

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.

Kai Huschke, Community Organizer, kai@celdf.org
Arguments on the assertion of local democracy over state-sanctioned corporate public health violations and a Rights of Nature law will be presented on June 1. For over two years, the Freedom from Aerially Sprayed Pesticides Ordinance of Lincoln County successfully banned corporate aerial spraying of pesticides as a violation of natural ecosystems' rights and people's rights to clean air, water and soil. The circuit court overturned the ban citing an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) model state law that protects corporate polluters from democratically adopted local law.
Oral arguments will be viewable on June 1 through the Oregon Judicial Department Catalogue (Rex Capri, Wakefield Farms, LLC v. Dana Jenkins, Lincoln County; Lincoln County Case No. 17CV23360): https://oregoncourts.mediasite.com/mediasite/Catalog/catalogs/default
Lincoln County voters adopted the ordinance in May 2017, the first of its kind in the nation. In September 2019, a county circuit court judge nullified the will of the people and overturned the ban, ruling in favor of the timber industry.
"Severely depleted salmon runs and worsening drought conditions in the West continue to expose the need for a paradigm shift in legal relations with ecosystems. In fact, movements to advance the legal rights of ecosystems are blossoming across the continent and globe because of how catastrophically conventional law has failed the planet," says Kai Huschke, Community Organizer for CELDF.
"Aerial spray of pesticides is illegitimately legalized violence against all life and must stop....Our rights must always override corporate profit," said Maria Sause, one of the founding members of Lincoln County Community Rights, the group behind the ordinance.
Ecosystems in court
In lower court oral arguments, the attorney representing the Siletz River ecosystem, which appeared through local resident Carol Van Strum, said "We have filed a declaration by a human person, who is a part of that ecosystem just as she would be a member of an organization or association."
"[Existing environmental laws] have done nothing, they've literally allowed the poisoning to go ahead," says Van Strum. "From the publication of Silent Spring people have been trying to correct the poisoning of the planet basically; of our air, our water, our soil, our food. There is a good reason she is called Mother Nature. She is the source of all life....We need to give nature the means to say no."
Van Strum's battle against the chemical industry was recently profiled in the forthcoming PBS documentary "The People vs. Agent Orange."
The judge did not allow the rights of the Siletz River watershed to be heard as a separate legal party to the lawsuit, but suggested her decision could be appealed. The judge said, "It absolutely is [an appealable order], and I'm inviting you to, and I said before, I think this is one that will be gaining more interest as opposed to less in the future for all the reasons that you just stated."
The appeal read, "The ability of ecosystems to participate in lawsuits is not limited by the term 'person,' but rather, that term may properly encompass an ecosystem, just as it has come to include corporations and other types of associations....There is no inherent or fundamental right to aerially spray pesticides. In contrast, the ecosystem has a fundamental right to exist and thrive."
June 1, 2021 oral arguments will present these issues to the Court of Appeals, which will issue an opinion on whether the state law does interfere with local democracy and whether the Siletz River ecosystem can protect its rights in court.
State and corporate interference with local democracy
In overturning the ordinance in 2019, the lower court ruled Oregon's 1995 Pesticide Control Act removes residents' control over the pesticide industry. "Corporate actors have engaged in a concerted national strategy to undermine people's power to protect the health of their communities through self-governance. This case is not only blatantly political, it is functionally state-sanctioned violence against people and nature itself," said Kai Huschke, Community Organizer for CELDF.
The law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP that is challenging Lincoln County's ordinance employs a top lobbyist for Oregonians for Food and Shelter, a group funded by chemical giants Monsanto and DuPont. Additionally, CropLife America, a national lobbyist group funded by Monsanto, DuPont and others, waged an ultimately unsuccessful multi-million dollar propaganda campaign against the Lincoln County ordinance, as revealed by The Intercept. These corporations have been found to be members of the corporate American Legislative Exchange Council, which wrote the model language for Oregon's 1995 Pesticide Control Act, now ORS 634.055 and ORS 634.057.
The extensive legal filings include arguments advancing a new theory of local-state relations to prevent state interference with local democracy. They can be found at: https://u.pc.cd/aJj and https://u.pc.cd/20RotalK
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) 498-0054Earlier on Monday, rival Zohran Mamdani sarcastically congratulated Cuomo for receiving a backhanded endorsement from the president.
