

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.

This August, the Democratic National Committee Council on the Environment & Climate Crisis released an "Environmental and Climate Policy Agenda for the Democratic Party." It recommended the formation of a presidential Rights of Nature commission. It reads:
Establish a commission, similar to the President's Council on Sustainable Development, to explore incorporating Rights of Nature principles into U.S. law.
This recommendation did not make it into the final party platform, but nonetheless shows Rights of Nature's growing popularity. This presents opportunities and risks.
A broad list of leaders within the growing Rights of Nature movement within the United States have offered perspective on the developments within the Democratic Party:
***
"In theory, a Rights of Nature commission is a step in the right direction of environmental justice; but in reality, a corporate-friendly DNC platform could derail the real work and advances of the global and national Rights of Nature movement. Rights of Nature is deep system change, not tinkering at the margins of a rigged system. Rights of Nature requires policy and business decision-making based on the needs of the ecosystem as a whole, which will mean a massive and necessary shift of how business is done, including how communities of color are targeted for the most polluting projects. The question is whether the DNC is ready to embrace the idea that humans are part of--and not owners of--the natural world, and whether their interpretation of Rights of Nature would dilute its framework of revolutionary change. Rights of Nature is rooted in Indigenous cosmology and the idea of Rights as responsibilities--specifically ensuring humans are living in balance with the ecosystems upon which we depend. The Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Indigenous people must be respected and woven into laws to protect humanity and the sacred system of life--which can well function without us, but which we need to survive." - Pennie Opal Plant, Co-founder and Indigenous Program Director, Movement Rights
"While I'm delighted to see a major political party interested in Rights of Nature policies, I'm also concerned that the DNC may not take seriously the legal paradigm shift that recognizing rights for ecosystems represents. The DNC must include the organizations and lawyers who have been doing this work on-the-ground, in particular the indigenous communities who have been at the frontlines of recognizing the destruction caused by our current nature-is-property paradigm." - Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin, Rights of Nature attorney, clients have included Lake Erie Ecosystem, Little Mahoning Watershed, Crystal Springs Ecosystem, and Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
"When you elevate something into a focus group at the national level and in such a politicized way, commissions like this merely reflect the political system--and water down more transformative demands. At worst indigenous peoples and grassroots environmental groups would be left out. At best, their voices and concerns would be marginalized. When you start forming committees, things tend to be sanitized for the political system. We saw this happen on Climate Change and look where it got us. If such a commission is launched it must engage a deep outreach campaign, and remain committed to transformative demands. In order to ensure such an effort is inclusive of all, a special effort would need to be made to specifically include indigenous peoples of the US including Indigenous Hawiians and Alaska Natives as well as the Indian Nations." - Mililani Trask, native Hawaiian attorney, and a leader within the Hawaiian sovereignty movement
"It is so ingrained within colonial legal systems to think that central governments must make decisions on our behalf. Colonial legal systems see law as a punitive force for control only, rather than something people can be taught to follow to bring healing, peace and self-regulation. To decolonize the law and honor Fundamental Law and the laws of earth is to support those who are practicing fundamental indigenous peoples' laws of nature. It means starting from the grassroots, and building from there, not coming from the top down through a punitive system. It means seeing ancient songs and ceremonies as tools for the transmission and interpretation of law." - Phil Bluehouse, current member of Navajo Commission on Self-Governance, former director of the Navajo judicial Peacemaking Program, former tribal police officer, who has worked to honor Navajo code's recognition of Fundamental Law (Title 1, Chapter 2, Subsections 201-206)
"The critics tell us our efforts are meaningless, but find it 'legitimate' when an 'authority' like the DNC begins to take Rights of Nature seriously. We cannot lose track of the fact that grassroots organizers are pushing this conversation, and the creative approaches to new governance. The fact that the DNC is contemplating this is a testament to the bravery of local communities willing to take action, despite the naysayers." - Markie Miller, organizer behind the Lake Erie Bill of Rights, the first law on United States settler colonial land to recognize the rights of a specific ecosystem
"I give the highest honor to the Ancestors of this Turtle Island. I speak to the heinous crimes against our Mother Earth and all living breathing beings in the circle of life under extinction. We must respond to her call to love, and care for her -- our provider of water and life on this earth. Greatest honor to my ancient one Celilo Falls, Wayamtama, flooded but not dead and buried -- only a prisoner of war like myself. Denied our right to exist and coexist in the ways designed by the creator of the law of nature that is Natural Law. We maintain the Ceremony to abide by the Natural Law as the Keepers, the preservationists of our territories. We are the Original Stewards of our respective territories here in the Northwest and all across the land. Many treaty rights involve the rights to practice traditional fishing, hunting, gathering and practices, but the true meaning of these rights is much deeper. These rights are about the duty to protect the Law of Nature, to be Stewards of it, to take only what we need for the preservation of our sacred foods and way. Honor the Treaties first, then we can talk about a 'commission'!" - Lana Jack, mutual aid organizer for Columbia River villages and the Celilo Wy'am, an unrecognized tribe, founder of Columbia River Indian Center
"Recognizing the Rights of Nature is not some hippie-dippy concept; it is nothing less than the full acknowledgement of the very concrete reality that humanity is a part of the ecosystem, and dependent on the life-sustaining systems of the Earth. Although I commend the DNC for taking up the issue of Rights of Nature, past experience has taught me to be wary. The vast majority of Democrats support the concept, but there is a pro-corporate element in the party structure itself that may seek to either water down, or worse, pervert this push." - Ellen Read, New Hampshire State Representative who sponsored state constitutional amendment efforts to afford municipalities governing power over corporations, including to recognize the rights of local ecosystems
"We don't need the DNC's empty promise to form a "commission," nor the rhetoric. What we need is an unequivocal law or Constitutional amendment granting the rights of Nature and its components--including humans--unalterable supremacy over commercial profits and conferring standing on natural objects to sue for their own protection." - Carol Van Strum, advocate for Lincoln County, Oregon Rights of Nature ordinance that stood for two years, ongoing human legal spokesperson for the Siletz River ecosystem, author of A Bitter Fog
"While it is important that the Rights of Nature be taken seriously by lawmakers and aspiring lawmakers, it is just as important that the foundational changes to our systems of law and government necessary to end the destruction of Nature are not minimized by empowering a politically motivated commission to 'study' the idea. We insist on real, enforceable Rights of Nature--nothing else will suffice to end our environmental and climate catastrophes. If we have learned anything from studying past movements for real systemic change, it is that once political parties turn the issue into a political debate, the movement weakens or dies. There is no time for this nonsense today. Nature already has more power and authority over humans and corporations, the question is if we have the wisdom to recognize it." - Tish O'Dell, Ben Price, Chad Nicholson, Michelle Sanborn, Kai Huschke, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund organizers, collectively worked with dozens of communities on settler colonial land to recognize enforceable rights of ecosystems
"We are at a time when the Rights of Nature must be centered and can no longer be ignored. At the end of the Mississippi River, just north of the Gulf of Mexico's hypoxic 'Dead Zone,' south of the petrochemical corridor known as 'Cancer Alley,' our ancestral Houma lands and waters and delta wetland territories are witnessing what happens when the Rights of Nature are ignored, suffering the consequences as sea-levels rise and land subsides, as politicians debate over which of our coastal communities are to be sacrificed to the sea. We need real Democratic leadership that understands the wellbeing of life on this planet is dependent upon survival strategies tied to recognizing, respecting and investing in regenerative relationships built in collaboration with the Earth's intelligence and her interconnected systems." - Monique Verdin, Citizen of United Houma Nation, Another Gulf is Possible
"The DNC's interest in 'establishing a committee to study the Rights of Nature' is disingenuous. The failure of the DNC to challenge the corporate stranglehold on policy is evident in omissions from the platform, notably, any pledge to end fossil fuel subsidies, to support Medicare-for-All, to legalize marijuana, to defund the police, to abolish ICE, to eliminate student debt, to provide free public college tuition to all, or to divert funding from an obscenely-bloated military budget. It is shameful to pay lip-service to a movement, the Rights of Nature, while apparently having no intention of standing up to corporate disregard for the planet and human health." - Diane St. Germain, Citizens of Barnstead for a Living Democracy, advocate for first-in-the-nation Rights of Nature 2008 law prohibiting corporate water extractions in Barnstead, NH
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) is helping build a decolonial movement for Community Rights and the Rights of Nature to advance democratic, economic, social, and environmental rights-building upward from the grassroots to the state, federal, and international levels.
(717) 498-0054"His campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for."
Amid calls for ousting Democratic congressional leadership because the party caved in the government shutdown fight over healthcare, a YouGov poll released Monday shows the nationwide popularity of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's economic agenda.
Mamdani beat former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in both the June Democratic primary and last week's general election by campaigning unapologetically as a democratic socialist dedicated to making the nation's largest city more affordable for working people.
Multiple polls have suggested that Mamdani's progressive platform offers Democrats across the United States a roadmap for candidates in next year's midterms and beyond. As NYC's next mayor began assembling his team and the movement that worked to elect him created a group to keep fighting for his ambitious agenda, YouGov surveyed 1,133 US adults after his victory.
While just 31% of those surveyed said they would have voted for Mamdani—more than any other candidate—and the same share said they would vote for a candidate who identified as a "democratic socialist," the policies he ran on garnered far more support.
YouGov found:
Data for Progress similarly surveyed 1,228 likely voters from across the United States about key pieces of Mamdani's platform before his win. The think tank found that large majorities of Americans support efforts to build more affordable housing, higher taxes for corporations as well as millionaires and billionaires, and free childcare, among other policies.

"There's a common refrain from some pundits to dismiss Mamdani's victory as a quirk of New York City politics rather than a sign of something bigger," Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell wrote last week. "But his campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for. The lesson isn't that every candidate should mimic his style—you can't fake authenticity—but that voters everywhere respond when a candidate connects economic populism to clear, actionable goals."
"Candidates closer to the center are running on an affordability message as well," he noted, pointing to Democrat Mikie Sherrill's gubernatorial victory in New Jersey. "When a center-left figure like Sherill is running on taking on corporate power, it underscores how central economic populism has become across the political spectrum. Her message may have been less fiery than Mamdani's, but she drew from a similar well of voter frustration over rising costs and corporate influence. In doing so, Sherrill demonstrated to voters that her administration would play an active role in lowering costs—something that voters nationwide overwhelmingly believe the government should be doing."
"When guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors," said one critic.
Progressive anger and calls for primary challenges followed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' Monday endorsement of top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer—under whose leadership numerous Democratic lawmakers caved to Republicans to pave the way to ending the government shutdown without winning any meaningful concessions.
As progressives demanded the resignation or ouster of Schumer (D-NY), Jeffries (D-NY) was asked during a press conference whether the 74-year-old senator is effective and whether he should remain as the upper chamber's minority leader.
"Yes and yes," replied Jeffries. "As I've indicated, listen, Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats over the last seven weeks have waged a valiant fight on behalf of the American people."
"I don't think that the House Democratic Caucus is prepared to support a promise, a wing and a prayer, from folks who have been devastating the healthcare of the American people for years," he said.
Asked if he thinks Schumer is effective and should keep his job, Hakeem Jeffries replies: "Yes and yes."
[image or embed]
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein.bsky.social) November 10, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Both Schumer and Jeffries say they will vote "no" on the the GOP bill to end the shutdown.
Activist and former Democratic National Committee Co-Vice Chair David Hogg said on social media that Schumer's "number one job is to control his caucus," and "he can't do that."
Eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus—Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), John Fetterman (Pa.), Maggie Hassan (NH), Tim Kaine (Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH)—enabled their Republican colleagues to secure the 60 votes needed for a cloture vote to advance legislation to end the shutdown.
Critics say the proposal does nothing to spare Americans from soaring healthcare premiums unleashed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July.
"Standing up to a tyrant—who is willing to impose pain as leverage to compel loyalty or acquiescence—is hard," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Monday. "You can convince yourself that yielding stops the pain and brings you back to 'normal.' But there is no 'normal.' Submission emboldens the tyrant. The threat grows."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on X: "Sen. Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?"
New York City Councilman Chi Ossé (D-36)—who on Sunday said that Schumer and Senate Democrats "failed Americans" by capitulating to "MAGA fascists"—laughed off Jeffries' ringing endorsement of Schumer's leadership.
Former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner called Jeffries and Schumer "controlled opposition" while demanding that they both "step down."
The progressive political action group Our Revolution published a survey last week showing overwhelming grassroots support for running primary challenges to Schumer and Jeffries. The poll revealed that 90% of respondents want Schumer to step down as leader, while 92% would support a primary challenge against him when he’s next up for reelection in 2028. Meanwhile, 70% of respondents said Jeffries should step aside, with 77% backing a primary challenge.
Turner also called for a ban on corporate money in politics and ousting "corporate politicians."
Left Reckoning podcast host Matt Lech said on X that "when guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors."
In a letter to the British public broadcaster, Trump cited a memo from a Conservative Party-linked former BBC adviser who claimed the network displayed an "anti-Israel" bias, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
The BBC in the United Kingdom is the latest target of US President Donald Trump's attempts to root out all unflattering portrayals of him from media coverage, with the president citing a memo penned by a former BBC adviser reported to have ties to the British Conservative Party.
Trump wrote to the BBC Monday, warning that he would file a lawsuit demanding $1 billion in damages unless the publicly funded broadcaster retracts a documentary film about him from last year, issues a formal apology, and pays him an amount that would “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”
The president gave the network until Friday to act in regard to Trump's complaint about a section of the film Trump: A Second Chance? by the long-running current affairs series Panorama.
The film was broadcast days before the 2024 US election, and included excerpts from the speech Trump gave to his supporters on January 6, 2021 just before thousands of them proceeded to the US Capitol to try to stop the election results from being certified.
It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the speech that were made about 50 minutes apart, making it appear that Trump urged supporters to march with him to the Capitol and called for violence.
"We’re going to walk down to the Capitol... and I’ll be there with you... and we fight. We fight like hell," Trump is shown saying in the edited footage.
In the unedited quote, Trump said, "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
BBC chairman Samir Shah said the network's standards committee had discussed the editing of the clips earlier this year and had expressed concerns to the Panorama team. The film is no longer available online at the BBC's website.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity. It’s a power play... It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
“We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action," said Shah. "The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment.”
Two top executives, director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, also resigned on Sunday under pressure over the documentary.
The uproar comes days after the right-wing Daily Telegraph published details from a memo by former BBC standards committee adviser Michael Prescott, "managing director at PR agency Hanover Communications, whose staff have gone on to work for the Conservative Party," according to Novara Media.
Prescott's memo took aim at the documentary as well as what he claimed was a pro-transgender bias in BBC news coverage and an anti-Israel bias in stories by the BBC's Arabic service.
According to the Guardian, Robbie Gibb, a member of the BBC board who previously worked as a communications official for former Tory Prime Minister Theresa May, "amplified" the criticisms in Prescott's memo in key board meetings ahead of Davie's and Turness' resignations.
Deadline reported Monday that "insiders" at the BBC have alleged that Prescott's memo, the resignations, and Trump's threat of legal action all stem from a right-wing "coup" attempt at the broadcaster.
Journalists including Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo News and Mikey Smith of The Mirror noted that while Panorama's editing of Trump's speech could be seen as misleading, the documentary wasn't responsible for accusations that the president incited violence on January 6, which pre-dated the film.
"To understand how insane it is that the BBC is being accused of ‘making it look like’ Trump was inciting violence with their bad edit, as opposed to Trump actually having incited violence, we know even his own kids that day were desperately trying to get him to call off the mob," said Hasan.
Others suggested the memo cited in Trump's letter to the broadcaster should be discredited entirely for its claim that the BBC has exhibited an anti-Israel bias—an allegation, said author and international relations professor Norrie MacQueen, that amounted to "an entirely new level" of George Orwell's "newspeak."
While the BBC "has been shaken by one of the smallest of its sins," wrote media analyst Faisal Hanif at Middle East Eye, "the greater one—its distortion of Palestinian reality—goes unpunished."
Hanif pointed to a report published in June by the Center for Media Monitoring, which showed that despite Gaza suffering 34 times more casualties than Israel since October 2023, the BBC "gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanizing victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs. 201 Israelis)."
The network also used "emotive terms four times more for Israeli victims" and shut down allegations that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, as well as "making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements," even as Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity," wrote Hanif. "It’s a power play: the disciplining of a public broadcaster that still, nominally, answers to the public rather than the billionaire-owned media. It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
"The BBC is punished for the wrong things. It loses its leaders over an editing error, while escaping accountability for its editorial failures on Gaza," Hanif continued. "The Trump documentary might have been misedited, but the story of Gaza has been mistold for far longer. If the BBC still believes in its own motto—'Nation shall speak peace unto nation'—then peace must begin with honesty."