May, 21 2020, 12:00am EDT
Statement: Trump's Open Skies Withdrawal Makes Us All Less Safe
Win Without War Advocacy Director Erica Fein released the following statement on Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Treaty on Open Skies:
"Once again, Donald Trump's belligerent approach to foreign policy has put us all at risk.
WASHINGTON
Win Without War Advocacy Director Erica Fein released the following statement on Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Treaty on Open Skies:
"Once again, Donald Trump's belligerent approach to foreign policy has put us all at risk.
"The Open Skies Treaty is a key tool for building confidence and ensuring transparency between countries. It has long held both bipartisan support domestically and wide support from our allies abroad. It is exactly the type of global cooperation that we need to prevent distrust, misunderstandings, and conflict in the international arena. Trump's decision to withdraw from this agreement -- and to willfully violate the congressional mandate to inform legislators before beginning a withdrawal process -- puts us further down the path of nuclear brinkmanship.
"Time and again, Trump has put nationalist bombast before actual security concerns: attacking multilateral institutions like the World Health Organization and the United Nations, engaging in futile trade wars, imposing deadly sanctions, and bringing us to the edge of all-out war with Iran.
"This administration's record on nuclear weapons is particularly egregious. Before this, Trump had already unilaterally withdrawn from both the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action -- the multilateral agreement to contain Iran's nuclear program -- and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty -- the treaty known for helping end the Cold War by signaling a new era of mutual security and understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union. This latest step sparks serious concern that the critical New START may be next on the chopping block.
"In contrast to Trump's rhetoric, a retreat to isolationism does nothing to make the world safer. Quite the opposite: Trump's antagonistic foreign policy brings us one step closer to nuclear disaster. In the face of global threats like nuclear proliferation, pandemics, and the climate crisis, what we need is global cooperation, not great power competition."
Win Without War is a diverse network of activists and organizations working for a more peaceful, progressive U.S. foreign policy. We believe that by democratizing U.S. foreign policy and providing progressive alternatives, we can achieve more peaceful, just, and common sense policies that ensure that all people--regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, or economic status--can find and take advantage of opportunity equally and feel secure.
LATEST NEWS
Heinrich, Booker Push 'No Immunity for Glyphosate' Bill as Supreme Court Weighs Monsanto Case
Sen. Cory Booker said it "will overturn President Trump's executive order that prioritizes pesticide company profits over public health and ensure that people who have gotten cancer from glyphosate can seek justice."
Apr 29, 2026
On the heels of the US Supreme Court hearing arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, Sens. Martin Heinrich and Cory Booker on Wednesday introduced legislation intended to overturn President Donald Trump's executive order mandating production of the highly contentious weedkiller at the center of that case.
"Since my time serving as a City Council member in Newark, I have seen firsthand the devastating harm caused by toxic chemicals in our communities," Booker (D-NJ) said in a statement. "That is why, this week at a rally in front of the Supreme Court, I stood with cancer survivors, activists, and Make America Healthy Again advocates to protest against providing a liability shield to foreign corporations that are poisoning the American people."
"It is why I filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting Americans who developed cancer after using a toxic pesticide in a case that will determine whether thousands harmed by glyphosate can have their day in court—and why I am a proud co-sponsor of the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act," he added, "legislation that will overturn President Trump's executive order that prioritizes pesticide company profits over public health and ensure that people who have gotten cancer from glyphosate can seek justice in federal court."
Despite Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," he has frequently served the pesticide industry, including by siding with Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—in the case before the high court, and by signing the February order invoking the Defense Production Act for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup.
Specifically, Trump directed US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins to ensure "a continued and adequate supply of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides." He also noted that domestic producers are required to comply with his order, and under the federal law he invoked, those doing so have broad legal immunity.
Just before Trump's order, Bayer announced a proposed settlement for the tens of thousands of people who say exposure to Roundup caused their cancer. Still, the company and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continue to claim glyphosate is safe, despite the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classifying it as probably carcinogenic to humans over a decade ago.
