

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.

Statement by Julie McNamara, Union of Concerned Scientists
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rulemaking related to strengthening the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), a foundational rule protecting people from mercury and other hazardous air pollutants released by coal- and oil-fired power plants. To date, MATS has delivered enormous gains for public health, dramatically reducing emissions of mercury and other air toxics. Still, hazardous air pollution from these power plants remains a public health concern and EPA is right to revisit these standards, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
Below is a statement by Julie McNamara, the deputy policy director of the Climate and Energy Program at UCS.
“We welcome EPA’s proposed rulemaking to update MATS and encourage the rigorous, comprehensive evaluation of the ongoing risks and harms of toxic pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants, and the readily available tools for addressing them.
“Despite years of industry protestations, MATS yielded rapid and dramatic reductions of mercury pollution and other air toxics from coal-fired power plants when it finally entered into full effect in 2016. These pollution reductions have saved lives that would have otherwise been cut short and improved lives that would have otherwise been permanently harmed—including harm to babies even before birth. But for all the good that MATS has brought, we must also reckon with the fact that all these towering benefits could and should have happened sooner, and lives were harmed in the time between.
“EPA cannot repeat that same delay today. While MATS has driven enormous benefits to date, the fact remains that coal- and oil-fired power plants still release pollution that hurts people and the environment, and it is incumbent on EPA to act.
“We have the resources to power our economy in a clean and cost-effective way while protecting people’s health and the environment; we should not accept anything less.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"Congress must do the right thing by voting to stop this obvious catastrophe."
President Donald Trump's invasion of Venezuela is generating fresh calls for his impeachment and removal from office.
Shortly after the US military bombed the Venezuelan capital of Caracas and abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, many experts on international law argued that the president's actions were completely illegal.
In an interview with the New Yorker's Isaac Chotiner, Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway said that she didn't believe there "is a legal basis for what we’re seeing in Venezuela," while adding that the arguments the Trump administration will likely make simply "don't hold water."
For instance, Hathaway noted that while the United Nations charter allows nations to use military force in self-defense against military aggression, the administration's claims that attacking Maduro was a defensive measure intended to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the US was completely outside the scope of traditional self-defense.
"If drug trafficking is a reasonable justification, then a whole range of possible arguments can be made that basically mean that self-defense is no longer a real exception," she argued. "It’s the new rule. Why couldn’t you make the same argument about communicable diseases? There’s bird flu coming from a country, and therefore we have a legal justification for the use of military force. Once we start going down that road, the idea that there’s any limit evaporates."
Hathaway also said that Trump's militaristic ambitions seem to have grown throughout his second term, and she warned they could lead to a long and bloody US military occupation of Venezuela.
"In his press conference, Trump said that the United States would 'run the country,'" she said. "And he made it clear that he was not 'afraid' to put boots on the ground—for years, if necessary... it’s nothing like anything Trump has done before today. His previous illegal uses of force were all over shortly after they began. The scale of the operation that will be required is massive, and it means putting US soldiers at long-term risk."
Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith wrote a lengthy analysis after the attack on Venezuela and also concluded that it violated the UN charter. What's more, Goldsmith argued that Trump's state plan to seize Venezuela's oil would likely run afoul of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which limits actions that occupying powers can take on the countries they are overseeing.
"There are a lot of international law rules and restrictions that purport to govern what the United States can do as an occupying power," he explained. "I don’t have space here to review them, but suffice it to say that these rules will touch on President Trump’s stated aim of 'tak[ing] back the oil' and 'get[ting] reimbursed.' We will see if the administration takes these rules seriously."
Many Trump critics also argued that, legality aside, toppling a foreign head of state and vowing to seize their nation's natural resources was morally wrong and deserving of impeachment.
"This is the behavior of a mob boss—but with nuclear weapons and the world's strongest military," argued Zeteo editor-in-chief Medhi Hassan. "None of this is legal. Trump should be impeached by Congress and indicted at The Hague."
