

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.

July 1 marks the expiration of the Fast Track Trade Authority that Congress delegated in 2015 by a narrow margin after a heated battle. It's also the one-year anniversary of the implementation of the revised North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Fast Track process, renamed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) in 2002 to try to evade growing congressional and public opposition to the broad Nixon-era delegation of Congress' exclusive constitutional trade authority, was critical in railroading through Congress extremely controversial trade agreements, such as the original NAFTA.
July 1 marks the expiration of the Fast Track Trade Authority that Congress delegated in 2015 by a narrow margin after a heated battle. It's also the one-year anniversary of the implementation of the revised North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Fast Track process, renamed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) in 2002 to try to evade growing congressional and public opposition to the broad Nixon-era delegation of Congress' exclusive constitutional trade authority, was critical in railroading through Congress extremely controversial trade agreements, such as the original NAFTA. Fast Track empowers a president to unilaterally pick negotiating partners, set terms of pacts, sign and enter into them, write implementing bills without congressional involvement and jam such legislation through Congress within a set number of days without any amendments and limited debate. A 2013 Public Citizen book revealed six forms of trade authority Congress created to work with the executive branch on trade pacts since the nation's founding and how Fast Track helped to empower corporate interests to rig trade pacts with retrograde non-trade policies, such as the expansive intellectual property monopolies now at issue in the COVID-19 vaccine shortage crisis. Public Citizen has long called for the replacement of Fast Track with an inclusive process to yield broadly supported pacts that could pass Congress without requiring a ban on amendments and debate. Global Trade Watch Director Lori Wallach issued the following statement:
"Fast Track was a terrible idea when Nixon cooked it up in the 1970s to handcuff Congress on trade and has been instrumental in ramming a series of job-killing, Big Pharma monopoly-boosting, unsafe-import-flooding, corporate-power-expanding policies through Congress.
"Fast Track should have been relegated to the museum of terrible-policies-that-harmed-Americans decades ago: Nothing makes that clearer than the extreme process becoming an impediment to renegotiating NAFTA in 2018 such that breaking Fast Track in 2019 not only did not scare away trade partners but is the main reason supermajorities in Congress ultimately passed the U.S.-Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).
"One of the key takeaways of the USMCA's one-year anniversary is that Fast Track is a myth. Handcuffing Congress is not necessary to pass good trade deals that enjoy broad support because their terms might actually benefit working people and the environment.
"The NAFTA renegotiation process showed that Fast Track is actually counterproductive since the Democratic majority forced the Trump administration to renegotiate the initial renegotiated NAFTA. The main corporate argument, that U.S. trade partners would not negotiate without Fast Track, was exposed for the lie it has always been. Indeed, when Democrats in Congress forced the Trump administration to break Fast Track and empower Congress to have a more appropriate policymaking role, terms that actually represent a broad set of interests and could work for working people and consumers were added, and Big Pharma giveaways were removed. The result was passage of the 'revised revised' deal by supermajorities so large the extreme Fast Track process was not needed to limit debate in the Senate.
"This auspicious date reminds us that you don't need a delegation of congressional authority to hammer out trade agreements. The initial text of the revised NAFTA that then-President Donald Trump signed in 2018 was negotiated under Fast Track rules, with privileged corporate access and limited input from Congress, the public, or labor and environmental experts. The resulting deal added new monopoly protections for Big Pharma to lock in high medicine prices, and its labor and environmental terms would not have counteracted NAFTA's ongoing outsourcing of jobs and pollution and downward pressure on wages.
"Responding to civil society outrage, congressional Democrats leveraged their majority to demand changes outside the Fast Track process. That is why the final USMCA, though not the model for future pacts, has significant improvements from which we can build. This includes rollbacks of Big Pharma monopolies and extreme foreign investor rights and the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) extrajudicial regime. It also has improved labor provisions and enforcement tools, including the labor Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM), which is a targeted, facility-specific enforcement mechanism unique to the USMCA that is devised to protect workers' right to organize.