The case before the Supreme Court stems from a lawsuit and a resulting verdict in favor of John Durnell, a Missouri man whose blood cancer is in remission after multiple rounds of chemotherapy. The justices' decision could determine whether many others are able to continue pursuing cases against Bayer. Republicans are also pushing to include a "liability shield" for pesticide manufacturers in the next Farm Bill.
Meanwhile, Booker and Heinrich's bill states that "no federal funds may be obligated or expended to implement, administer, or enforce" Trump's glyphosate order, and "any person, or the estate, survivors, or legal representative of such person, who suffers or has suffered physical injury, illness, disease, or death caused, in whole or in part, by exposure to elemental phosphorus or a glyphosate-based herbicide manufactured, distributed, sold, or supplied within the United States, may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States against any covered entity."
Heinrich said Wednesday that "juries across the country are looking at the evidence and delivering verdicts: Exposure to glyphosate can cause cancer. The Supreme Court cannot and should not allow these verdicts to be overturned."
"My constituents' health and safety comes first. And I will not stand by while President Trump gives immunity to those who put my constituents' health and safety at risk," he added. "That’s why I’m proud to lead the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, legislation that will restore accountability, uphold court rulings, and protect the health and well-being of families in New Mexico and across the country."
The bill is also backed by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.). Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) introduced companion legislation in February, just after Trump's order. The lead sponsors in the House of Representatives also are working to strip the immunity shield from the Farm Bill and joined Booker at "The People v. Poison" rally outside the Supreme Court on Monday.
The next day, another House Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), questioned EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin about the immunity shield in Trump's order, as well as his meeting with Bayer's CEO last year and some related internal emails.
"AOC smoked him in there," Drop Site News reporter Julian Andreone said on social media. "Red-handed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing 'Irreversible Harm,' 100+ Groups Urge Congress to Reject Rushed Data Center Approvals
"Congress must not let Big Tech block oversight and hide data centers’ real harms from the public, including their immense energy and water use, dangerous pollution, and rising local costs," said one campaigner.
Apr 29, 2026
Nearly 120 civil society groups on Wednesday urged US lawmakers to reject Republican-led efforts to fast-track approval of artificial intelligence and conventional data centers, including by slipping provisions for these facilities into permitting reform legislation or "must-pass" bills.
Fossil fuel companies "are pushing to fast-track data center build-outs while ignoring the impacts on communities and the environment," the groups said in a letter to congressional leaders. "Proposals disguised as 'commonsense' reforms would weaken the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act, while also stripping residents of their right to participate in decisions affecting their health, water, and air."
"Congress cannot allow these industries to externalize costs while claiming progress," the letter states. "Lawmakers must prioritize public health, environmental sustainability, and community resilience, and reject rollbacks that hand corporations unchecked control over land, energy, and local resources."
If Joni Mitchell's iconic "Big Yellow Taxi" was written today the lyrics would say, "they paved paradise and put up a data center."We'd like to preserve paradise. So, the Center and our allies just urged Congress to reject fast-tracking harmful data centers. More info: biodiv.us/4cHWF4g
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) April 29, 2026 at 11:23 AM
The groups further called on lawmakers to eschew inclusion of data center provisions in "must-pass" legislation such as appropriations bills, the National Defense Authorization Act, Water Resources Development Act, and Farm Bill.
“Our democratic process was sidelined when our most powerful leaders both elected and unelected championed a data center while community voices were shut out,” said LaTricea Adams, CEO and president of Young, Gifted & Green, a national civil and environmental justice group that signed the letter.
Young, Gifted & Green is one of the frontline groups fighting Colossus, an enormous Memphis data center operated by Elon Musk's xAI to train its Grok AI chatbot using over 100,000 Nvidia H100 graphics processing units. The NAACP and Southern Environmental Law Center are suing xAI for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act related to the massive facility.
“What happens in Memphis can happen in cities and states across the country," Adams said. "We need the US Congress to do its job now to preserve and protect our rights as constituents and fight for our democracy.”