Independent New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo does not appear to want President Donald Trump's endorsement.
During a Monday interview flagged by MeidasTouch, Cuomo was asked by WQHT morning show host Ebro Darden about Trump giving the former New York governor a backhanded endorsement over his top rival, Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani.
"Your boy was just on '60 Minutes,' Cuomo, saying you're his guy," Darden informed Cuomo.
"No," Cuomo responded.
Darden, however, pressed the issue.
"Trump said you're his candidate!" he said. "If he had to pick a bad Democrat or a... communist, he's picking you!"
There were then several seconds of silence after this before Darden's co-host, Peter Rosenberg, concluded that he had left the interview.
Co-host Laura Stylez lamented that Cuomo never answered Darden's question about the Trump endorsement.
"I really wanted to hear that answer!" she said.
Rosenberg then said that he heard a "click" on Cuomo's end, which indicated that he had apparently ended the call.
"Wow!" exclaimed Stylez. "OK!"
"Oh well!" said Darden.
Ebro: Your boy was just on 60 Minutes, Cuomo, saying that you're his guy!
Cuomo: No.
Ebro: Trump said you're his candidate.
Cuomo: *ends call* pic.twitter.com/GuwgIId5hU
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) November 3, 2025
During an interview that aired Sunday on CBS News' "60 Minutes," Trump said that he was "not a fan of Cuomo one way or the other," before adding that he would nonetheless prefer him to Mamdani.
Mamdani, a Democratic state Assembly member who has represented District 36 since 2021, immediately pounced on Trump’s remarks and sarcastically congratulated his rival for winning the endorsement of a Republican president who is deeply unpopular in New York City.
“Congratulations, Andrew Cuomo!” he wrote in a social media post. “I know how hard you worked for this.”
A leaked audio recording from a Cuomo fundraiser in the Hamptons in August included comments from the former governor about help he expected to receive from Trump as he ran as an independent in the mayoral race, following his loss to Mamdani in the Democratic primary. Cuomo and Trump have reportedly spoken about the race, which will be decided at the ballot box on Tuesday.
"Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
On the verge of the longest government shutdown in US history and in the wake of two losses in district courts, President Donald Trump's administration announced Monday that it would only partially fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for 42 million Americans this month.
In response to lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on Friday ruled against the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) refusal to use a contingency fund for at least some of November's $8 billion in SNAP benefits, often called food stamps.
Judge John McConnell, appointed to the District of Rhode Island by former President Barack Obama, gave the USDA two options: Fully cover the November SNAP benefits with the emergency funding and money pulled from other sources by the end of Monday, or make a partial payment of the total amount of the contingency fund by the end of Wednesday.
In a pair of Monday filings, the Trump administration chose the latter, explaining that there is "a total of $4.65 billion in the contingency fund for November SNAP benefits that will all be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households' current allotments."
While the development means millions of low-income families will at least get some benefits this month, a hunger crisis still looms. As one of the filings notes, "This means that no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November disaster assistance, or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely."
In a Monday statement, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups that sued in Rhode Island, welcomed that McConnell's order "means SNAP beneficiaries—including children and seniors—whose money ran out at the end of last month should be receiving funds for essential nutrition." However, she also called out the Trump administration for "still trying to deprive people of their full benefits," which "will not only prevent people from getting the full sustenance they need but also delay payments going out altogether."
"We are reviewing the administration's submission to the court and considering all legal options to secure payment of full funds," she pledged. "It shouldn't take a court order to force our president to provide essential nutrition that Congress has made clear needs to be provided. But since that is what it takes, we will continue to use the courts to protect the rights of people. For now, we are pleased to have forced the administration to release money it had been withholding from 42 million people in America who rely on their benefits. Rest assured, we will continue to fight so that people have the full benefits they are entitled to under SNAP."
Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell—who co-led the case in her state with over two dozen other AGs—noted Monday that "never in the history of the SNAP program—including during government shutdowns—has SNAP funding ever been suspended or only partially funded."
"While some funding is better than no funding, the federal government has made it clear that they are only willing to do the bare minimum to help our residents, and only after they were required to do so by our lawsuit and the courts," she said. "The Trump administration has the means to fund this program in full, and their decision not to will leave millions of Americans hungry and waiting even longer for relief as government takes the additional steps needed to partially fund this program."
Democrats in Congress—who have refused to vote for the GOP majorities' funding legislation to end the shutdown unless they reverse devastating cuts to Medicaid and extend expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits—also criticized the USDA's plan.
"USDA has the authority to fully fund SNAP and needs to do so immediately. Anything else is unacceptable," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on social media. "Trump's 'decision' to follow the court order and only send partial SNAP benefits to 42 million hungry Americans as Thanksgiving approaches is cruel and callous. Trump should focus less on his ballroom and his bathroom and more on the American people."
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly said: "The letter of the law is as plain as day. Trump should have paid SNAP benefits all along. Just now paying the bare minimum to partially fund SNAP is not enough, and it is not acceptable. Trump should immediately work to fully fund benefits under the law."
Both Senate Democrats from Massachusetts, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, also took aim at the president on Monday. Markey said: "Two federal courts confirm what we already knew: Trump must use contingency funds to fund SNAP this month. But millions will still see their benefits delayed because Trump tried to hold SNAP hostage. No more games. Use all available resources to ensure no one goes hungry."
While it's the Senate where Republicans need some Democratic votes to send a government spending bill to Trump's desk, House Democrats also blasted the administration's decision to only partially fund SNAP benefits in November.
"This is a very temporary Band-Aid," stressed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), adding that "42 million hardworking Americans are trying to figure out how they will keep food on the table. Partial is not good enough. End this Republican shutdown now so we can fully fund SNAP."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) declared: "Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP for 42 million Americans—including 1.4 million Michiganders. Anything less is unacceptable. It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
"These are not random donations," said Public Citizen. "It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
As President Donald Trump has embarked on the $300 million demolition of the East Wing of the White House—a project he insists has been "longed for" for more than a century—he has openly said that he and "some of [his] friends" are paying for the ballroom he is building.
But an analysis on Monday detailed just how "massive, inescapable, and irremediable" the donors' conflicts of interest are, as more than a dozen of the presidents' "friends" have major government contracts and are facing federal enforcement actions.
The White House has denied that corporate donors to Trump's ballroom construction project have any conflicts of interest, but Public Citizen found that 16 out of 24 publicly disclosed contributors—including three identified by CBS News but not by the White House—have government contracts.
The companies, including Amazon, Google, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir Technologies, have received $279 billion in government contracts over the last five years and nearly $43 billion in the last year. Lockheed is by far the biggest recipient, having received $191 billion in defense contracts over the last five years. The amount the companies have each donated to the ballroom construction has not been disclosed, but Lockheed spent more than $76 million in political donations from 2021-25.
The money the corporations have spent to build Trump's ballroom, said Public Citizen, "are not random donations. It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
Lockheed is among at least 14 ballroom contributors that are facing federal enforcement actions, including labor rights cases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement, and antitrust actions.
The National Labor Relations Board has before it cases alleging unfair labor practices by Lockheed as well as Google and Amazon.
The big tech firm Nvidia, another donor, has previously been accused of entering into a "quid pro quo" arrangement with the White House when it said it would give 15% of its revenue from exports to China directly to the Trump administration. The company has spent more than $6 million on political donations since 2021 and more than $4 million on lobbying, and faces a Department of Justice antitrust investigation into whether it abused its market dominance in artificial intelligence computer chips.
While Trump has sought to portray the ballroom fundraising drive as one in which his wealthy "friends" have simply joined the effort to beautify a cherished public building, Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman said the companies are not acting "out of a sense of civic pride."
"They have massive interests before the federal government and they undoubtedly hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration," said Weissman. "Millions to fund Trump’s architectural whims are nothing compared to the billions at stake in procurement, regulatory, and enforcement decisions."
In total, the 24 companies identified as ballroom donors spent more than $960 million in lobbying and political contributions in the last election cycle and $1.6 billion over the last five years.
Weissman said the companies' contributions to the president's pet project amount to corporate America "paying tribute" to the White House in order to stave off unfavorable labor rights and antitrust rulings, energy and financial regulations, and SEC actions and oversight, like an investigation into the cryptocurrency firm Gemini over alleged sales of unregistered securities.
"This is more than everyday corporate influence seeking. Paying tribute is a mark of authoritarianism and in making these payments, these corporations are aiding Trump’s authoritarian project," said Weissman. "They should withdraw their contributions.”