November, 02 2021, 10:30am EDT
A Stronger Approach to Methane Pollution: Ban Fracking
Biden administration must pursue more aggressive measures to stem climate pollution
WASHINGTON
Today, the EPA unveiled new rules intended to limit methane emissions for the oil and gas sectors.
In response, Food & Water Watch Policy Director Mitch Jones released the following statement
"The best regulation against methane emissions is to ban fracking and prohibit the use of methane in heating of newly constructed buildings. In addition, the federal government should be working to retrofit existing buildings to eliminate the use of methane. Further, President Biden should use his executive authority to stop the buildout of new gas infrastructure, ban the export of LNG, and stop fracking and the extraction of fossil fuel on federal lands as he promised during the campaign.
"In addition, Congress should pass Senator Cory Booker and Representative Ro Khanna's Farm System Reform Act to begin the transition away from the destructive factory farm model that harms the environment, impoverishes farmers, and promotes climate change."
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
'Would You Rather Go Back to War?' Critics Ask Democrats Fuming Over Trump's Iran Deal
"Trump currently owns this failed war," said one expert, "but if the Democrats help torpedo the MOU and war resumes, then they will co-own the next war."
Jun 18, 2026
Supporters of a diplomatic resolution to the illegal war that US President Donald Trump launched against Iran earlier this year are pushing back against Democratic critics of the interim peace agreement signed on Wednesday, warning it is politically and morally foolish to attack efforts to end a conflict that has killed thousands and plunged the global economy into chaos.
"Would you rather go back to war?" Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), asked Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), one of several Democrats joining war-hawk Republicans in openly decrying the new memorandum of understanding (MOU).
In a series of social media posts on Wednesday, Blumenthal pointed to "bipartisan condemnation" of what he called "a disgraceful deal" and "unconditional surrender" on the part of the US. The senator added that "anything like this deal will be dead on arrival in the Senate" and declared, "It must be approved here to have enforceable effect."
Other prominent Democrats offered similar critiques. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said it is "hard to imagine a more thorough capitulation," while Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the deal a "dangerous giveaway" to "this enemy," referring to Iran.
"His war proved only one thing: that diplomacy was the answer all along."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned Thursday that such criticisms of the interim peace deal imply that "a war should not be brought to an end until it has produced better terms—even when the war itself is failing."
"Taken seriously, that logic leads to a dangerous conclusion: that a failed war must continue until the battlefield fortunes somehow improve and a more favorable outcome becomes attainable. Perhaps that day will come. Perhaps it never will. In the meantime, the costs—in lives, treasure, regional stability, and strategic credibility—are treated as secondary considerations," Parsi wrote. "This is how endless wars are born."
Parsi expressed disappointment at the rhetoric of some Democrats "because it echoes the same bad-faith tactics Republicans deployed" against the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump ripped up in 2018, setting the stage for war.
"To be sure, Trump has invited some of this treatment. He spent years attacking Obama’s agreement with a barrage of misleading arguments and exaggerated claims," Parsi noted. "But that does not make it wise for Democrats to return the favor. Trump currently owns this failed war, but if the Democrats help torpedo the MOU and war resumes, then they will co-own the next war. Trump’s disaster will become theirs as well."
Many Democrats appear to understand that risk and are welcoming diplomatic progress—while also condemning the illegal war and its consequences for the US and the world.
"Matters of war and peace must rise above partisan politics," said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas). "Democrats must not replicate Republicans’ irresponsible opposition to the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear agreement, which placed real constraints on Iran’s nuclear program before President Trump foolishly tore it up, setting the stage for this disastrous war."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), in a Thursday morning appearance on Fox News, said the emerging deal between the US and Iran "is not as good as the JCPOA was," while also expressing support for efforts to end the war.
Watch:
Ro Khanna on Maria Bartiromo's show makes the case for why Trump's deal with Iran is far inferior to the JCPOA (Note that Bartiromo acknowledges he's making "important points, and good ones") pic.twitter.com/n1nm3LyBcd
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 18, 2026
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) wrote in a social media post on Thursday that "any move toward diplomacy and away from violence is welcome news," calling Trump's Iran war "reckless" and "illegal."
"This war should be a lesson. The push for military adventurism and regime change by neocon war hawks was, unsurprisingly, an unmitigated disaster," said McGovern. "After three months of death and destruction, the rest of us are now left paying the price. His war proved only one thing: that diplomacy was the answer all along."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Surging in Michigan Senate Primary, El-Sayed Best Positioned to Beat Republican: Polls
"He’s the strongest and safest candidate to not only hold the seat but use it to pass transformative legislation to get money out of politics, put money in pockets, and pass Medicare for All," said Abdul El-Sayed's campaign.
Jun 18, 2026
Opponents of progressive former Detroit public health official Abdul El-Sayed have insisted he would be a risky candidate to face Republican contender Mike Rogers, with state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who is running against El-Sayed in the Democratic primary, suggesting his support for Medicare for All is too radical, and a centrist think tank attacking him for campaigning with an outspoken critic of Israel.
But polls released Wednesday revealed that not only is El-Sayed continuing to surge ahead of McMorrow and US Rep. Haley Stevens, but he also appears to have a better chance of beating Rogers in a statewide race.