The letter's signers include 350.org, the Center for Biological Diversity, CodePink, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Oil Change International, Third Act, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Waterkeeper Alliance, and more than 100 other organizations.
The groups' letter comes as more and more communities are successfully opposing the proliferation of data centers across the nation. In Maine, state lawmakers recently passed legislation that would have enacted the nation’s first statewide moratorium on AI data centers had Democratic Gov. Janet Mills not vetoed the move.
Developers want to build 51 data warehouses, each the size of a Walmart Supercenter, in a Pennsylvania town of just 7,000.And they are refusing to tell the community what technology firms will occupy the buildings.Is it any wonder why a nationwide backlash against AI data centers is brewing?
[image or embed]
— Robert Reich (@rbreich.bsky.social) April 27, 2026 at 9:58 AM
At the federal level, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) last month introduced a bill for a national moratorium on AI data centers “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.”
Center for Biological Diversity senior climate and energy policy specialist Camden Weber said in a statement Wednesday that "Congress must not let Big Tech block oversight and hide data centers’ real harms from the public, including their immense energy and water use, dangerous pollution, and rising local costs."
“Data center giants spend consumers’ money to gut regulations, buy up utilities, and avoid accountability, enriching billionaires while shifting risks to everyone else," Weber added. "Members of Congress are supposed to represent their communities, not strip the people who elected them of the power to protect themselves from these massive operations moving into their neighborhoods.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Graham Platner Says Gutting of Voting Rights Act 'Brought to You by the Court Susan Collins Built'
"Don't piss on our boots and tell us it's raining," said the Maine Democrat running to replace the state's Republican US senator.
Apr 29, 2026
As it struck down the last remaining provision of the Voting Rights Act that allowed voters of color to challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps, the right-wing majority on the US Supreme Court argued Wednesday that it was simply preventing racial discrimination.
“Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion, agreeing with the Trump administration and a group of voters who challenged an electoral map Louisiana lawmakers were forced to redraw in 2024, after the previous map was found to be racially gerrymandered and to discriminate against Black voters.
In Maine, Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner made clear that he—and many others—didn't buy it.
"Don't piss on our boots and tell us it's raining: Under their bullshit legalese, the far-right Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act today," said Platner, a combat veteran and oyster farmer who is running a campaign focused on working families and taking on oligarchy.
Platner pointed the finger at the lawmaker he hopes to challenge following the Democratic primary, which is set for June 9—Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
"Another disastrous decision brought to you by the court Susan Collins built," said Platner.
Collins cast the deciding vote in the Senate in 2018 during Justice Brett Kavanaugh's contentious confirmation process, solidifying his lifetime appointment. She also voted to advance Justice Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Senate floor just prior to the 2020 election, even as she said she did not believe a vote on the confirmation should take place right before Americans voted.
Platner said earlier this month that should Democrats retake Congress in the November elections, the party should "deal with" the Supreme Court by "exercising ethics oversight" over the court and potentially taking steps to impeach and remove "at least two" justices—likely a reference to Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who according to investigations by ProPublica have failed to disclose gifts from a GOP megadonor and a billionaire hedge fund owner who had business before the court, respectively.
The 6-3 ruling on Wednesday effectively voided what remained of Section 2 of the landmark Voting Right Act (VRA), and is likely to clear the way for new Republican districts to be created across the South ahead of the 2028 presidential election.
The case centered on the congressional map Republican lawmakers in Louisiana drew, which a federal judge found in 2022 did not fairly reflect the population of the state, in which one-third of residents are Black. Section 2 of the VRA states that minority voters must have the same opportunity as other voters to elect the candidates of their choice.
The non-Black voters who later challenged the map that was redrawn in response to the 2022 ruling claimed the new map was racially gerrymandered because it created a second majority-minority district. There are six congressional districts in the state in total.
Writing for the court's minority, Justice Elena Kagan said the consequences of the ruling "are likely to be far-reaching and grave."
“I dissent because the court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote," said Kagan. "I dissent because the court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. I dissent.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular