

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.

Jesse Bragg, Corporate Accountability
+1 (617) 695-2525
Just days before the reentry of the United States into the Paris Agreement becomes official, environmental groups delivered the signatures of more than 50,000 people in the U.S. The signatures are the latest escalation in a growing call demanding that the Biden Administration commit to doing its fair share of emissions cuts and honor owed support for Global South countries, including climate finance. The petition reflects analysis released in December from the U.S. Climate Action Network (USCAN) that provides a path for the U.S. to take action that is in line with its responsibility for the climate crisis.
The delivery follows a sign-on letter from over 100 U.S. climate groups including USCAN which represents more than 175 US climate organizations, released for the 5-year anniversary of the adoption of the Paris Agreement. The call has now been endorsed by a total of 195 organizations including the international Climate Action Network, which represents more than 1,500 organizations from over 130 countries.
Earlier this month a similar coalition also demanded that the Biden administration commit $8 billion to the Green Climate Fund as well as further contributions to the Adaptation Fund. While the Biden transition team has yet to acknowledge the demand from this national coalition of people and organizations, incoming Climate Envoy John Kerry has spoken about the need for the US to do its fair share.
According to the analysis released by USCAN, for the U.S. to begin to do its fair share of the global action needed to help limit global warming to 1.5degC, it must reduce U.S. emissions 195% by 2030 (down from 2005 levels). To assemble this contribution, the analysis calls for U.S. domestic emissions reductions of 70% by 2030 combined with a further 125% reduction achieved by providing financial and technological support for emission reductions in Global South countries.
The Biden administration has enacted a flurry of climate executive orders and previously committed to a plan of net-zero by 2050. But announcements to achieve net zero have been met with criticism from climate groups and scientists for not being ambitious enough and relying on technologies and approaches that are unproven, dangerous, or not achievable at scale.
The extremely large U.S. fair share contribution partly reflects U.S. emissions to date. Today's global warming is driven by cumulative emissions (not annual emissions), and the U.S. has already historically emitted more than any other country. In fact, many analyses deem that the U.S. has far surpassed its fair share of the cumulative global carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5degC. The domestic reduction of 70% by 2030 recommended by USCAN roughly aligns with an extremely ambitious decarbonization via a prosperous economy-wide mobilization.
The fair share demand is one part of a larger framework prescribed by environmental groups called the Climate President Action Plan. The plan includes ten steps the administration can take to fulfill its promise to take bold steps on climate and rebuild trust abroad.
Quotes from participating organizations:
Brandon Wu, Director of Policy & Campaigns, ActionAid USA, said: "Just as domestic climate justice - a priority for the Biden administration - means a particular focus on historically marginalized communities, global climate justice means addressing legacies of exploitation and colonialism and their role in creating a tragically unjust climate crisis. People around the world are already suffering from devastating climate impacts, and many of those most vulnerable had little or no role in causing the problem. As the world's largest historical climate polluter, the United States has a moral and legal responsibility to support those vulnerable communities. Doing our fair share of climate action means addressing the injustices we have visited on those communities - starting with providing real financial support for just and equitable climate action in developing countries."
Rev. Michael Malcom, Executive Director of Alabama Interfaith Power & Light and the People's Justice Council, and the US Climate Action Network's elected representative to Climate Action Network-International, emphasized, "Our country is one of the richest in the world and has to do more than everyone else to fix this problem. But let's be clear. This is a problem caused by the rich, and the corporations they control. The US has to do its fair share and that responsibility has to be shouldered by the rich, not forced onto the working class and historically marginalized people."
Jean Su, Energy Justice Director, Center for Biological Diversity said, "After disproportionately polluting the planet for centuries, the United States must take its fair share of robust climate action on both the domestic and global stage. While President Biden's climate executive order is a strong first step, declaring a climate emergency will call this crisis what it is and level up the legal tools for confronting it. Out of the devastation of the coronavirus and the Trump administration, the president must seize this singular chance to build back a just, clean energy system that tackles the climate crisis and the wretched racism embedded in it. The U.S. must help finance that same transition across the world in communities who have contributed the least to this climate emergency."
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network, said, " The question is very simple. Will the US under President Biden do its Fair Share in addressing the climate crisis? Having played an outsized role in historically fuelling the climate crisis and general obstructing climate progress in the international space, re-joining the Paris Agreement is a just a start and much more heavy lifting in terms of urgent action is needed. To do its Fair Share President Biden must commit to bold emissions cuts at home, being a good global citizen and supporting the global community in ensuring a just transition away from a fossil fuel economy. Now is the time to make these commitments clear to all. The world is watching."
Sriram Madhusoodanan, Corporate Accountability U.S. Climate Campaign Director said, "The Biden administration has touted climate action, and it is time for them to walk the walk. With its reentry to the Paris Agreement, the U.S. must commit to honor the climate debt it owes to Global South countries, deeply cut emissions equitably at home, and stop undermining people-first solutions. What we're calling for is not a return to the Obama years, it's a complete realignment of the U.S.'s approach to climate diplomacy that puts people, not corporations, first."
Tom Athanasiou, Executive Director, EcoEquity, said: "People have realized how great the climate danger really is. The bad news is that many still hope technology will save us. It will help, but the real secret is going to be cooperation. Real cooperation--within countries and between them--of a kind that's only possible if everyone, and especially the rich, are seen as doing their fair share. It's a big ask for the US, the wealthiest country the world has ever known, but there's no avoiding it. If the Biden administration intends to kick-start a true climate mobilization, it has to do its global fair share even as it pursues a justice-first mobilization at home. There is no other way."
Sivan Kartha, Ph D., Stockholm Environment Institute, said, "This fair share demand recognizes not only the bedrock ethical principles of the international climate regime, but also the simple political reality that poorer countries, where most decarbonization efforts will ultimately need to occur, will be highly reluctant to take major actions unless and until they see the world's most powerful country and its largest overall contributor to climate change doing it's fair share."
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525“There is no legal requirement that US citizens carry papers or have proof of their citizenship on them," said an attorney at the ACLU of Northern California.
Federal law enforcement agencies are detaining US citizens who do not carry proof of their citizenship in what civil rights advocates describe as a flagrant violation of constitutional rights—and a top Trump administration official is claiming the government has the authority to do so.
A Somali-born Minnesota man was alarmed by the practice last Tuesday when immigration agents tackled him, handcuffed him, and arrested him, refusing to accept his REAL ID as proof of his legal residence in a video that was widely circulated on social media.
The man, who identified only as Mubashir, was placed into a chokehold and forced to his knees in the snow on his way to get food in Minneapolis' Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, which has a large Somali population.
As the Sahan Journal describes:
Mubashir said he told officers multiple times that he is a US citizen and asked if he could show them his ID. Officers ignored him, dragged him in the snow, and pushed him into a car as witnesses yelled and blew whistles, according to the video of his arrest.
The arrest occurred as federal agents walked into nearby businesses in the Somali-heavy neighborhood, questioning people and asking them to show their passports. Mubashir said he was in the car with officers for about 20 minutes, asking them repeatedly if he could show them his ID. They refused, he said.
According to the report, officers asked if they could photograph Mubashir to check whether he's a US citizen—likely to run his information through a facial recognition application that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has acknowledged it uses during immigration stops, including on US citizens without their consent.
Mubashir declined to have his photo taken, asking: "How would a picture prove I’m a US citizen?”
He was later taken to a federal building that houses an immigration court and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) offices. Only after having his fingerprint taken was Mubashir allowed to present his ID and given permission to leave.
Officers refused to drop him back off at Cedar-Riverside, instead telling him to walk home more than seven miles in the midst of a snowstorm, which had led authorities to issue a weather advisory.
“I deserve to be here like anyone else—I’m a US citizen,” Mubashir said. “I can’t even step outside without being tackled—no question—because I’m Somali.”
"I apologize that this happened to you in my city, with people wearing vests that say 'police.' That's embarrassing," Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara said to Mubashir during a press conference on Wednesday.
According to legal experts, there is no requirement under US law that American citizens must be prepared to prove their citizenship at a moment's notice.
In comments to KQED, a public radio station in San Francisco, earlier this month, Richard Boswell, a law professor at the University of California Law School, called it “most troubling” that US citizens have felt the need to carry their ID to avoid harassment.
“There is no reason why government officers can or should be questioning people about their citizenship without any reason to suspect that they are noncitizens who are here unlawfully,” he explained.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), noncitizens must carry proof of their legal status, such as a green card or a foreign passport with stamps indicating a lawful visa.
About two dozen states require residents to identify themselves if stopped by law enforcement. But none require citizens to carry a physical ID at all times, except in specific cases, such as operating a motorized vehicle.
And, as Bree Bernwanger, a senior attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, explained, “there is no legal requirement that US citizens carry papers or have proof of their citizenship on them." Unless police have reasonable suspicion that a person is in the US unlawfully, she said, "there shouldn’t be a reason to have to carry your papers, because immigration agents aren’t supposed to stop people or detain them."
But as backlash rolled in from the video of Mubashir's arrest, the man leading Trump's mass deportation crusade, US Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino, seemed to falsely suggest via social media that citizens are required to carry proof of their citizenship.
"One must carry immigration documents as per the INA. A REAL ID is not an immigration document," he wrote in response to a post about Mubashir's arrest, which noted his citizenship.
Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International, responded that "in no way does the INA require citizens to carry immigration documents" and that Bovino is "just letting his jackboot thugs presumptively detain whomever they like."
Add to this that HSI just filed a declaration in our case challenging these policies saying they can’t trust REAL IDs as proof of status.So showing your papers isn’t even enough to end the stop.
[image or embed]
— Jared (@jaredmcclain.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 1:54 PM
Immigration lawyer Jared McClain later noted on social media that, in response to a class-action suit arguing against indiscriminate workplace raids, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) argued that an Alabama construction worker, who was kept in handcuffs even after presenting multiple REAL IDs to agents, had still not done enough to prove his citizenship, according to the federal officers.
"This is the official policy—not a one-off," McClain said.
Aaron Reichlin Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said the filing was "official confirmation that ICE HSI believes that it can, in fact, detain US citizens for immigration checks, and keep them handcuffed while they have their biometrics run."
"That is a chilling assertion," he said.
ProPublica found in October that at least 170 Americans have been detained by immigration agents, sometimes for days, with some having been "dragged, tackled, beaten, tased, and shot."
But months after the report was published, top administration officials—including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—continue to emphatically deny that any US citizens have been detained during the second Trump administration.
At a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on Thursday, Noem abruptly left before Democrats could grill her on reports that citizens had been arrested, claiming she had to speak at a different committee hearing. Reports later found that the hearing had already been cancelled, leading to accusations that Noem misled Congress.
In response to Bovino's assertion that REAL IDs are not immigration documents, Nicole Foy, a reporter at ProPublica, told the Border Patrol commander: "We've been trying to request an interview with you for months now about the enforcement operations you're leading and the detention of US citizens."
"Why does a US citizen need to carry immigration documents?" she asked. At press time, Bovino had not publicly responded to Foy's question.
"If senior officials are processing this grift behind closed doors... that is not just bad optics, it is a direct threat to government integrity."
A democracy advocacy organization is stepping up pressure on the federal government to release more information on President Donald Trump's scheme to receive a $230 million payout from the US Department of Justice.
Democracy Forward on Monday filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint against the DOJ and the US Department of Treasury, alleging that both agencies have so far refused to turn over any records related to what the group describes as Trump's "stunning effort to obtain a $230 million taxpayer-funded payout for investigations into his own misconduct."
The group notes that it has already filed multiple FOIA requests over the last several weeks, and in response neither DOJ or Treasury has "produced a single substantial record or issued a legally required determination."
The complaint asks courts to compel DOJ and Treasury "to conduct searches for any and all responsive records" related to Democracy Forward's past FOIA requests, and also to force the government "to produce, by a date certain, any and all non-exempt responsive records," and to create an index "of any responsive records withheld under a claim of exemption."
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said her organization's lawsuit was a simple demand for government transparency.
"People in America deserve to know whether the Department of Justice is entertaining the president’s request to cut himself a taxpayer-funded $230 million check," Perryman said. "If senior officials are processing this grift behind closed doors—including officials who used to represent him—that is not just bad optics, it is a direct threat to government integrity."
Democracy Forward's complaint stems from an October New York Times report that Trump was lobbying DOJ to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars to him as compensation for the purported hardships he endured throughout the multiple criminal investigations and indictments leveled against him.
Trump was indicted in 2023 on federal charges related to his mishandling of top-secret government documents that he'd stashed in his Mar-a-Lago resort, as well as his efforts to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election. Both cases were dropped after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
When asked about the DOJ payout scheme in the wake of the Times report, Trump insisted he would give any money paid out by the department to charity and asserted that he had been "damaged very greatly" by past criminal probes.
Perryman, however, insisted that Trump was not entitled to enrich himself off taxpayer funds.
"President Trump may think he can invoice people for the consequences of his own actions," she said, "but this country still has laws, and we demand they be enforced.”
A new analysis warns the president's assault on immigrants risks setting off "a cascading crisis in senior and disability care that will harm families across the economic spectrum."
An analysis released Monday provides a more focused look at the economic impacts of US President Donald Trump's lawless mass deportation agenda, estimating that his administration's policies could kill nearly 400,000 jobs in the direct care industry, which employs home health aides, nursing assistants, and others.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analysis shows that if the Trump administration achieves its stated goal of deporting one million people per year over the next four years, "the direct care industry would lose close to 400,000 jobs—affecting 274,000 immigrant and 120,000 US-born workers."
"This dramatic reduction in trained care workers would compromise home-based care services, forcing family members to scramble for informal arrangements to support relatives who are older or have disabilities," wrote EPI's Ben Zipperer, the author of the new analysis.
The estimate builds on earlier EPI research warning that Trump's deportation policies could destroy nearly 6 million total jobs in the US, an economic impact that comes in addition to the pain and human rights abuses inflicted on families across the country.
So far, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the administration is on pace for fewer than 700,000 deportations by the end of 2025—well short of its goal.
But it's not for lack of trying: In recent months, masked agents have been rampaging through American cities and detaining people en masse, often targeting job sites. Immigration agents have reportedly been instructed to prioritize "quantity over quality," leading to the detention of mostly people with no criminal convictions.
"Rather than creating jobs for U.S.-born workers as proponents claim," he added, "mass deportations eliminate employment opportunities for citizens and immigrants alike."
Recent research indicates that Trump's mass deportations are harming local economies across the US. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted in August that "the early warning signs show a growing labor shortage, rising prices, terrified employees, and employers left in the lurch without any tools to ensure workforce stability."
"Should these operations continue unabated over the next three and a half years," he continued, "the situation could become far worse for the nation as a whole."
Zipperer wrote Monday that the direct care sector is "highly vulnerable to these enforcement actions," as it "relies heavily on immigrant labor."
"The Trump administration’s deportation agenda threatens to trigger a cascading crisis in senior and disability care that will harm families across the economic spectrum," Zipperer warned. "If the direct care workforce contracts by nearly 400,000 workers due to deportations, millions of older adults and people with disabilities will be left without the professional assistance they need to remain safely in their homes."
"Rather than creating jobs for U.S.-born workers as proponents claim," he added, "mass deportations eliminate employment opportunities for citizens and immigrants alike while dismantling a care infrastructure that seniors, people with disabilities, and families depend on."