SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
April, 19 2021, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Ethan Buckner, (612) 718-3847, ebuckner@earthworksaction.org
Alan Septoff, (202) 888-7844, aseptoff@earthworks.org
Gulf Coast Advocates, Hundreds of Orgs Launch Campaign Pressuring Biden Admin To Stop Oil and Gas Exports
WASHINGTON
Gulf Coast community leaders kicked off a week of action in Washington, D.C. today with an event outside the Department of Energy calling on President Joe Biden to end fossil fuel exports.
The Gulf Coast residents delivered a letter signed by more than 230 climate, environmental justice, Indigenous, youth and community groups calling on President Biden to reinstate the ban on crude oil exports by declaring a climate emergency, stopping a substantial portion of gas exports and ending approvals for related fossil fuel infrastructure.
"There's a dramatic disconnect between President Biden's climate and environmental justice ambitions, and the reality of our oil and gas exports market run amok. To protect our communities and make good on his promises, Biden needs to end fossil fuel exports now," said Melanie Oldham of Citizens for Clean Air and Clean Water in Freeport, Texas. Melanie was among the Gulf Coast community leaders who traveled to Washington, D.C. to deliver the letter.
The letter delivery and a website launch mark the start of a new Stop Fossil Fuel Exports campaign. The launch is part of the #DefendTheGulf Week of Action leading up to the Biden administration's virtual climate summit with dozens of world leaders. The campaign seeks to amplify voices of communities most impacted by oil and gas exports, such as in Lavaca Bay, Texas, where fourth-generation shrimper Diane Wilson enters her 13th day of a hunger strike to protest an oil export dredging project in the Matagorda Ship Channel.
"I am risking my life to stop the reckless destruction of my community. Oil and gas export terminals like the project I am fighting pollute our air, water, and climate -- only to pad the pockets of fossil fuel CEOs," said Diane Wilson. "The Biden Administration needs to stop the dredging and stop oil and gas exports."
Fossil fuel exports are booming, driven by a massive expansion of fracking and enabled by Congress' reversal of the 40-year-old crude oil export ban in 2015. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has spearheaded legislation to reverse this decision, and expressed support for executive action to curb fossil fuel exports in the meantime.
"Fossil fuel extraction is a threat to our planet and its people, and the impacts fall greatest on our frontline communities. Reinstating the ban on crude oil exports is crucial to our climate goals and I applaud and join alongside the Gulf Coast community leaders and their partners in their efforts," said Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). "I will continue to push for this reinstatement of the ban through legislation as we work to put environmental, racial, and economic justice first in the fight against the climate crisis."
According to an analysis by Greenpeace USA and Oil Change International, fossil fuel exports have increased 750% since 2015, with nearly a quarter of all crude extracted in the United States bound for export as of 2019. Gas exports are on a similar trajectory.
"Fossil exports shifts the burden to those least able to transition, reduces domestic resources and increases our dependence, while further endangering coastal communities." said John Beard, Founder and CEO of the Port Arthur Community Action Network. "We must stop the fossil fuel madness."
The groups say that if the dozens of proposed oil and gas export projects under federal jurisdiction are built, Gulf Coast communities will face significant harms from added pollution, and then take a double hit when climate disasters strike.
Harms from both fronts fall disproportionately on Black, brown, Indigenous, and other communities of color, as well as low-wealth and other frontline communities.
"When Oil and Gas destroy the land to get at the resources, they go through our sacred village sites and burial sites," said Juan Mancias, Chairman of the Carrizo-Comecrudo Tribe of Texas. "This genocide of our people and our culture continues today by allowing our spaces to be destroyed while others have protection."
Melanie Oldham continued, "As a resident of the Texas Coastal community and a healthcare professional in a community facing two oil export projects, the Sea Port Oil Terminal and Texas GulfLink, I fear that the emissions of these two projects will put our largely Hispanic community back into ozone nonattainment, our air quality will decline, negatively affecting our children, elderly, and persons with respiratory illnesses. Fossil fuel export projects are not in the interest of the nation, not in the interest of Texas, and not in the interest of local communities. Why should our communities be asked to sacrifice our health and our beautiful Gulf Coast for the profit of the oil industry at a time when we must transition to renewable energy?"
President Biden can immediately halt the export of crude oil under executive legal authority granted to him by the 2016 Appropriations Act and the National Emergencies Act -- as 350 groups formally petitioned President Barack Obama to do five years ago.
The president can also use his regular executive powers granted by bedrock environmental laws to stop fossil fuel export infrastructure approvals and a substantial portion of gas exports.
Swift executive action to end fossil fuel exports is a central premise of the progressive Climate President action plan and model executive order, which is supported by nearly 750 climate and environmental justice groups.
Ending oil and gas exports is also a core pillar of Build Back Fossil Free - a growing grassroots campaign pushing Biden to take executive action to end the era of fossil fuel production, declare a climate emergency and protect communities reeling from the climate and COVID-19 crises.
Earthworks is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the adverse impacts of mineral and energy development while promoting sustainable solutions.
(202) 887-1872LATEST NEWS
'Sounds a Lot Like a Nuclear Threat': Trump Floats 'Ultimate Alternative' If Iran Talks Collapse
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
Jun 13, 2026
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm Grows Over Vought Plan to Give Trump Cronies Control of Federal Grant Money
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
Jun 13, 2026
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Lawmakers Condemn Trump Effort to 'Tip the Scales' in Colombia Election
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
Jun 13, 2026
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular