

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.

Katherine Quaid, Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) katherine@wecaninternational.org
Edward Smith, Sierra Club, edward.smith@sierraclub.org
Last week, the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance and environmental groups delivered a petition with 9,000+ signatures calling on the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a robust environmental review of the Line 5 crude oil pipeline reroute. The petition builds on growing momentum to shut down Line 5 permanently. Two weeks ago, leaders of 30 Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region sent a letter to President Joe Biden urging the United States to take action against the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline’s trespass on the Bad River Band’s sovereign territories.
The petition delivery comes ahead of the Washington D.C. premiere of the BAD RIVER documentary film, which will be attended by Bad River Tribal leaders, community advocates, environmental groups, and Congressional and government leaders and officials. The film will be released in 15 AMC and local theaters throughout the country on March 15th, many of which will run through the weekend, with 50% of ticket sales going to the Bad River Band.
Enbridge’s Line 5, a 645 mile and 70-year-old oil pipeline, has continued to operate illegally through the Bad River Band’s land in northern Wisconsin and the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan. The existing infrastructure poses a serious threat to the Great Lakes region which holds one-fifth of the world's surface freshwater. Enbridge's proposed reroute will still impact the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa’s sovereign land and watersheds. Despite the Bad River Band’s request that Enbridge immediately shutdown the existing illegal pipeline, the company is moving forward seeking permits for the reroute.
During the petition delivery, the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance brought attention to the cultural and environmental impacts of the Line 5 pipeline, the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Line 5 reroute, and the urgent calls to shutdown and decommission the pipeline permanently. Ahead of the delivery, members of the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance and allies met with the Army Corps and Congressional leaders. See a livestream of the delivery and rally here.
While the unprecedented Great Lakes Tunnel Project in the Straits of Mackinac aims to replace only a small segment of the overall degrading pipeline, four tribes, environmental groups, and numerous Great Lakes advocates continue to object to the high-risk project that would encase the pipeline in concrete beneath the Lake. This unusual pipeline mechanism introduces an entirely new and extremely dangerous set of explosion risks to the Lakes and surrounding communities.
The petition delivery and rally was led by the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance (IWTA) with support from the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) and Sierra Club. Please see quotes below from leaders of the IWTA, which is facilitated by the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network:
Rene Ann Goodrich, Bad River Ojibwe, Native Lives Matter Coalition and Wisconsin Department of Justice MMIW Task Force Member: “Line 5 crosses over tribal treaty territory and one of those ceded territories is my own reservation of Bad River. The dangers that Line 5 brings to the water and environment is a huge and immediate concern. As a Bad River tribal member our way of life, historical homelands, cultural resources, subsistence, wild rice, medicines, fisheries, and water are in direct jeopardy of an imminent catastrophic oil spill. We call for the Line 5 shutdown and decommissioning, not simply re-routed, whereas it would still put the entire Great Lakes ecosystem at great risk and cause irreparable destruction. As sacred water carriers, we stand with the water and are calling for the Army Corps to conduct a proper EIS on Line 5 which will demonstrate that this pipeline is not ecologically feasible and should be immediately decommissioned, and for the Army Corps to reject permits for a re-route of Line 5.”
Aurora Conley, Bad River Ojibwe, Anishinaabe Environmental Protection Alliance: “As a Bad River Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe member, I join the calls from tribal leaders to immediately shutdown the existing Line 5 pipeline and conduct a proper EIS on the new Line 5 proposal. Our territories and water are in imminent danger, and we do not want to see irreversible damage to our land, water, and wild rice. We do not want our lifeways destroyed. The Ojibwe people are here in Bad River because of the manoomin, the wild rice. A rupture from this oil spill will irreversibly harm the Great Lakes and wild rice beds. That is unacceptable. That is something we will not stand for. I will continue this call to action until Line 5 is decommissioned and removed from our lands. We object to any reroute. Line 5 should not exist here.”
Gaagigeyaashiik - Dawn Goodwin, Gaawaabaabiganigaag, White Earth-Ojibwe, Co-founder of R.I.S.E. Coalition, Representative of Indigenous Environmental Network: “As a member of the Wolf Clan I have an inherent responsibility to protect the environment and the people. I have seen first hand what happens when the government fails to protect the water as they so unfortunately did with Line 3. Now Enbridge is looking to push through a new re-route for the Line 5 pipeline, and it must be stopped. The Army Corps has an opportunity here and now to protect the Great Lakes before irreparable damage occurs. It is time to honor and respect the treaties as the supreme law of the land, and to listen to Tribes and Indigenous leaders calling for a comprehensive EIS and for the Army Corps to reject permits for a re-route of Line 5.”
Nookomis Debra Topping, Nagajiiwanong, 1854 Treaty Fond du Lac, Co-founder of R.I.S.E. Coalition: “Nibi (water) is sacred. Manoomin is sacred. The wild rice is the reason why my people, the Anishinaabe, are located in the regions we currently reside in. I am inherently a caretaker of these lands and resources. I have said No to line 3 and now to line 5, and will forever say No to the rape of our Mother Earth. No means No. “No” is a full sentence. This work is exhausting and, yet, we don't give up on this. I have my community and grandchildren to answer to. Who do you answer to? Does your family mean enough to you to protect our mother earth and her resources? Or is dirty money, power and oil your priority?”
Alexus Koski, Bad River Ojibwe Youth Leader, Water Protector, Stop Line 5 Advocate:
“As a Bad River Youth Leader, I fear the continued and imminent threats to our sacred water. As a young person, unable to yet vote, it is sometimes difficult to remain hopeful about our future but it is far too important and far too dangerous to remain silent, to allow this pipeline to continue operating another day— my future is at stake, my culture is at stake, our climate is at stake. Please join us to stand in solidarity with Bad River and all other tribes calling for the immediate removal of this pipeline from our lands, to finally shut down line 5 once for all. We do not want a reroute. We want to protect the water. We owe that much to young people and to future generations. Shut down Line 5! Water is Life!”
Since 2022, the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) has been honored to facilitate the Indigenous Women’s Treaty Alliance. In response to the petition delivery and rally, Osprey Orielle Lake, Executive Director of the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) stated: “Not only are we in an escalating climate crisis, we are also facing a water crisis. We cannot risk poisoning the Great Lakes, which hold one-fifth of the world’s surface freshwater. To be climate leaders, it is necessary to listen to Indigenous leadership, protect biodiversity, and end the expansion of fossil fuels. Shutting down Line 5 means being a climate leader. The Army Corps must conduct the most thorough environmental review possible of the proposed reroute, and through this effort, we are calling for Line 5 permits to be rejected and the entire pipeline permanently shut down."
Elizabeth Ward, Sierra Club - Wisconsin Chapter Director: “We’re here today in support of Indigenous sovereignty and to elevate the demands of the Bad River Band and dozens of tribal nations with President Biden – end the trespass of the existing Line 5 pipeline on sovereign land and deny the permits for the proposed reroute upon completion of a full environmental impact statement”
The Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International is a solutions-based organization established to engage women worldwide in policy advocacy, on-the-ground projects, direct action, trainings, and movement building for global climate justice.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."