America is barreling towards authoritarianism at such a breakneck pace that it should alarm every single one of us. But instead of meeting this moment with courage and integrity, the corporate media has utterly capitulated, stuffing money in Trump's pockets, spiking stories that might offend the regime, and firing journalists who refuse to go along and get along. That is not journalism. That’s complicity.
Our model of reader-funded journalism has survived for one reason only: people like you. Please help us with a gift of $8, $13, $27, $75, or whatever amount you can afford, which will help keep Common Dreams strong now and into the future.
Why Your Support Matters Now
Our model of reader-funded journalism has survived for one reason only: people like you. Please help us with a gift of $8, $13, $27, $75, or whatever amount you can afford, which will help keep Common Dreams strong now and into the future.
Earthjustice and Coalition of Conservation Groups Oppose 'Save Our Sequoias Act'
The bill would weaken existing environmental laws and could potentially expedite harmful logging operations in sequoia groves.
WASHINGTON
This week, Earthjustice and a coalition of more than 80 conservation organizations sent a letter to Members of Congress in opposition to the Save Our Sequoias Act by Reps. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Scott Peters (D-CA). The bill would weaken existing environmental laws and could potentially expedite harmful logging operations in sequoia groves.
"Protecting the sequoias is urgent and we share that goal, however this bill will not protect these iconic trees," said Earthjustice Senior Legislative Representative Blaine Miller-McFeeley. "Despite its local focus, the bill would set a precedent for further weakening of environmental laws that could have far-reaching repercussions nationwide. It's nothing more than a trojan horse to diminish important environmental reviews and cut science and communities out of the decision-making process."
One provision of the bill would allow for a waiver of environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Historic Preservation Act (NHSA) under the guise of an 'emergency.'
"The bill would remove the NEPA process for decisionmaking on management activities and would instead place those decisions into the hands of a 'Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition,' which does not have to abide by standard transparency requirements afforded by the Federal Advisory Committee Act," the groups wrote. "The legislation would prevent the voices of community members, scientists, and others from being heard. This legislation would lead to rushed and poorly planned logging projects with major impacts on soil, streams, and wildlife that could result in increased wildfire risk and harm recreational opportunities and other uses. Smart planning and public engagement as required by NEPA are integral to success, not a barrier to success. This is especially important when addressing an iconic forest species such as the Giant Sequoias."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
Palestinian authorities and witnesses to an Israeli settler attack in the West Bank that killed a 19-year-old Palestinian-American this week said the young man, Nasrallah Abu Siyam, had been trying to stop settlers from attacking a farmer in the village of Mukhmas when he was fatally shot.
Abu Siyam was an American citizen, his mother told the Associated Press, and was in his village Wednesday afternoon when a group of settlers arrived there and attempted to steal sheep from a local farmer.
After residents intervened, the Israel Defense Forces arrived and shot tear gas, sound grenades, and live ammunition, according to Mukhmas resident Raed Abu Ali. The IDF told the AP that it had only used "riot dispersal methods" to stop Palestinians in the town from throwing rocks.
But Abu Ali reported that the settlers who had initiated the assault "were encouraged" when the IDF got involved, and they "started shooting live bullets" as well as hitting injured people with sticks.
Several other Palestinians sustained gunshot wounds. The Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed Abu Siyam's killing.
The governorate of Jerusalem called the killing a “fully-fledged crime... carried out under the protection and supervision of the Israeli occupation forces.”
Abu Siyam was the second Palestinian-American to be killed by Israeli settlers in less than a year and at least the 11th to be killed since 2022.
Israeli settlers and military forces killed 240 Palestinians in the West Bank last year as violence there surged and as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government pushed to further illegally annex the occupied territory, with Israelis building 130 new settlements in the West Bank in 2024 and 2025.
As Common Dreams reported Thursday, progressive lawmakers in the US have called on President Donald Trump to take action to stop Israel from its illegal annexation, but the president has reportedly approved of plans like one that proposes the creation of the E1 settlement, which "buries the idea of a Palestinian state," according to Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
Abu Siyam was killed days after Israel approved a plan to designate large parts of the West Bank as "state property" of Israel, forcing Palestinians to prove that they own their land.
Breaking the Silence, a group formed by former Israeli soldiers to oppose Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, emphasized that while the IDF did not carry out the attack that killed Abu Siyam, the military has played an active role in settlers' assaults on Palestinian communities in the West Bank, including in Mukhmas.
"Since October, the village has faced escalating settler terror: olive trees uprooted, Palestinians and activists attacked and hospitalized, homes torched," said the group. "When residents tried to rebuild their burned homes after the pogrom that took place three weeks ago, the army blocked them, declaring the area a 'closed military zone.' Somehow, measures are taken only after the pogrom. Never to prevent it. This is not a mistake, it's strategy."
"The IDF is not 'failing its mission,'" Breaking the Silence added. "It is implementing a policy: Settlers initiate the violence, the army enforces the outcome, until communities are pushed out. If we don’t stop it, Muḥkmas’ story will be no different."
A US official toldReuters that “the US Department of State has no higher priority than the safety and security of US citizens overseas," and a spokesperson for the US embassy in Israel told the AP that US officials "condemn this violence."
The anti-war group CodePink, however, emphasized that deadly settler attacks, including those that have killed US citizens, are "funded by the United States," the largest international financial backer of the IDF.
According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Israeli forces and settlers have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank since 2023 and have forcibly displaced more than 10,000.
"I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on a win-win solution," said Abbas Araghchi. "A military option would only complicate this, would only bring about disastrous consequences."
As President Donald Trump continued to threaten a potentially massive war, Iran's foreign minister stressed his commitment to peaceful negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
Amid the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq, Trump said on Thursday that he was weighing an initial, limited strike in order to force Iran to negotiate a new deal to limit its nuclear enrichment and would launch a broader attack—potentially aimed at toppling the entire government—if the country refused to do so.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded to these demands in a lengthy interview on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" on Friday, discussing recent talks with the US in Geneva.
"One thing I have to emphasize is that there is no military solution for Iran's nuclear program," Araghchi said. "That was tested last year, and there was a huge attack on our facilities. They killed and assassinated our scientists, but they couldn't kill our nuclear program."
After his strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in June, Trump claimed to have “obliterated” Iran's nuclear program and enrichment capabilities. But less than a year later, he is once again threatening a much bigger attack on Iran using the same justification.
Iran's Masoud Pezeshkian insisted earlier this week that his country is “absolutely not seeking nuclear weapons” and invited international inspectors in to verify it. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, meanwhile, has reiterated that Iran has the right to a nuclear industry.
"If they want a solution for Iran's nuclear program, if they want to ensure that Iran's nuclear program would remain peaceful forever," Araghchi said on Friday, "the only solution is diplomatic negotiation."
Although Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear power for peaceful means under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Trump publicly declared that he would not accept a deal that allows "any enrichment” by Iran.
Araghchi, however, said that's not what the discussion has looked like behind the scenes. "The US side has not asked for zero enrichment,” he said.
Instead, he said they discussed "political commitments and technical measures" to "make sure that this program is only for peaceful purposes" and said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, was involved in helping to craft them.
"This is what we have already done in 2015," Araghchi said, referring to the first nuclear deal between Iran and the US, which Trump ripped up during his first term, even though Iran was complying with its strict enrichment limits. "I believe that we can do it again, even a better one," he said.
Although the US president warned on Thursday that Iran must agree to a deal within 10 days or "bad things happen," Araghchi said there has been "no ultimatum" from Trump and that the only discussion between the two sides was on how to reach a "fast deal."
"We are under sanctions. Obviously, any day the sanctions are terminated sooner would be better for us. So we have no reason to delay a possible deal," Araghchi said. "For the US side also, President Trump and his team are interested in a quick deal. So we agreed to work with each other to achieve a deal as soon as possible. The only question is how to make it a fair deal, a win-win deal, an equitable deal."
Trump has also demanded that Iran surrender its ballistic missile program and support for regional allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, which Iran has said are nonstarters. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has nudged Trump keep pushing these maximal demands and has been accused of attempting to goad the US into war with its number one adversary by injecting "poison pills" into the negotiations.
Araghchi did not clarify the extent to which these demands have come up as sticking points during recent talks.
"I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on a win-win solution," Araghchi said. "[A] military option would only complicate this, would only bring about disastrous consequences, not only for us, perhaps for the whole region and for the whole international community, which is fed up with different escalations and wars in our region and beyond."
Soon after Araghchi's interview aired, Trump told reporters he was considering a military strike to force Iran into a deal.
“I guess I can say I am considering that,” he said at the start of a meeting with governors at the White House.
The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he invoked an emergency law to impose sweeping global tariffs, sparking a disastrous trade war and burdening American consumers and businesses with higher costs.
The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that "nothing" in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs."
"And needless to say," Roberts wrote, "without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand." Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented in the case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.
The ruling deals a massive blow to Trump's tariff regime, which he placed at the center of his economic policy agenda despite warnings that the sweeping import taxes would drive up costs for US consumers and businesses—which is precisely what happened.
An analysis released by congressional Democrats just after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling estimated that the average US family has paid more than $1,700 in tariff costs since the start of Trump's second White House term. While businesses may be eligible for tariff refunds in the wake of the high court's decision, it's far from clear that consumers who paid higher costs for groceries and other goods affected by the levies will have any such recourse.
The Supreme Court's decision does not directly address the issue of refunds for tariff costs, which tripled for midsize US companies last year.
"Any consumer looking for relief from tariff-driven price hikes did not find it at the Supreme Court today," said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative. "The economic damage Trump has already done to business investment, manufacturing, and working families’ budgets will linger for years to come."
"Refunds for impacted businesses will take months or even years to process, and there is little reason to believe companies will pass those savings on to consumers," Jacquez added. "Trump must set aside his erratic tariff policy and instead pursue a trade agenda that protects workers, supports manufacturers, and doesn’t punish consumers.”
"Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
Most of the tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term will be impacted by the Supreme Court's decision. NBC Newsnoted that the decision "upends his tariffs in two categories. One is country-by-country or 'reciprocal' tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world."
"The other is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China, and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl," the outlet added.
On top of driving up costs for American consumers and businesses, Trump's tariffs failed to make a dent in the US trade deficit and did not stop the loss of manufacturing jobs, which declined by an estimated 108,000 during the president's first year back in the White House.
Fearing a negative Supreme Court ruling, Trump administration officials have reportedly been exploring alternatives to the IEEPA, prompting concerns that the president could swiftly pursue similar tariffs under a different authority.
"This decision is unlikely to alter US tariff rates or policies much because there are other statutes that could provide broad authority for Trump to impose tariffs," said Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project.
"In the immediate term, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 explicitly authorizes a president to impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to 'large and serious' balance of payments issues, which relates to the huge chronic US trade deficit," Wallach observed. "Section 122 does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits."
US Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision but warned that "Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
