

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.

On the last scheduled day of COP26, against the backdrop of civil society protests and unmitigated outrage at lack of equity, urgency, and ambition by world "leaders" and wealthy nations, climate justice leaders slammed the proposals currently being discussed in the final hours of the negotiations.
On the last scheduled day of COP26, against the backdrop of civil society protests and unmitigated outrage at lack of equity, urgency, and ambition by world "leaders" and wealthy nations, climate justice leaders slammed the proposals currently being discussed in the final hours of the negotiations. As the clock ticks on COP26 and the window closes to keep warming below 1.5oc, the climate justice movement has provided an alternate decision to governments--there is still time to act.
As government negotiators exchanged diplomatic niceties and congratulated COP26 President Alok Sharma on his tremendous "leadership," civil society filled the halls, protesting the great injustice that COP26 is shaping up to be, and condemning the empty promises of supposed "world leaders," who while pledging to keep 1.5 alive fail to deliver on any meaningful pathway to do so.
While Mr. Sharma sought to cross the t's and dot the i's on a deal described as "the worst deal for climate change," (Ivonne Yanez, Accion Ecologica), climate justice activists from around the world poked holes in Sharma's so-called "success" and left nothing unsaid at a presser convened by Demand Climate Justice and Friends of the Earth International. The deal on the table is a death sentence for millions of those on the frontlines.
Despite all the cause for anger, activists who have been fighting for real action since COP1 reminded people that this is no time to give up. Until the gavel at COP26 drops, and way beyond, we must continue to fight. Hope lies in the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who took to the streets earlier this week to demand justice, and in those fighting on the global frontlines to stop extractivism.
Ivonne Yanez, Accion Ecologica:
"What has been approved [at COP26] is probably the most land grabbing ever during a COP or during any climate change negotiations. All of these net zero emissions, all of these nature-based solutions, all of the agreements about forests, the agreement about methane--everything that they are approving will be carbon offsets. There will not be enough land and enough oceans...that will provide enough carbon offsets for all of the plans that will be approved here."
Asad Rehman, War on Want:
"The wealthiest have said that their coffers are empty, treating climate finance as if it were some loose change to be found down the back of the sofa. Whilst in the last decade alone, they've created $25 trillion in quantitative easing to protect their own industries and economies. If only the poor were the banks that we would not be talking about the unmet sums of $100 billion.
Under this UK leadership, this has not been the 1.5 degree COP--it has become closer to the 3 degree COP. And the UK has continued to treat critical issues such as loss and damage as if it's an act of charity: burning someone's home and then offering to buy them a door knob.
In 2021, this new text may have plenty of warm words to acknowledge and "urge" when what we really needed was will, and what we needed when your house is on fire. And for those trapped in that fire, not for us to acknowledge that there is a fire or that we should ring the fire brigade, but to actually act."
Meena Raman, Third World Network and Friends of the Earth Malaysia
"[This draft decision] is massively killing the Paris agreement...No finance, no technology transfer, no adaptation, no loss and damage. If you think that this is what we should be applauding, please, you have to look at it again...There is absolutely complete dishonesty and hypocrisy...You can fool some people sometimes, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. And you cannot fool the climate justice people anymore. We have seen through this illusion and smoke."
Mary Church, Friends of the Earth Scotland
"Neither [Scotland nor the U.K.] are on track to meet their inadequate climate targets, and both have come up with plans that rely on fantasy techno-fixes to keep the fossil fuel industry going while hiding behind a smokescreen of 'net zero' and false solutions. The good news, however, is that all over the country, communities are resisting...The people understand what needs to happen, even if the politicians refuse to say no to their friends in the fossil fuel industry. And it's this kind of resistance, the kind of people power that we've seen here in the corridors of COP26, today that is growing here in Scotland, here in the U.K. on every continent."
Sara Shaw, Friends of the Earth International
"We are witnessing the 'great Glasgow get-out'. After making a series of flashy announcements full of caveats and loopholes, rich countries and the UK COP Presidency are rushing to close a deal that heaps responsibility for emissions cuts on developing countries, without providing the money they need to move away from fossil fuels. At COP25 in Madrid, big polluters like Shell, Total and BP launched offsetting schemes for so-called 'nature based solutions'. Now, at COP26 we see nature-based solutions in all but name bang in the middle of the draft agreement. But there simply aren't enough land and trees in the world to soak up the emissions that big polluters are planning."
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525The vote came after an emotional debate in which some Republican lawmakers detailed threats and harassment they'd received for opposing the president's redistricting scheme.
President Donald Trump's push to get Indiana Republicans to redraw their congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections went down in overwhelming defeat in the Indiana state Senate on Thursday.
As reported by Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman, the proposal to support a mid-decade gerrymander in Indiana was rejected by a vote of 19 in favor to 31 opposed, with 21 Republican state senators crossing the aisle to vote with all 10 Democrats to torpedo the measure, which would have changed the projected balance of Indiana's current congressional makeup from seven Republicans and two Democrats to a 9-0 map in favor of the GOP.
The Senate vote came after the state House's approval of the bill and an emotional debate in which some Indiana Republicans opposed to the president's plan detailed violent threats they'd received from his supporters.
According to a report published in the Atlantic on Thursday, Republican Indiana state Sen. Greg Walker (41) this week detailed having heavily armed police come to his home as the result of a false emergency call, a practice commonly known as swatting.
Walker said that he refused to be intimated by such tactics, and added that "I fear for all states if we allow threats and intimidation to become the norm."
Indiana's rejection of the effort is a major blow to Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina.
Christina Harvey, executive director for Stand Up America, said that the Indiana state Senate's rejection of the Trump plan was an "important victory for democracy."
"For weeks, Indiana residents have been pleading with their state leaders to stop mid-decade redistricting and the Senate listened," Harvey said. “Despite threats to themselves and their families, a majority of Indiana senators were steadfast in rejecting this gerrymandered map."
John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, praised the Republicans who rejected the president's scheme despite enduring threats and harassment.
"Threats of violence are never acceptable, and no lawmakers should face violent threats for simply standing up for their constituents," Bisognano said. "Republicans in other states who are facing a similar choice—whether to listen to their constituents or follow orders from Washington—should follow Indiana’s lead in rejecting this charade and finally put an end to the national gerrymandering crisis."
The lawmakers accused the Social Security Administration of "a slash-first, think-later approach," for which "beneficiaries will pay the price."
Leading Senate Democrats and Independent US Sen. Bernie Sanders this week pressed the Trump administration for answers following reports that the Social Security Administration is planning to dramatically reduce visits to its field offices.
"We write with concerns regarding recent reports that the Social Security Administration is reorganizing its field office operations, and has established a goal of cutting the number of field office visits in half—amounting to 15 million fewer visits annually," Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a letter to SSA Administrator Frank Bisignano.
"Given that beneficiaries are already waiting months for field office appointments, and the agency has not shared with Congress or the public on how it plans to achieve this goal, we are concerned that these efforts are in fact part of a plan to 'quietly kill field offices,' implementing a backdoor cut in benefits by making it harder for Americans to access the Social Security customer services they need," the senators said.
"The Trump administration has relentlessly attacked Social Security."
Earlier this month, Nextgov/FCW revealed that the Social Security Administration said in internal documents that it wants “no more than 15 million total” in-person visits to its field offices in fiscal year 2026—or about half the current number of such visits. An anonymous SSA staffer told the outlet that senior agency officials are aiming for “fewer people in the front door" and for "all work that doesn’t require direct customer interactions to be centralized.”