Leah Greenberg, co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, denounced Trump's attack on Venezuela as "wildly illegal, immoral, and irresponsible," and urged the US Congress to exercise its powers to stop the president from further escalation.
"The power to declare war belongs to Congress and the American people," Greenberg said. "Trump has once again taken power that's not his. He is attempting to drag the country into war by decree, all while treating the presidency like a throne. Congress must act immediately to stop these illegal strikes and hold the Trump regime accountable. No Kings, No War."
Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser for Demand Progress, demanded congressional action to "stop this reckless, unconstitutional act of war."
"We have seen what happens when the White House invents a pretext to launch a regime change war with an oil-rich nation: disaster and suffering for innocent civilians, our troops and their families, all while costing the American taxpayer a fortune as well," said Kharrazian. "Congress must do the right thing by voting to stop this obvious catastrophe."
Kat Abughazaleh, a Democratic candidate for US Congress in Illinois, wrote on Bluesky that the time for Democratic politicians to issue mealy-mouthed statements about Trump's actions was over.
"Democrats need to grow a fucking spine," she wrote. "No more strongly worded letters. It’s time to draft articles of impeachment. Impeach. Convict. Remove."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) also demanded that members of his party take a strong stance against Trump's illegal Venezuela attack.
"The silence from many media-hyped 2028 contenders today is shocking," he wrote on X. "If you cannot oppose this regime change war for oil, you don't have the moral clarity or guts to lead our party or nation."
"I can’t begin to tell you how insane this is," said one critic. "He did not inform Congress but he’s saying he informed the oil companies."
President Donald Trump on Sunday told reporters that the heads of American oil companies were informed of the US military's attack on Venezuela—described as "brazenly illegal" by scholars and experts—even before it took place.
Trump's admission, a renowned liar, sparked condemnation because the administration refused to consult with US lawmakers about the operation, citing fears of a leak that would compromise operational security.
"Before and after," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday when asked if he'd spoken with oil executives or perhaps "tipped them off" about the operation. "They want to go in, and they're going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela."
Reporter: Did you speak with the oil companies before the operation? Did you tip them off?
Trump: Before and after. They want to go in and they’re going to do a great job. pic.twitter.com/zxOG648Ww0
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 5, 2026
Trump's remarks were condemned by those critical of the president's actions in recent days, including his failure to consult with or seek authorization from Congress.
"I can’t begin to tell you how insane this is," said Fred Wellman, an Army combat veteran now running for Congress as a Democrat in Missouri. "He did not inform Congress, but he’s saying he informed the oil companies."
"Keep in mind who he means," Wellman added. "The billionaire mega donor that just got control of Citgo. Our service members were used directly to move the interests of Trump’s donors."
"The oil companies were notified before Congress," said Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health. "This is what an authoritarian oligarchy looks like."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) echoed that statement. "The oil companies were informed about an act of war before it happened, Congress was not. That, my friends, is what an authoritarian regime run by oligarchs looks like."
Asked repeatedly during his exchange with reporters about whether "free and fair" elections were a priority for Venezuela, Trump said the country was a "mess"—calling it a "dead country"—and that priority would be on getting the oil flowing.
"We're gonna have the big oil companies go in, and they're gonna fix the infrastructure, and they're going to invest money. We're not going to invest anything; we're gonna just take care of the country," Trump said. "We're gonna cherish the country."
When asked which oil companies he spoke with, Trump said, "All of them, basically," though he did not mention which ones specifically by name.
"They want to go in so badly," the president claimed.
Despite Trump's remarks, oil industry experts have said it's not nearly so clear-cut that oil majors in the US will want to re-enter the Venezuela oil market—or be tasked with funding a significant rebuild of the nation's oil infrastructure—given the political uncertainty unleashed by Trump's unlawful military operation and the kidnapping of Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro.
"The issue is not just that the infrastructure is in bad shape, but it's mostly about how do you get foreign companies to start pouring money in before they have a clear perspective on the political stability, the contract situation, and the like," Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin American energy program at Rice University, told NPR.
The infrastructure investments alone are huge, even under normal political circumstances.
