May, 26 2021, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Katherine Quaid, Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network, katherine@wecaninternational.org
In the Lead up to June Mobilization, Over 300 Groups Call for President Biden to take Presidential Action to Stop the Line 3 Pipeline Project
Over 300 organizations, representing Indigenous groups and national and local organizations, submitted a letter today to the Biden Administration calling for President Biden to direct the Army Corps of Engin
WASHINGTON
Over 300 organizations, representing Indigenous groups and national and local organizations, submitted a letter today to the Biden Administration calling for President Biden to direct the Army Corps of Engineers to immediately re-evaluate and suspend or revoke Enbridge's Line 3 Clean Water Act Section 404 permit.
The letter delivers key information on the impacts of the Line 3 tar sands pipeline project and clarifies how Line 3 directly undermines the Administration's priorities, including respecting Indigenous rights and responding to the climate crisis. The letter also alerts President Biden of the upcoming Indigenous-led June mobilization along the Line 3 pipeline construction route and urges him to cancel the project.
The decision to mobilize for non-violent action was not made lightly, especially with the occurrence of state violence at Standing Rock in 2016. However, after years of Anishinaabe and Dakota community members in Minnesota actively opposing this pipeline, and an ongoing legal battle led by Tribal governments, concerned citizens across the United States are heeding the call of Indigenous leaders.
If built, the Line 3 pipeline would unlock CO2 emissions equivalent to 50 coal plants, and cost society more than $287 billion in climate impacts in just its first 30 years of operation. The project is set to cross more than 200 waterways and cut through the 1854 and 1855 treaty territory where Anishinaabe people retain the right to hunt, fish, gather medicines, and harvest wild rice.
The letter is signed by prominent Indigenous, environmental, youth, faith, and health organizations, including Giniw Collective, Honor the Earth, Indigenous Environmental Network, Sierra Club, Sunrise Movement, Fridays for Future USA, Hip Hop Caucus, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Jewish Climate Action Network, CatholicNetwork US and more. In the letter, signatories request President Biden take Presidential Action to stop the pipeline:
"Your Administration's announcements on protecting our nation's lakes and rivers, cleaning up aging and retired fossil fuel infrastructure currently polluting delicate environments, and building a clean energy economy powered by good, union jobs have set the vision and direction for the United States and the world--with Glasgow on the horizon. Together this mandate comes the inseparable and urgent need to stop fossil fuel companies from further entrenching the fatal fossil fuel era with dangerous projects like Line 3, which threaten to hamper your goals for decades into the future. To successfully and authentically Build Back Better, your Administration must promptly revoke the Line 3 permit."
This letter follows up on an initial letter sent in March by over 350 groups, encouraging President Biden to stop Line 3.
- - - QUOTES - - -
Tara Houska, Couchiching First Nation Anishinaabe, Founder of Giniw Collective: "It's great to hear the Biden administration acknowledges the U.S. shouldn't bend to endless expansion dreams of Canadian tar sands companies -- it would be better if President Biden took action, right now. Line 3 is a climate atrocity and a slap in the face to the multiple Ojibwe nations suing against its approval. Respect our sovereignty, respect climate science. Stop Line 3, before it's too late; before our rivers, wetlands, and wild rice watersheds are violated irrevocably."
Winona LaDuke, Bear Clan from Round Lake on the White Earth Reservation, Executive Director of Honor the Earth: "As the North experiences a great drought...and we see catastrophes of biblical proportions, it is not time for this pipeline. It's time for infrastructure for people, not for a rogue Canada corporation trying to make a buck at the end of the fossil fuel era. It's time for water and for a just transition in DC."
Dawn Goodwin, Anishinaabe White Earth Mississippi Band, Co-founder of R.I.S.E. Coalition, Indigenous Environmental Network Representative: "Our Elders have told us that over 50 years ago we were told to start moving away from fossil fuels due to the dangers of rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere. Today the youth are calling upon our elected officials to take their future seriously, and to heed the warnings of scientists. It is misleading to say Line 3 is a replacement, it is not! It is a relocation and expansion of the tar sands industry that would put our water, and our Anishinaabe homelands and lifeways at risk from potential spills and climate chaos."
Joye Braun, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, National Pipelines Organizer Indigenous Environmental Network: "Line 3 is a climate bomb waiting to go off. It is yet again another dirty tar sands project that threatens the sovereignty of tribal communities, wild rice, sacred medicines and above all the water. This whole project is madness and Governor Walz and President Biden need to step up and stop this climate changer if they truly believe in stopping climate catastrophe. Stand with the people, all the people."
Bill McKibben, Schumann Distinguished Scholar, Middlebury College: "Thank heaven KXL is history--but physics is physics, and the tar sands crude that will flow through Line 3 will do precisely as much damage as the tar sands crude that would have flowed through Keystone. As the IEA has pointed out, 2021 is the year to finally draw a line in the sand, and northern Minnesota is the obvious place to do it!"
Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, National Climate Strategist, Advocate for Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Initiative, North America: "Communities from the north, south, east and west are gathering in support of the sovereign rights of Indigenous Nations who steward the land in service to people and planet. We call on our government to act within its authority to do the same! Line 3 is a threat to our shared goals to survive the climate crisis and constrain the forces of greed that extract lives and livelihoods for filthy fossil fuel profit. Now is the time to honor the treaties, and to find the courage for new agreements to end coal, oil and gas for the sake of generations to come."
Veda Kanitz, Chair, DFL Environmental Caucus: "We are moving away from the use of fossil fuels. Building new fossil fuel infrastructure is wrong. In 20 years or less, when this pipeline is no longer needed, there will be no viable fossil fuel industry to pay for removing it and cleaning up the mess left behind. There should be no new fossil fuel infrastructure built under the Biden administration."
Zanagee Artis, Co-Founder and Director of Policy, Zero Hour: "The construction of the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands oil pipeline is an affront to Indigenous sovereignty and a threat to the lives of U.S. citizens everywhere. The United States cannot be a leader on mitigating climate change while also allowing fossil fuel infrastructure to become more entrenched in our energy system."
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Executive Director, The Shalom Center: "Just as the Hebrew Bible is a treasury of the practices of an ancient Earth-based community of shepherds and farmers aiming to live at sacred peace with the more-than-human world, so the practice of Indigenous peoples today should be a factor in our assessment of how to live in peace with Earth. Line 3 violates our best science and indigenous practice. We should stop it."
Osprey Orielle Lake, Executive Director, Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN): "Line 3, like Keystone XL which President Biden cancelled, is a pipeline perpetuating further Indigenous rights violations, destruction of the climate, and increased rates of violence toward Indigenous women living near 'man camps' associated with pipeline construction. The Biden-Harris Administration has a chance to make good on their promises to take action on climate, public health, and respecting Indigenous sovereignty. To do so, the Administration must listen to the people and immediately Stop Line 3."
Marie Venner, Co-Chair, CatholicNetwork US: "President Biden, as a fellow Catholic, I know you care about life for all. Fossil fuels cause so much death and destruction. Air pollution alone, from fossil fuels, causes 8 million deaths per year and the IEA just told us that we should allow no more fossil fuel infrastructure to stay below 1.5 C. Pipeline 3 is threatening the lives and livelihoods of our Indigenous brothers and sisters, those who have preserved 80% of the remaining biodiversity in our common home. Please do right by your kids, grandkids, all people and future generations and stop Line 3!"
Leila Salazar-Lopez, Executive Director, Amazon Watch: "Water is life. It is sacred and must be protected. Line 3 is a threat to water, land, rights, climate and our future generations. It must be stopped! As the Biden-Harris Administration makes climate action plans, it must go further to achieve climate justice, including policies that guarantee Indigenous peoples' rights and protect the environment by keeping fossil fuels in the ground. From the Kichwa in the Amazon to the Anishinaabe in Minnesota, we stand in solidarity with Indigenous peoples calling on President Biden to stay true to his word to build back better for our communities and the climate."
Cheryl Barnds, RapidShift Network: "In the White Pine Treaty of 1837, the Ojibwe ceded these lands to the United States, provided 'the privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers, and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guaranteed to the Indians.' Guaranteed. In 1999, the US Supreme Court affirmed the state must respect Ojibwe treaty rights. Can we read between these lines of supreme law to justify rerouting a tar sands pipeline through these very lands and waters as we gasp at the tail end of the fossil fuel era, planetary climate teetering? Come on, man!"
Erika Thi Patterson, Campaign Director for Climate and Environmental Justice, Action Center on Race and the Economy: "We need President Biden to use his executive authority to put a stop to the climate disaster waiting to happen known as Line 3, which will unleash emissions equivalent to 50 coal plants. Even worse, Enbridge's plans to construct this dirty tar sands oil pipeline violate Indigenous sovereignty and threaten to destroy rivers, wetlands, and wild rice watersheds on Anishinaabeg homelands. Biden should honor his campaign promises to frontline communities and immediately take action on Indigenous water protectors' demands for an end to this destructive pipeline and all new fossil fuel projects."
Jason Miller, Director of Campaigns, Franciscan Action Network: "In his encyclical Laudato Si, Pope Francis calls on Christians and all people of goodwill to 'hear the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.' In order to stop those cries, President Biden must stop approving new fossil fuel infrastructure including the Line 3 pipeline. The Franciscan Action Network stands with those opposing the pipeline, especially Indigenous communities. We urge President Biden: listen to Pope Francis and ensure that we adequately address the climate crisis so that our planet is inhabitable for all people for years to come."
The Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International is a solutions-based organization established to engage women worldwide in policy advocacy, on-the-ground projects, direct action, trainings, and movement building for global climate justice.
LATEST NEWS
Insulted by Trump's Threats, Iranian Negotiators Walk Out of Peace Talks
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" said Iran's chief negotiator.
Jun 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump’s threats to destroy Iran and send US forces to occupy the country on Sunday appear to have derailed peace negotiations in Switzerland, with the Iranian delegation reportedly walking out and demanding an apology.
Following Iran’s announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz again after Israel intensified its assault on Lebanon, Trump went on a tirade Sunday in which he threatened to assassinate negotiators and said Iran “won’t have a country” if access to the critical waterway was shut off, while also threatening to “take over” Iran with a full US invasion.
But after Trump’s threats—which broke the first clause of the memorandum of understanding—Iran’s negotiators filed a complaint with the Pakistani and Qatari mediators and stormed out of the mountain resort where talks were being held, according to several outlets.
While Trump clearly sought to project strength, Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said his team “do not take American threats seriously.”
In previous months, as Trump sought to squeeze concessions from the Iranians, he issued escalatory threats to wipe out their “whole civilization” and “blow up” the whole country. However, he did not act on those threats, even as Iran refused to budge from its negotiating posture.
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" Ghalibaf said.
Ghalibaf said the US had “better be more careful with their statements,” adding that “our armed forces are ready to respond in a different way." He said, “No matter what they say, we are the ones who act.
While the Iranian delegation left the venue, talks are reportedly continuing via mediators. However, according to the Lebanese outlet Al Mayadeen, the delegation said it will not return until Trump apologizes for his threats and Israel fully withdraws from Lebanon.
According to senior Israeli officials cited by Channel 12, Israel is reportedly considering “limited withdrawals” from Lebanon, including in areas within its so-called “buffer zone.” Despite Iranian claims, the officials said the US has not requested Israel’s withdrawal from the country.
Previous peace talks have been derailed by Trump’s threats to commit indiscriminate war crimes in Iran. But this past week has seen perhaps the most violent swing yet in his approach toward Iran.
Where earlier this week, Trump acknowledged Iran's right to enrich uranium and maintain a nuclear energy program like that of other nations, his outburst Sunday appeared to have been prompted by a statement by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said the US would be "forced to accept" its right to enrichment.
And while Trump has raged against Israel’s actions in Lebanon while privately claiming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage peace, he has not taken concrete action to force Israel to comply with the memorandum’s terms.
"The mixed messages coming out of the White House," remarked Jeet Heer, a writer at The Nation, "are going to make it much harder to end the war, and could in fact spark further conflict."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Won't Have a Country': Trump Threatens Full Ground Invasion and Destruction of Iran Amid Hormuz Closure
One expert said Israel's continued assault on Lebanon, which led Iran to announce its closure of the strait, posed an "existential threat" to the ceasefire.
Jun 21, 2026
Rather than force Israel to halt its occupation in Lebanon in accordance with the memorandum of understanding, President Donald Trump on Sunday responded to Iran's announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz with a new litany of psychotic threats—claiming that if the waterway were closed, he would blow up the country, launch a full ground invasion to take it over, and assassinate Iranian negotiators.
According to Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump told the Iranian negotiators overnight that if they close the strait, which Iran claimed to have shuttered once again on Saturday, “you won’t have a country,” adding that they “won’t even make it back to their f***ing country,” in what appeared to be a threat to assassinate the negotiators, as happened during the initial phase of the war.
Responding to statements by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said Iran would not give up its “right to enrich uranium” and that the US “will be forced to accept it,” Trump reportedly said Pezeshkian had better “watch his mouth” and “shape up,” or the US “will take over the rest of the country.”
It’s yet another sharp reversal from Trump, who—after months of claiming Iran must agree to “zero enrichment”—suddenly acknowledged this week that it was “common sense” for the nation to be allowed to have a nuclear energy program as other countries do.
Trump’s renewed threats against Iran, which mirror his genocidal threats earlier in the war to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” and “blow up” the entire country, also appear to violate the first clause of the memorandum of understanding, which calls on signatories to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”
The threat to fully occupy Iran, which Trump made publicly for the first time on Sunday, stands in sharp contrast to his comments that continuing the war for much longer would cause “economic catastrophe” and that even limited ground operations, such as one he had proposed to seize Iran’s uranium, would be too big an effort to be worth it.
The war with Iran is already deeply unpopular among the American public, even without US boots on the ground. Polls have shown that even a majority of Republicans would be opposed to Trump escalating the war by deploying ground troops, and military officials have shelved planned operations to occupy certain strategic locations, including Kharg Island, fearing a large number of American casualties.
Nevertheless, Trump also told Yingst that the US could become the “guardian angel” of the Strait of Hormuz, collecting tolls and taking oil from countries using the waterway for exports. He did not make clear how the US would gain control of the strait under such a scenario.
Iran announced that it would close the strait again on Saturday after Israel deepened its occupation and escalated its bombing of southern Lebanon, despite the MOU’s ceasefire agreement covering all fronts.
Iranian negotiators have described an end to Israel’s Lebanon occupation, which has killed more than 4,000 people and forced more than 1.2 million Lebanese civilians from their homes in the south, as a red line for negotiating peace.
Behind the scenes, Trump has acknowledged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using Lebanon to sabotage the ceasefire and drag the US back into a full-scale war.
In the phone call with Yingst, Trump once again said he was “disappointed Israel can’t put Hezbollah away,” adding that Israel “can’t do anything without knocking buildings down.” He also said he was close to allowing Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa—the former leader of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate—to take over the operation against Hezbollah.
While this is yet another instance of Trump using harsher rhetoric toward Israel—which Vice President JD Vance has also done in recent days—there is no indication yet that he is willing to take the next step of forcing Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire agreement by imposing material consequences, such as suspending military aid.
