

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.

Luke Metzger, Environment Texas, 512-743-8257
Neil Carman, Sierra Club, 512-663-9594
Josh Kratka, NELC, 617-599-6979
David Nicholas, 617-694-2218
In another stinging setback for ExxonMobil Corporation in a long-running environmental enforcement case, the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected nearly every argument Exxon raised in its appeal of the $19.95 million penalty previously imposed by a federal trial court judge. That trial court punished the company for committing 16,386 days of violation of the federal Clean Air Act at its Baytown, Texas, refinery and chemical plant.
The "crux of the dispute," wrote Circuit Judge Gregg Costa for the three-judge appellate panel, is whether the environmental groups showed that every one of the thousands of proven violations was of a type or magnitude that was "capable of causing" the kinds of proven harms suffered by the groups' members who live near the sprawling facility.
Judge Costa stated that, while the trial court's findings established such "traceability" for a large number of violations - those involving flaring, smoke and haze, for example - the case is being sent back to the trial judge for the "limited purpose" of determining which of the remaining violations were also capable of causing the plaintiffs' injuries and whether there should be any adjustment of the penalty amount.
"We are extremely pleased that the appeals court flatly rejected most of the claims Exxon raised in this appeal, and look forward to showing that the record penalty assessed by the district court fairly reflects the number and seriousness of the violations that clearly caused injuries in the Baytown community and beyond," said National Environmental Law Center senior attorney Josh Kratka, part of the legal team representing Environment Texas and Sierra Club.
In rejecting other grounds for Exxon's appeal, the appellate court found the plaintiffs had sufficiently proved they suffered injuries from Exxon's violations that a court can remedy with a favorable decision, and that Exxon failed to prove its violations were excusable by the "affirmative defense" set up under Texas law.
"Once again, the Fifth Circuit has ruled that Exxon broke the law and caused injury to the people of Baytown," said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. "Today's ruling doesn't end the matter, but we're getting very close to finally holding Exxon accountable for their extensive record of illegal air pollution."
The appeals court did, however, also direct the trial court to reconsider whether an "act of God" defense is applicable to a relatively small number of violations occurring before and after Hurricane Ike in 2008.
This case follows successful cases in Texas the groups brought against: Shell Oil Company for violations at its Deer Park refinery; Chevron Phillips Chemical Company for violations at its Cedar Bayou chemical plant; and Pasadena Refining Systems, Inc. for violations at the Pasadena refinery.
Exxon's 3,400-acre complex in Baytown is located about 25 miles east of downtown Houston. Tens of thousands of people live within three miles of the facility.
The groups are represented by the National Environmental Law Center; attorney David Nicholas of Newton, Mass.; and Houston attorneys Philip Hilder and Will Graham.
With Environment America, you protect the places that all of us love and promote core environmental values, such as clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and clean energy to power our lives. We're a national network of 29 state environmental groups with members and supporters in every state. Together, we focus on timely, targeted action that wins tangible improvements in the quality of our environment and our lives.
(303) 801-0581"Our country is not something that can be annexed or taken over simply because someone wishes to do so," said Greenland Premier Orla Joelsen.
Leaders of several European nations on Tuesday released a joint statement pushing back on US President Donald Trump's threat to seize Greenland from Denmark.
The statement, which was signed by the heads of state of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Denmark, and the UK, emphasized that security in the Arctic region must be "achieved collectively, in conjunction with NATO allies including the United States, by upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty and the inviolability of borders."
While noting that the US is an "essential partner" in the NATO alliance, the leaders nonetheless said that "Greenland belongs to its people" and "it is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland."
In a separate statement released Tuesday, Greenland Premier Orla Joelsen thanked the European leaders for speaking up in defense of his people's independence and emphasized that Greenland is not an imperial trophy to be won by the US president.
"Our country is not something that can be annexed or taken over simply because someone wishes to do so," Joelsen said. "At a time when the president of the United States has once again stated that the United States is very serious about Greenland, this support from our allies in NATO is both important and unequivocal."
Trump and his allies have been making more aggressive statements in recent days about taking Greenland, which Trump has called essential to US national security.
Top Trump aide Stephen Miller on Monday night refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland during a Monday interview with CNN, and further claimed that "the future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology."
The Trump administration's bellicose rhetoric, combined with its illegal invasion of Venezuela and abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, has reportedly convinced European leaders to take the threat of US imperialism on their territories seriously.
Danish sources who spoke with The Atlantic on Monday said that the Venezuela invasion was a wakeup call showing them that Trump is deadly serious about seizing Greenland against the will of its own people.
"Western diplomats and security officials we spoke with were apoplectic," reported The Atlantic. "One told us that Denmark and its Nordic neighbors have been taking the president’s statements seriously for a year but have remained uncertain about how to interpret them and, especially, how to respond."
Nathalie Tocci, director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali in Rome, argued in a Tuesday column for The Guardian that European leaders' refusal to condemn Trump's ouster of Maduro would only make it more likely that he would attack their territories as well in the coming months.
"Even if European leaders are being more vocal in support of Denmark, their ambiguity over Venezuela signals submission to Trump," Tocci argued. "And the more European countries act as colonies, unable and unwilling to stand up to Trump, the more they’ll be treated as such."
Trump's threats against Greenland have drawn widespread condemnation from elected Democrats, as well as from Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who wrote in a Tuesday post on X that it was "embarrassing" that he even had to address Trump's decision to menace a NATO ally.
"Denigrating our allies serves no purpose and there is no up side," he said. "It weakens us by diminishing trust between friends, and Russia and China love it. So... stop the stupid 'we want Greenland BS.'"
The White House adviser offered "a very good definition of imperialism," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"Belligerent" was how one Democratic lawmaker described a diatribe given by top White House adviser Stephen Miller on CNN Monday evening regarding the Trump administration's right to take over Venezuela—or any other country—if doing so is in the supposed interest of the US.
To Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), however, Miller was simply providing viewers with "a very good definition of imperialism" as he described the worldview the administration is operating under as it takes control of Venezuela and eyes other countries, including Greenland, that it believes it can and should invade.
"This is what imperialism is all about," Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper. "And I suspect that people all over the world are saying, ‘Wow, we’re going back to where we were 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, where the big, powerful countries were exploiting poorer countries for their natural resources.'"
The senator spoke to Tapper shortly after Miller's interview, in which the news anchor asked whether President Donald Trump would support holding an election in Venezuela days after the US military bombed the country and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
Miller refused to directly engage with the question, saying only that it would be "absurd and preposterous" for the US to install Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado as the leader of the country, before asking Tapper to "give [him] the floor" and allow him to explain the White House's view on foreign policy.
"The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere," said Miller. "We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries but not to us."
Instead of "demanding that elections be held" in Venezuela, he added, "the future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology."
MILLER: The US is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It's absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of… pic.twitter.com/wXK2UxnqUj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 5, 2026
The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that Venezuela "stole" oil from the United States. The country is believed to have the largest oil reserves in the world, and the government nationalized its petroleum industry in 1976, including projects that had been run by US-based ExxonMobil. The last privately run oil operations were nationalized in 2007 by then-President Hugo Chavez.
Miller offered one of the most explicit explanations of the White House's view yet: that "sovereign countries don’t get sovereignty if the US wants their resources," as Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) translated in a social media post.
Moulton called Miller's tirade "genuinely unhinged" and "a disturbing window into how this administration thinks about the world."
Miller's remarks followed a similarly blunt statement at a UN Security Council emergency meeting by US Ambassador Michael Waltz.
"You cannot continue to have the largest energy reserves in the world under the control of adversaries of the United States," said Waltz.
Miller's description of the White House's current view on foreign policy followed threats from Trump against countries including Colombia, Mexico, and Greenland, and further comments suggested that the administration could soon move to take control of the latter country—even though it is part of the kingdom of Denmark, which along with the US is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
"Greenland should be part of the United States," said Miller. "The president has been very clear about that, that is the formal position of the US government."
Miller: “Greenland has a population of 30,000 people. By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? The United States is the power of NATO. Greenland should be part of the United States.”
“Nobody is going to fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland.” pic.twitter.com/d7i2kMXFMD
— Dori Toribio (@DoriToribio) January 5, 2026
He dismissed the idea that the takeover of Greenland, home to about 56,000 people, would involve a military operation—though Trump has said he would not rule out using force—and said that "nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland."
The vast island is strategically located in the Arctic Circle and has largely untapped reserves of rare-earth minerals.
Danish and Greenlandic officials have condemned Trump's latest threats this week, with Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, warning that, in accordance with the NATO treaty, "everything would come to an end" if the US attacks another NATO country.
“The international community as we know it, democratic rules of the game, NATO, the world’s strongest defensive alliance—all of that would collapse if one NATO country chose to attack another," she told Danish news channel Live News on Monday.
The Danish government called an emergency meeting of its Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday to discuss "the kingdom's relationship with the United States."
On CNN, Sanders noted that as Trump sets his sights on controlling oil reserves in Venezuela and resources in Greenland, people across the president's own country are struggling under rising costs and financial insecurity.
"Maybe instead of trying to run Venezuela," said Sanders, "the president might try to do a better job running the United States of America."
"He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump."
Independent British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday accused United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer of "cowardice" for refusing to condemn the US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president, acts that experts agree were flagrant violations of international law.
Hours after the US attack—as leaders in the region and worldwide voiced horror and outrage—Starmer issued a statement welcoming Nicolás Maduro's ouster, declaring that "we regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime."
Starmer later insisted, as the Trump administration laid out plans to control the Venezuelan government indefinitely, that the situation was "complicated," adding that it was "for the U.S. to justify the action that it has taken."
Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party now helmed by Starmer, countered in Tribune magazine that "it’s really not that complicated: Bombing a sovereign nation and abducting its head of state is illegal."
"It is absolutely staggering that a prime minister with a background in law cannot bring himself to say something so obvious," Corbyn wrote. "It’s not that he doesn’t understand. He understands full well. That is the true abomination: He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump. This is the true meaning of the so-called ‘special relationship’ that government ministers are so desperate to protect: one where the United States tells us to jump, and we ask how high."
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States."
The UK, according to the government's foreign secretary, has been in close contact with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the role it can play in Venezuela, citing the "work we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities in the regime and of course our relationship with the US."
Corbyn argued that the government's approach is in some ways reminiscent of its conduct in the lead-up to the disastrous and illegal US invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States," Corbyn wrote. "Unlike Iraq, the UK says it is not involved in the bombing of Venezuela. Like Iraq, however, the UK is proving once again that it has no interest in standing up for international law."