"The estimate is that in order for Venezuela to increase from one million barrels per day—that is what it produces today—to four million barrels, it will take about a decade and about a hundred billion dollars of investment," Monaldi said.
In an interview with The New Yorker over the weekend, Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School and the director of its Center for Global Legal Challenges, said there is absolutely no legal justification for Trump's assault on Venezuela or the kidnapping of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
"I don’t think there is a legal basis for what we’re seeing in Venezuela," Hathaway said. "There are certainly legal arguments that the Administration is going to make, but all the arguments that I’ve heard so far don’t hold water. None of them really justify what the President seems to have ordered to take place in Venezuela."
In a statement on Saturday, Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International, said Trump's assault on Venezuela "defies the US Constitution’s delegation of Congress’s war-making authority and disregards international rules that prevent acts of war without debate or authorization. The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony. The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future."
As Trump and other members of the administration continued to threaten other countries in the region—including Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba—Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan said, "This is the behavior of a mob boss—but with nuclear weapons and the world's strongest military. None of this is legal. Trump should be impeached by Congress and indicted at The Hague."
"This is militarized authoritarianism," said one advocacy group. "We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict."
Protests broke out at US diplomatic outposts across the globe Saturday and Sunday following the Trump administration's deadly attack on Venezuela and abduction of the nation's president, brazen violations of international law that—according to the American president—were just the start of a sustained intervention in Venezuela's politics and oil industry.
Demonstrators took to the streets of Brussels, Madrid, Ankara, Mexico City, Los Angeles, and other major cities worldwide to voice opposition to the US assault on Venezuela and Trump administration officials' pledge to "run" the country's government for an unspecified period of time, a plan that Venezuelan leaders have publicly met with defiance.
The US Mission to Mexico—one of several Latin American countries Trump threatened in the aftermath of the attack on Venezuela—warned in an alert issued Saturday that "a protest denouncing US actions against Venezuela continues to take place in front of the US Embassy in the Polanco neighborhood of Mexico City."
"Protestors have thrown rocks and painted vandalism on exterior walls," the alert read. "Social media posts about the protest have included anti-American sentiment. Embassy personnel have been advised to avoid the area."





The global demonstrations came as some world leaders, including top European officials, faced backlash for failing to adequately condemn—or condemn at all—the US attack on Venezuela and continued menacing of a sovereign nation.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said she supports "a peaceful and democratic transition," without mentioning or denouncing the illegal abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and US bombings that reportedly killed at least 40 people, including civilians.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis declared that "this is not the time to comment on the legality of the recent actions" as protesters gathered in Athens in opposition to the US assault.
"If you still believe that the European Union cares about international law, then look no further," wrote Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler, pointing to Mitsotakis' statement.
"We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
Mass protests and demands for international action to halt US aggression proliferated amid ongoing questions about how the Trump administration intends to carry out its stated plan to control Venezuela and exploit its oil reserves—objectives that experts say would run afoul of domestic and international law.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who played a central role in planning the Venezuela attack and has been chosen by Trump to manage the aftermath, said Sunday that the administration intends to keep in place a military "quarantine" around the South American nation—including the massive naval force amassed in the Caribbean in recent months—to pressure the country's leadership to bow to US demands.
"That's a tremendous amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes, not just to further the national interest of the United States, which is number one, but also that lead to a better future for the people of Venezuela," Rubio said in a television interview.
Rubio also suggested the president could deploy US troops to Venezuela and dodged questions about the legal authority the Trump administration has to intervene in the country. The administration has not sought congressional authorization for any of its attacks on vessels in the Caribbean or Venezuela directly.
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Sunday that "in recent history, we've tried 'running' multiple countries in Latin America and the Middle East. It's been a disaster for us, and for them, every single time."
"Congress must pass a War Powers Resolution to get our military back to defending the US, instead of 'running' Venezuela," Casar added.
Progressive Democrats of America echoed that demand, saying in a statement that "this is militarized authoritarianism."
"We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict," the group added. "We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."