"The AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Sindicato Nacional Independiente de Trabajadores de Industrias y de Servicios Movimiento 20/32 (SNITIS), and Public Citizen filed the first USMCA RRM case, which was the base of a formal complaint filed before Mexico by the U.S. government and is now being assessed by Mexican authorities.
"It remains to be seen if the hard-won labor rights advances in the USMCA result in significantly improved conditions for workers in Mexico - but as we await the first case's resolution, and celebrate one year of the three-year transition period for the termination of most of NAFTA's ISDS mechanism, the end of Fast Track is certainly something to celebrate."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000A letter implored the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to "stand up to the executive order’s marching orders to 'promote' nuclear power."
A series of nuclear power-related executive orders issued by President Donald Trump seek to legitimize people's "suffering as the price of nuclear expansion," said one expert at Beyond Nuclear on Friday, as the nongovernmental organization spearheaded a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and top Trump administration officials warning of the public health risks of the orders.
More than 40 civil society groups—including Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Sierra Club, Nuclear Watch South, and the Appalachian Peace Education Center—signed the letter to the commission, calling on officials not to revise the NRC's Standards for Protection Against Radiation, as they were directed to earlier this year by Trump.
"NRC has not made a revision yet, and has been hearing that the Part 20 exposure (external only) should be taken from the existing 100 mr [milliroentgen] a year, per license, to 500 mr a year, and in view of some, even to 10 Rems [Roentgen Equivalent Man], which would be 100 times the current level," reads the letter.
In 2021, noted PSR, the NRC "roundly rejected" a petition "to raise allowable radiation exposures for all Americans, including children and pregnant women, to 10 Rems a year."
The revision to radiation limit standards would result in anywhere from 5-100 times less protection for Americans, said the groups, with 4 out of 5 adult males exposed over a 70-year lifetime developing cancer that they otherwise would not have.
"Radiation is dangerous for everyone,” said Amanda M. Nichols, lead author of the 2024 study Gender and Ionizing Radiation. “[Trump’s] executive order will allow the industry to relax the current standards for radiological protection, which are already far from adequate. This will have detrimental health consequences for humans and for our shared environments and puts us all at higher risk for negative health consequences. ”
The change in standards would be even more consequential for women, including pregnant women, and children—all of whom are disproportionately susceptible to health impacts of ionizing radiation, compared to adult males.
"Radiation causes infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth complications and defects, as well as solid tumor cancer, leukemia, non-cancer outcomes including cardiovascular disease, increased incidence of autoimmune disease, and ongoing new findings.”
In Gender and Ionizing Radiation, Nichols and biologist Mary Olson examined atomic bomb survivor data and found that young girls "face twice the risk as boys of the same age, and have four to five times the risk of developing cancer later in life than a woman exposed in adulthood."
Despite the risks to some of the country's most vulnerable people, Trump has also called for a revision of "the basis of the NRC regulation," reads Friday's letter: the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model, the principle that there is no safe level of radiation and that cancer risk to proportional to dose.
The LNT model is supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, the letter states, but one of Trump's executive orders calls for "an additional weakening of protection by setting a threshold, or level, below which radiation exposure would not 'count' or be considered as to have not occurred."
The Standards for Protection Against Radiation are "based on the well-documented findings that even exposures so small that they cannot be measured may, sometimes, result in fatal cancer," reads the letter. "The only way to reduce risk to zero requires zero radiation exposure."
Trump's orders "would undermine public trust by falsely claiming that the NRC’s radiation risk models lack scientific basis, despite decades of peer-reviewed evidence and international consensus supporting the LNT model," it adds.
The signatories noted that the US government could and should strengthen radiation regulations by ending its reliance on "Reference Man"—a model that the NRC uses to create its risk assessments, which is based on a young adult male and fails to reflect the greater impact on infants, young children, and women.
“Newer research has shown that external radiation harms children more than adults and female bodies more than male bodies," reads the letter. "Existing standards should therefore be strengthened to account for these life-stage and gender disparities… not weakened. Radiation causes infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth complications and defects, as well as solid tumor cancer, leukemia, non-cancer outcomes including cardiovascular disease, increased incidence of autoimmune disease, and ongoing new findings.”
Olson, who is the CEO of the Generational Radiation Impact Project, which also helped organize the letter, warned that "radiation causes cancer in women at twice the rate of adult men, while the same exposure in early childhood, will, across their lifetimes, produce seven times more cancer in young females, and four times more in young males.”
The groups emphasized that "executive orders do not have the power to require federal agencies to take actions that violate their governing statutes, nor to grant them powers and authorities that contradict those governing statutes. The NRC needs to stand up to the executive order’s marching orders to 'promote' nuclear power—a mission outside its legal regulatory mandate under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the concurrent amendments to the Atomic Energy Act."
Federal agencies including the NRC, they added, "should not favor industry propaganda asserting that some radiation is safe over science-based protection of the public. This is a deliberate subversion of science and public health in favor of corporate interests."
"The climate crisis is a health crisis—not in the distant future, but here and now."
The World Health Organization on Friday issued a report documenting what it described as a "global health emergency" being caused by the climate crisis.
The report, which was released jointly by the WHO, the government of Brazil, and the Brazilian Ministry of Health at the start of the United Nations climate summit (COP30) being held in Belém, Brazil, warns that global healthcare infrastructure is not currently sufficient to deal with the climate emergency, and that "1 in 12 hospitals could face climate-related shutdowns" worldwide.
Overall, the report finds that hospitals are experiencing "41% higher risk of damage from extreme weather-related impact compared to 1990," and that the number of at-risk health facilities could double if the global temperature continues rising at its current pace.
Ethel Maciel, COP30’s special envoy for health, said that flooding that decimated the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul last year showed the importance taking the climate crisis seriously, especially since the floods also led to "the largest dengue epidemic in history, driven by these climate changes."
"So, it is not something for us to think about in the future; it’s happening now," Maciel added. "So, thinking about how to adapt our system is urgent.”
Professor Nick Watts, director of the NUS Centre for Sustainable Medicine, recommended dedicating 7% of current climate adaptation finance toward making healthcare infrastructure more resilient to climate change, which he said would "safeguard billions of people and keep essential services operating during climate shocks—when our patients most need them."
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the report should give nations urgency to decarbonize as quickly as possible.
"The climate crisis is a health crisis—not in the distant future, but here and now," he said. "This special report provides evidence on the impact of climate change on individuals and health systems, and real-world examples of what countries can do—and are doing—to protect health and strengthen health systems."
Investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein warns that the designation opens up US citizens to government surveillance, asset seizure, and material support charges.
President Donald Trump's State Department on Thursday broadened his efforts to use "terrorism" to crush his enemies on the left, designating four European groups as "foreign terrorist organizations" based on their alleged connections to the vaguely defined network of leftist agitators known as "antifa," short for "anti-fascist."
Following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in September, Trump turned his attention toward waging a war on left-wing protest groups and liberal nonprofits, describing them as part of a vast, interconnected web that was fomenting "terrorism," primarily through First Amendment-protected speech.
As part of that effort, Trump formally designated "antifa" as a "domestic terrorist organization," even though it is not a formal group with any structure, but rather, a loose confederation of individuals all expressing an amorphous political belief. Civil rights advocates warned that the vague nature of the designation could be extended to bring terrorism charges against anyone who describes the Trump administration's actions as fascist or authoritarian.
Shortly after, Trump also signed a little-reported national security order, known as National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which mandated a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
Some of the indicators of potential violence, the memo said, were “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity," "extremism on migration, race, and gender," and "hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.“
Referencing NSPM-7 explicitly, the State Department on Thursday spread that crusade against the left overseas, slapping four German, Greek, and Italian anarchist groups with the label of "foreign terrorist organization" (FTO). The same designation has been given to groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS, and al-Shabaab.
The groups targeted were Antifa Ost in Germany; the Informal Anarchist Federation/International Revolutionary Front (FAI/FRI) in Italy; Armed Proletarian Justice in Greece; and Revolutionary Class Self-Defense, also in Greece.