Even as Israel’s attacks continued unabated and threatened to derail the deal entirely, Vance did not indicate that he thought the US needed to exert more pressure.
“I think Trump and the US have done more to stop the conflict in Lebanon than any government anywhere in the world,” he said at a press conference in Switzerland on Sunday.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described Israel’s continued escalations as “an existential threat” to the peace process between the US and Iran.
He told ABC News on Saturday that Iran’s threat to close the strait just before a meeting in Geneva this weekend was meant to be “part of a background of how serious they are” about ensuring that the US understands the stakes if Israel refuses to withdraw.
“Israel would prefer for this war to continue until you have a complete defeat of the Iranians, which, of course, is not in the cards,” Parsi said. “The Israelis sold this war to Trump as a quick, easy fix to the region’s problems that would take no more than four days, and they were dead wrong.”
“Now, Trump is recognizing that US interests necessitate that he pull out of this war and strikes this deal, but the Israelis are trying to sabotage it because they are afraid they’re going to be left out, that the balance in the region is going to shift against their interests,” he added. “They’re willing to essentially jeopardize their relationship with the United States over this.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Starmer Expected to Resign as PM, But UK Left Warns of 'More of the Same' From His Replacement
Jeremy Corbyn said Andy Burnham would be "accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us" and "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally."
Jun 20, 2026
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce as soon as Monday that he will resign, according to new reports, as Labour supporters abandon the party.
But many on the left remain skeptical that his likely replacement, Andy Burnham, will truly bring the "change" he promises.
Britain's Observer newspaper reported on Saturday that the prime minister appeared "resigned" to stepping down, well aware that "support isn't there" for his continued leadership amid the party's dismal unpopularity.
Though Starmer swept away nearly a decade and a half of Conservative rule in 2024, his honeymoon has been short-lived. His embrace of austerity in the face of a cost-of-living crisis and his government's ferocious crackdowns on pro-Palestinian speech have left progressive supporters seeking alternatives like the ascendant Green Party.
Meanwhile, his hard-right pivot on immigration has done little to siphon votes from Brexiteer Nigel Farage's far-right Reform UK party, which currently leads in national polls.
The immediate trigger for Starmer's reported resignation was Burnham's victory in Thursday's Makerfield by-election, which marked the former mayor of Greater Manchester's return to Westminster. Burnham comfortably defeated a Reform UK candidate, and The Guardian reported that he was expected to have support from about 200 Labour MPs in a leadership challenge against Starmer.
Burnham emphasized during a victory rally that it was "a last chance to change" Labour as it heads for electoral oblivion.
Responding to what he said were requests from constituents to "do something to make life more affordable," Burnham called for an end to "trickle down economics," with government interventions to bring down utility bills and rail fares, public procurement of businesses, pushes for reindustrialization, and job guarantees for people ages 16 to 18.
But some leaders on the British left have warned that Burnham will do little to deviate from Starmer's failures.
While he has pledged to reverse Starmer's welfare cuts and privatizations of public services, Burnham has also committed to maintaining the party's spending limits, which may make significant changes impossible.
Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn, who led the Labour Party from 2015-20, said that while he personally likes Burnham, "his basic economic strategy and views... seem to me to be accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us."
The ex-leader also said Burnham "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally," noting that he has not given a straight answer on whether Britain should conduct an inquiry into the UK government's policy on Gaza and its supply of weapons to Israel.
Burnham has also drawn criticism for saying he would maintain Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has spearheaded hard-line changes to UK asylum policies and has enforced the repressive ban on Palestine Action, which has led to the arrest of thousands of nonviolent protesters, many of whom have been charged with terrorism.
"The architect of Labour’s cruel plans on settled status and persecution of free speech and protest stays in place," said Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who said it was a sign of "more of the same."
Remarking on Burnham's team of economic advisers, who include former chief economists for the Bank of England and Goldman Sachs, Polanski said it "isn’t a team of advisers which looks like challenging wealth and power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