As Warren's office noted Thursday:
The Trump administration has relentlessly attacked Social Security. Under Commissioner Bisignano, the administration has implemented policy changes that make it harder for Americans to get their benefits, including by implementing burdensome in-person and bug-prone identification processes that force millions more beneficiaries to visit field offices each year—at the same time they are slashing SSA’s workforce by around 7,000 and closing regional offices.
Instead of staffing up to meet these needs, SSA’s field office capacity has significantly declined. Beneficiaries are being forced to wait hours to get help—only to be told they will need to call to schedule an appointment.
"We are concerned that your plan is to force beneficiaries onto SSA’s bug-prone website or push them into customer service phone tree 'doom-loops'—which will almost certainly result in delayed or missed benefits for some individuals," the letter adds. "Once again, you seem to have adopted a slash-first, think-later approach to 'modernizing' SSA, and beneficiaries will pay the price."
The senators are asking Bisignano if the reports of proposed SSA office visit reductions are accurate, and if so, how and when the plan will be implemented, how the agency will "provide services to beneficiaries that would otherwise go to field offices," and how the reductions will affect already lengthy wait times and service online users and callers to the agency's 1-800 number.
The lawmakers' letter comes as Republican senators on Thursday voted down a proposed three-year extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, a move that is expected to result, on average, in a doubling of health insurance premiums for around 22 million people. Critics said the vote underscores the need for single-payer healthcare legislation like the Medicare for All Act reintroduced by Sanders and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) earlier this year.
The trade deficit has grown and the US has lost manufacturing jobs during the first nine months of Trump's second term.
A new analysis from the Economic Policy Institute claims that the signature trade deal from President Donald Trump's first term has actually "created more problems than it fixed."
The report, published Thursday, notes that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), signed into law by Trump in 2020, has completely failed to fulfill Trump's stated goal of lowering the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, which has grown from a combined $125 billion in 2020 to $263 billion in 2025.
This increased trade deficit was particularly notable when it comes to the auto industry, says the report, written by EPI senior economist Adam S. Hersh.
"In the critical automotive industry that Trump said he wanted to reshore, imports of motor vehicles and parts from Mexico nearly doubled following USMCA, rising to $274 billion in 2024, up from $196 billion in 2019," the report explains. "Light-duty vehicles imports from Mexico rose 36% while imports of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles increased a whopping 256%."
The report also finds that the trade deal "left a gaping loophole for Chinese manufacturers to exploit duty-free access to North American markets without reciprocal market access for US manufacturers," the result of which was "Chinese firms expanded their direct investment footprint in Mexico by as much as 288% through 2023."
The bottom line, says the report, is "Trump’s USMCA created more problems than it fixed," and that "today the pressure on manufacturing jobs and deterioration in the trade balance with Mexico are worse than before USMCA."
However, the report also says that the US, Canada, and Mexico have an opportunity to significantly improve on USMCA given that the deal is up for review next year.
Among other things, the report recommends closing the loopholes that have allowed Chinese manufacturers to rapidly expand their footprint in Mexico; expanding the the Rapid Response Labor Mechanism that "has helped improve wages and working conditions in a number of specific workplaces"; and slashing intellectual property rights provisions that "currently allow companies to preempt local laws addressing negative externalities from digital service provision."
The EPI report came on the same day that American Economic Liberties Project's Rethink Trade program released an analysis showing that Trump so far has failed to live up to his pledge to reduce the US trade deficit and revive domestic manufacturing.
In all, Rethink Trade found that the US trade deficit increased more during the first nine months of 2025 than it did during the first nine months of 2024. Additionally, the group found that the US has actually lost 49,000 manufacturing jobs since the start of Trump's second term.
Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program, said that "the nine-month data show outcomes that are the opposite of President Trump’s promises to cut the trade deficit and create more American manufacturing jobs."
She noted that Trump's trade deals so far "seem to prioritize the demands of Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and other usual beneficiaries of decades of failed US trade policy instead of fixing the root causes of our huge trade deficit to help American manufacturing workers and firms as he promised."