February, 07 2021, 11:00pm EDT

Climate Activists Target Major Banks in Fight to Defund Toxic Line 3 Pipeline
Over 150 Groups Call on 18 Major Banks to Walk Away From $2.2 Billion Loan
NEW YORK
In an effort to draw a proverbial "line in the sand" against continued investment in fossil fuel projects, activists are taking their fight once again to Wall Street. They are demanding 18 major banks walk away from a $2.2 billion loan with Enbridge, the corporation that is currently attempting to build the Line 3 tar sands pipeline across indigenous lands in Minnesota.
"Less than two months from now, on March 31st, 18 banks have a $2.2 billion loan to Enbridge due for renewal. Between now and then, we are going to do everything in our power to make it loud and clear to bank executives: They must walk away from Line 3 -- or there will be consequences," said Amy Gray, a Co-Coordinator of Stop the Money Pipeline.
Beginning today, Stop the Money Pipeline -- a diverse coalition of over 150 organizations pushing financial institutions to end support for fossil fuels and other climate-harming industries -- will initiate a campaign aimed at banks to #DefundLine3. They will deluge CEOs and board members of targeted banks with emails and phone calls, organize Covid-safe street protests, rallies and social media campaigns to ratchet up the pressure.
Enbridge Inc., a Canadian energy infrastructure company operating across North America, has been pushing to replace its existing Line 3 pipeline with a larger pipe that would carry 760,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Edmonton, Alberta, through Minnesota, to Superior, Wisconsin. Instead of safely decommissioning the existing Line 3, Enbridge wants to abandon it in the ground and build an entirely new $7 billion pipeline.
As indigenous activists in Minnesota continue to fight a brutal on-the-ground battle to stall construction by chaining themselves to equipment, standing in front of tractors and using any means available, including the creative use of pianos - to stop construction activities, STMP plans to take its fight directly to the banks.
The banks that activists are targeting include US banks JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, as well as TD Bank, the Royal Bank of Canada and the European banks Barclays Bank, HSBC, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank. (See full list banks funding Line 3 here.)
For many activists Line 3 represents a watershed moment in the United States ability to move ahead of the impending Climate Emergency in a transformative way. Upon entering office, President Joe Biden cancelled the Keystone XL as promised and the current Dakota Access Pipeline has been derailed by legal challenges - and if they are able to force banks to end financial support to Line 3, it could serve as the death blow to the entire idea of fossil fuels as environmentally sound or acceptable investments.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) groundbreaking report all nations must cut global greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and to net zero by 2050, if we are to keep global warming below the dangerous level of 1.5 degree Celsius above pre industrial levels. This small window becomes even smaller and some argue impossible unless we shift dramatically from fossil fuel investments and usage.
"If built, Line 3, a massive toxic tar sands pipeline, would destroy the sacred wild rice beds my people depend on for our food, our culture and our way of life. It would contribute as much to the climate crisis as 50 new coal-fired power plants and bring thousands of out-of-state workers to northern MN in the middle of a deadly pandemic, threatening already vulnerable rural, Indigenous communities with the virus even more. It would also endanger 800 wetlands and 200 waterways," said Tara Houska, (Couchiching First Nation) tribal attorney to STMP supporters in an email letter today.
Tara's struggle has drawn national attention and increased hope, particularly after President Biden cancelled Keystone XL. Major figures including Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) have visited the front lines and Rep. Omar recently penned a letter to President Biden saying "Under even the best-case scenarios for climate change, we cannot afford to build more fossil fuel infrastructure. That is especially true for projects like Line 3, which are designed for the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive fossil fuel there is, tar sands crude oil. Climate change is not just a risk, but a risk multiplier - all of the other known and unknown impacts of Line 3 will be greatly exacerbated by climate change."
In a release from the Congresswoman's office, she voiced the concerns of Indigenous communities and activists are also extremely worried about Enbridge's track record of toxic spills which shows "Enbridge has presided over some of the worst pipeline catastrophes in our nation's history. They amassed over 800 spills between 1999 and 2010 alone, including the devastating Kalamazoo River disaster, the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. They've been sued by multiple states for failing to adequately inspect and operate their pipelines."
The Congresswoman's worries about the environmental impact of Line 3 are not without merit.
For climate activists, Line 3 is symbolic of Donald Trump's toxic legacy to indigenous people and our nation. Its construction would add another 193 million tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere annually, which would be as bad as putting another 38 million vehicles on the road.
While increasing numbers of notables are joining the struggle to end Line 3, STMP will utilize the building momentum to engage in a series of protests, as well as media and social media campaigns designed to highlight the role of banks in funding the climate crisis and to reinforce the idea that the return on investments in fossil fuels no longer serves our best interests as a planet and is certainly not worth our future.
"Funding Line 3 is an unconscionable act at any time, but especially during a time when there is but a small window for us to move toward a zero-carbon economy in a way that ensures a future for the next generation simply because some JP Morgan or Bank of America executive prioritize profits over people is sickening. We won't let them take our future - not without a fight," noted Alec Connon, Co-Coordinator at Stop the Money Pipeline.
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
LATEST NEWS
Bezos-Owned Newspaper Bashes Medicare for All in Christmas Day Editorial
The Washington Post editorial predictably ignores research showing that a single-payer system would save hundreds of billions of dollars—and tens of thousands of lives—each year.
Dec 26, 2025
An editorial published on Christmas by the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post inveighed against supporters of Medicare for All in the United States, pointing to the struggles of Britain's chronically underfunded National Health Service as a "cautionary tale" while ignoring research showing that a single-payer system would save the US hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives each year.
The editorial, headlined "Socialized medicine can’t survive the winter," laments the "religious-like devotion to the NHS" in the United Kingdom even as "hospital corridors overflow and routine procedures get canceled due to a catastrophic event commonly known as 'winter.'"
The Post editorial board, led by opinion editor Adam O'Neal, waves away expert analyses showing that the UK government is underinvesting in its healthcare system relative to other countries in Europe, resulting in the kinds of problems the Thursday editorial attributed to the supposedly inherent flaws of single-payer systems.
"This is the dark reality of single-payer and a cautionary tale for the third of Americans who mistakenly believe Medicare for All is a good idea," the editorial declared ominously.
The editorial understates Medicare for All's popularity among US voters. A recent Data for Progress survey found that even after hearing common opposing arguments, 58% of voters strongly or somewhat support improving Medicare and expanding it to cover everyone in the US.
A separate poll conducted by GQR Research found that 54% of voters nationally, and 56% in battleground districts, support Medicare for All. US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the co-leader of the Medicare for All Act in the House, is reportedly planning to present those findings to colleagues next month as she pushes Democrats to rally behind her legislation ahead of the critical midterm elections.
Welcome to the newest co-sponsors of my Medicare for All bill in the House!
Medicare for All is not only good policy — as premiums skyrocket for millions of Americans — it is incredibly popular. Let’s keep building momentum for universal health care and get this passed! pic.twitter.com/k5sg7hEkYR
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) December 25, 2025
The renewed push for Medicare for All comes as the corporate-dominated healthcare status quo hits Americans with massive premium hikes stemming from congressional Republicans' refusal to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Predictably, the Post's editorial board—which Bezos has instructed to write "every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets"—neglected to mention the myriad horrors of the United States' for-profit system in its diatribe against Medicare for All.
The editorial also ignores research showing potentially massive benefits from a transition to Medicare for All, which would virtually eliminate private insurance while providing comprehensive coverage to everyone in the US for free at the point of service.
One study published in The Lancet estimated that a Medicare for All system would save more than 68,000 lives and over $450 billion in healthcare expenditures annually.
An analysis by Yale researchers calculated that "if the US had had a single-payer universal healthcare system in 2020"—which marked the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic—"nearly 212,000 American lives would have been saved that year" and "the country would have saved $105 billion in Covid-19 hospitalization expenses alone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Launches Christmas Strikes on Nigeria—the 9th Country Bombed by Trump
Trump—who calls himself "the most anti-war president in history"—has now bombed more countries than any president in history.
Dec 25, 2025
President Donald Trump—the self-described "most anti-war president in history"—has now ordered the bombing of more countries than any president in history as US forces carried out Christmas day strikes on what the White House claimed were Islamic State militants killing Christians in Nigeria.
"Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!" Trump said Thursday in a post on his Truth Social network.
"I have previously warned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was," the president continued. "The Department of War executed numerous perfect strikes, as only the United States is capable of doing."
"Under my leadership, our Country will not allow Radical Islamic Terrorism to prosper," Trump added. "May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues."
A US Department of Defense official speaking on condition of anonymity told the Associated Press that the United States worked with Nigeria to conduct the bombing, and that the government of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu—who is a Muslim—approved the attacks.
It was not immediately known how many people were killed or wounded in the strikes, or whether there are any civilian casualties.
The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that “terrorist violence in any form, whether directed at Christians, Muslims, or other communities, remains an affront to Nigeria’s values and to international peace and security."
The US bombings followed a threat last month by Trump to attack Nigeria with “guns-a-blazing" if the country's government did not curb attacks on Christians.
Northwestern Nigeria—including Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina, and parts of Kaduna State—is suffering a complex security crisis, plagued by armed criminal groups, herder-farmer disputes, and Islamist militants including Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP/ISIS) and Boko Haram. Both Christians and Muslims have been attacked.
Since emerging in Borno State in 2009, Boko Haram has waged war on the Nigerian state—which it regards as apostate—not against any particular religious group. In fact, the majority of its victims have been Muslims.
"According to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, more Muslims than Christians have been targeted in recent years," Chloe Atkinson recently wrote for Common Dreams. "Boko Haram has massacred worshipers in mosques, torched markets in Muslim-majority areas, and threatened their own coreligionists."
"The crisis in Nigeria is not a holy war against Christianity."
"It is true that Christian communities in the north-central regions have suffered unimaginable horrors as raids have left villages in ashes, children murdered in their beds, and churches reduced to rubble," she said. "The April massacre in Zike and the June bloodbath in Yelwata are prime examples of the atrocities taking place in Nigeria."
"The crisis in Nigeria is not a holy war against Christianity," Atkinson continued. "Instead, it’s a devastating cocktail of poverty, climate-driven land disputes, and radical ideologies that prey on everyone and not just any distinct group."
"By framing Nigeria’s conflict as an existential threat to Christians alone, Trump is not shining a spotlight on the victims," she added. "Instead, he is weaponizing right-wing conspiracy theories to stoke Islamophobia, the same toxic playbook he used to fuel his ban on Muslims, and which left refugee families shattered at America’s borders."
Former libertarian US Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) noted on X that "there’s no authority for strikes on terrorists in Nigeria or anywhere on Earth," adding that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—which was approved by every member of Congress except then-Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—"is only for the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks."
"The War Powers Resolution doesn’t grant any authority beyond the Constitution," Amash added. "Offensive military actions need congressional approval. The Framers of the Constitution divided war powers to protect the American people from war-eager executives. Whether the United States should engage in conflicts across the globe is a decision for the people’s representatives in Congress, not the president."
In addition to Nigeria, Trump—who says he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize—since 2017 has also ordered the bombing of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, as well as boats allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Trump has also deployed warships and thousands of US troops near Venezuela, which could become the next country attacked by a president who campaigned on a platform of "peace through strength."
That's more than the at least five countries attacked during the tenure of former President George W. Bush or the at least seven nations attacked on orders of then-President Barack Obama during the so-called War on Terror, which killed more than 940,000 people—including at least 432,000 civilians, according to the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
Trump continued the war on ISIS in Iraq and Syria started by Obama in 2014. Promising to "bomb the shit out of" ISIS fighters and "take out their families," Trump intensified the US campaign from a war of "attrition" to one of "annihilation," according to his former defense secretary, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis. Thousand of civilians were killed as cities such as Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria were flattened.
Trump declared victory over ISIS in 2018—and again the following year.
Some social media users suggested Trump's "warmongering" is an attempt to distract from the Epstein files scandal and alleged administration cover-up.
"Bombing Nigeria won’t make us forget about the Epstein files," said one X user.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unhinged' Trump Wishes 'Merry Christmas to All, Including the Radical Left Scum'
"Nothing more Christian than to be a hateful wretched fuck on Jesus’ birthday," quipped one critic.
Dec 25, 2025
In a message called typically on-brand by observers, US President Donald Trump wished "Merry Christmas to all"—including his political opponents, whom he described in decidedly unchristlike language.
"Merry Christmas to all, including the Radical Left Scum that is doing everything possible to destroy our Country, but are failing badly," Trump said Christmas Eve on his Truth Social network.
"We no longer have Open Borders, Men in Women’s Sports, Transgender for Everyone, or Weak Law Enforcement," the president added. "What we do have is a Record Stock Market and 401K’s, Lowest Crime numbers in decades, No Inflation, and yesterday, a 4.3 GDP, two points better than expected. Tariffs have given us Trillions of Dollars in Growth and Prosperity, and the strongest National Security we have ever had. We are respected again, perhaps like never before. God Bless America!!!"
While nothing new—Trump has used past Christmas messages to tell people he doesn't like to "go to hell" and "rot in hell"—observers, including some MAGA supporters, were still left shaking their heads.
"Radical Left Scum" 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣Christmas greetings from a liar, traitor, pedophile, and overall shitstain upon society.
[image or embed]
— Bill Madden (@maddenifico.bsky.social) December 24, 2025 at 9:00 PM
"Nothing more Christian than to be a hateful wretched fuck on Jesus’ birthday!" liberal political commentator Dean Withers said on X.
Another popular X account posted: "A sitting president of the United States using Christmas Day to spew venom at fellow Americans he calls 'Radical Left Scum' isn’t just unpresidential—it’s unhinged, un-Christian, and utterly beneath the office."
"This is the behavior of a bitter, small man who can’t even pretend to unify for one holy day," she added. "Shameful. Disgraceful. Pathetic."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