The State Department said:
The designation of Antifa Ost and other violent Antifa groups supports President Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, an initiative to disrupt self-described ‘anti-fascism’ networks, entities, and organizations that use political violence and terroristic acts to undermine democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental liberties.
Groups affiliated with this movement ascribe to revolutionary anarchist or Marxist ideologies, including anti-Americanism, ‘anti-capitalism,’ and anti-Christianity, using these to incite and justify violent assaults domestically and overseas.
Each of the accused groups has had members charged with or convicted of violence, often against Neo-Nazis or adjacent far-right causes. But while they are more organized than America's anti-fascist movement, they are still broad-based and diffuse.
Mirroring what studies have shown in the US, the far-right is responsible for the overwhelming bulk of political violence in the European Union. A 2024 study by Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) found that across Europe, the far-right was responsible for 85% of the violent targeted incidents they tracked.
Though Greece was one exception, where far-left violence was more prevalent than far-right violence, Mary Bossis, an emeritus professor of international security at Piraeus University in Athens, told The Guardian that Greece's anti-fascist movement has little to do with it.
"It is highly exaggerated to say that the antifa movement in Greece employs terror tactics," she said. "They even run in elections and have never shown any sign of violence.”
While most social movements have some violent adherents, Bossis said, "that does not mean, as in the case of antifa, that the whole movement is either violent or supportive of terrorism. In fact, it is very much not the case… Standing against fascism does not make someone a terrorist.”
As Mark Bray, a Rutgers University professor who teaches a course on the history of antifascism, pointed out in The Guardian, Antifa Ost is the only one of the four groups designated by Trump that self-identifies as anti-fascist.
“The others are revolutionary groups,” he said. “This shows how the Trump administration is trying to lump all revolutionary and radical groups together under the label ‘antifa’. By establishing the (alleged) existence of foreign antifa groups, the Trump administration seems to be setting the stage for declaring American antifa groups (and all that they deem to be ‘antifa’) to be affiliated with these supposed foreign terrorist groups.”
Ken Klippenstein, an independent investigative journalist who has warned about NSPM-7 since its release, noted that this marks the first time that an entity in any of these three European countries has ever been slapped with the label of an FTO.
"The move seems an attempt to make people accustomed to white Westerners being treated as terrorists," he wrote Thursday. "That, after all, is the goal of Trump’s national security directive NSPM-7."
While there is no law on the books to back Trump's designation of antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, there is such a designation for foreign terrorist groups.
Being designated as a member of a foreign terrorist organization can subject one to significant sanctions, including having assets in American banks frozen, being unable to enter the country, or being prosecuted for "material support."
The government has used accusations of terrorism to go much farther, including carrying out extrajudicial assassinations of targets. Over the past two months, the Trump administration has bombed over a dozen boats in the Caribbean using the unsubstantiated justification that their passengers are "narco-terrorists" shipping drugs for cartels, which the administration has also designated as FTOs. The attacks have killed at least 76 people.
Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested last month that the Trump administration planned to use the "same approach" to antifa as it has with cartels, leading many to fear that might include assassinations.
Mehdi Hasan, the founder of the media outlet Zeteo, said the designation of these groups as terrorist organizations was "super bad for US citizens, especially on the left of the spectrum," because it "gives this authoritarian administration potentially the power to surveil and go after US citizens on spurious 'funding of FTO' grounds."
The State Department noted in a fact sheet on the designations that it is also seeking to target those in the US accused of supporting these groups.
"US persons are generally prohibited from conducting business with sanctioned persons. It is also a crime to knowingly provide material support or resources to those designated, or to attempt or conspire to do so," the memo said. "Persons that engage in certain transactions or activities with those designated today may expose themselves to sanctions risk. Notably, engaging in certain transactions with them entails risk of secondary sanctions pursuant to counterterrorism authorities."
Klippenstein said that while Trump's "domestic terrorist" designation was limited, "with an FTO designation, the gloves come off," opening Americans up to "FISA surveillance, seizure of financial assets, [and] material support charges."