A new poll taken by Mitchell Research and Communications between June 11-13 found El-Sayed received the support of 42% of respondents, nine points ahead of Stevens. McMorrow, who has positioned herself as a "moderate" middle ground between her two opponents, had 6% support.
The survey found that El-Sayed continued to build his support among voters under the age of 45, with the candidate 83 points ahead of his opponents in the race that has been called a "millennial showdown" by local media. All three candidates are between the ages of 39 and 42.
Last month, another survey by Mitchell Research and Communications found El-Sayed with the support of 80% of voters ages 18-44.
A separate poll released by Zenith Research on behalf of Common Defense—a grassroots organization of military veterans and their families—found El-Sayed three points ahead of Rogers, a former congressman.
Forty-five percent of respondents backed El-Sayed in a hypothetical matchup with the Republican, who had polled at 42%.
In a hypothetical McMorrow-Rogers matchup, the Democrat had 44% support compared the Republican's 42%, while Stevens was just one point ahead of Rogers.
"The difference between El-Sayed and Stevens’ vote shares—45% and 43%, respectively—appears to be due to Stevens’ relative unpopularity among voters who self-identify as 'very progressive or liberal,'" said Adam Carlson, founding partner of Zenith Polls. "Thirty-one percent of progressive/liberal voters hold a 'strongly unfavorable' view of Stevens."
Several respondents, said Carlson, cited Stevens' ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee "as the driving cause, which coincides with AIPAC taking a more active role in the campaign in recent weeks."
Polls have shown that since Israel began its US-backed assault on Gaza in October 2023, public support for Israel and AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby group, has plummeted, particularly among Democratic voters.
The pollster found that 51% of respondents would support a candidate who backs Medicare for All—a top focus of El-Sayed's policy platform—while 33% said they would prefer a candidate who supports maintaining the for-profit healthcare system as it is. Stevens and McMorrow have said they support a "public option" to compete with for-profit insurers. McMorrow falsely claimed in a recent interview that Medicare for All does not have significant public support.
"Abdul is the ONLY one who can turn out a broad coalition to beat Rogers in November," said El-Sayed's campaign in response to the poll. "He’s the strongest and safest candidate to not only hold the seat but use it to pass transformative legislation to get money out of politics, put money in pockets, and pass Medicare for All."
At MeidasTouch on Wednesday, correspondent Scott MacFarlane asked El-Sayed why his critics continue to claim he would not be electable in the general election.
“I think my party doesn’t really know what electability is any more," said El-Sayed. "They think electability is about being the most middle-of-the-road Democrat."
Question from @MacFarlaneNews: “You hear these concerns in your party that you’re the least electable in a general election. Why do people say that?”
Dr. @AbdulElSayed (D-MI): “I think my party doesn’t really know what electability is any more.” @MeidasTouch https://t.co/EqsPlLuyuD pic.twitter.com/3dRxenuDYv
— Luke Radel (@lukeradel) June 17, 2026
"What they don't realize," said El-Sayed, "is that the Democratic Party's brand has been destroyed by Democrats who take money from corporations to water down a message, and then wonder why our base doesn't show up for us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Trillion-Dollar Scam': Lawmakers Demand Halt to Trump's Golden Dome Boondoggle
"Trump’s dangerous... boondoggle will not protect Americans. It’s just a giveaway to defense contractor buddies like Elon Musk," said US Sen. Ed Markey.
Jun 18, 2026
Democratic lawmakers are taking aim at President Donald Trump's proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system, which the Congressional Budget Office projected last month would cost $1.2 trillion to create, deploy, and operate over the first 20 years of its existence.
Ten members of Congress, led by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.), sent a letter to US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday demanding information on the proposed project's cost to taxpayers and its projected effectiveness.
The letter begins by noting that officials working on the Golden Dome still have not shared key details about the project with the CBO, which the independent agency said has made it "impossible to estimate the long-term cost" of the system.
"It is one thing to withhold design details or performance specifications of certain systems," the letter says, "but it is quite another to withhold the entire system architecture that you expect Congress to approve and fund. Congress and the American public have a right to know what they are paying for."
The letter says that transparency about the system's architecture is particularly important given the questions that have been raised about how successful it would be at halting missile attacks. This is especially true, the letter emphasized, given the administration's insistence that the true cost of the system will be less than one-fifth of the CBO's projections.
"Simply put, there is no way that a Golden Dome system that costs $185 billion could possibly live up to the promise of 'forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,'" the letter states. "According to CBO’s calculations, even a system that would cost $3 trillion would not meet that ambitious goal, which would need to be able to engage hundreds of missiles. If the administration has not scaled back its goals for the system, the current official price tag is woefully unrealistic."
The letter concludes by asking several questions about the project, including the administration's estimated 20-year cost, the type of system architecture being planned, and the anticipated responses to the missile shield from rival nations including China and Russia.
"We urge you to halt this dangerous plan," the letter says, "and return to the more limited missile defense policies that have earned bipartisan support in the past."
In a separate social media post, Markey pointed out that the project is being used to funnel money to administration allies such as SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who last week became the world's first trillionaire and is promoting racist far-right political parties throughout the world.
"Trump’s dangerous $1.2 trillion 'Golden Dome' boondoggle will not protect Americans," Markey wrote. "It’s just a giveaway to defense contractor buddies like Elon Musk. We’re demanding answers from Hegseth on Trump’s trillion-dollar scam."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular