

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.

Kate Fried, kate@internationalrivers.org | Monti Aguirre, monti@internationalrivers.org | Flávio Montiel, fmontiel@internationalrivers.org
International Rivers' analysis of challenges facing communities in Brazil offers innovative solutions for protecting nature and human rights.
In the wake of Brazil’s Congress passing the “Devastation Bill,” which would dismantle critical components of the country’s National Environmental Policy and rollback decades of environmental safeguards protecting communities from large-scale extractive projects, International Rivers today released a new study outlining the threats facing the Tapajós River Basin and innovative legal measures that communities can take to protect themselves. The report arrives just months ahead of COP30, which will be held in Brazil.
Tapajós River: Legal Analysis of the Brazilian Environmental Legislation (Rio Tapajós Análise Jurídico da Legislação Ambiental Brasileira) and its accompanying executive summary, Tapajós River: Prospects for Permanent Protection, shows how the combined effects of climate change, dams, unregulated mining, and other large-scale infrastructure harm Indigenous and frontline communities, and undermine the environment and biodiversity. It highlights measures that affected peoples can take to protect the Tapajós River Basin, including securing permanent legal protections.
Encompassing over 493,000 square kilometers across the Pará, Mato Grosso, and Amazonas states, the Tapajós is one of the Amazon’s most biodiverse river systems, home to over 300 fish species, including giant piraíba catfish and colorful tucunaré, and endangered river turtles like the tracajá and the giant Amazon turtle. Seasonal flood cycles shape a dynamic landscape of várzea, igarapés, igapó forests, and wetlands — vital nurseries for fish, nesting sites for turtles, and feeding grounds for migratory birds. This vast watershed regulates the hydrological cycle across a significant portion of the Amazon, supports food and water security for riverine and Indigenous populations, and contributes to climate regulation at regional and global scales. For local Indigenous communities, its waters are sacred—tied to origin stories, traditional knowledge, and survival.
Hydroelectric development threatens the Tapajós River system. As of January 2024, 180 hydroelectric projects have been planned on the Juruena River alone. Four major dams—the Teles Pires, Colíder, São Manoel, and Sinop—have fundamentally altered the river basin's hydrology and ecology. Brazil’s piecemeal regulatory system means that each new project is not considered in conjunction with existing ones, so their long-term cumulative effects are often underestimated.
Furthermore, 2,000 illegal mines operate with virtual impunity throughout the river system, representing an estimated 75% of all mining activity in the region. This has left a scar on Indigenous communities. Studies by the Fiocruz Foundation reveal that more than 60% of Munduruku Indigenous community members tested in certain areas exhibit elevated mercury levels, with more than half of the Munduruku people—including children—showing unsafe mercury concentrations in their bodies.
“Although Brazil’s current regulatory framework fails to account for the ecological and human rights violations imposed by large-scale infrastructure, our new research identifies innovative new pathways for frontline communities to reclaim their rivers and their rights,” said Flávio Montiel of International Rivers. “With the upcoming COP30 in Belem, all eyes will be on Brazil. Now is the time for Brazil to be a world leader in the management and protection of nature and human rights by legally recognizing the rights of rivers in the Tapajós Basin.”
Brazil currently has the legal tools to protect communities and their resources from the climate crisis. The country’s Constitutional Article 225 establishes environmental protection as both a governmental obligation and a fundamental human right. Working in tandem with this provision, Article 231 recognizes Indigenous Peoples' original rights to their lands, including their customs, languages, beliefs, and traditions, mandating that public authorities demarcate, protect, and respect all their assets. Further protections also include a review of the State System of Nature Conservation Units (SEUC). This legislation introduced an innovative conservation category called “Rivers of Special Protection” – specifically designed to protect waterways of exceptional value. The Law also provides provisions for the restoration of freshwater ecosystems, making the Rivers of Special Protection designation a promising model for river conservation that could be replicated across Brazil’s river systems.
Ultimately, protecting the Tapajós River system demands a multi-level strategy that leverages Brazil’s existing legal frameworks while addressing structural weaknesses in implementation and enforcement. Moving beyond traditional environmental regulation, the report offers a framework that aligns with Indigenous worldviews and suggests enforceable protections grounded in legal innovations.
It calls on policymakers in Brazil to:
-Adopt a Rights of Rivers legal framework to support communities that rely on the Tapajós River Basin for cultural, physical, and economic sustenance;
-Coordinate action among Federal and State Public Agencies to ensure jurisdictional alignment and robust legal enforcement across federal, state, and municipal levels;
-Implement real-time channels for communities to report violations;
-Establish Popular Committees in the Tapajos River Basin and build capacity for representatives of local social organizations, to ensure effective participation of civil society, for the future creation of the Tapajos River Basin Committee;
-Close legal and institutional loopholes by implementing a Strategic Environmental Assessment for the entire Tapajós basin that includes cumulative and synergic impacts, to ensure that the long-term consequences of development are considered.
The report calls on frontline and Indigenous communities to exercise their rights to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent by:
-Pursuing strategic litigation to challenge harmful projects and regulatory failures;
Serving as co-litigants in precedent-setting cases defending rivers’ rights and ecological limits.
“Ultimately, a nation's environmental conscience can be measured not by the depth of its laws, but by the quality of its waters—and both can run muddy despite the best of intentions written on paper,” said Monti Aguirre of International Rivers.
International Rivers is an environmental and human rights organization with staff on four continents. For three decades, we have been at the heart of the global struggle to protect rivers and the rights of communities that depend on them.
"The fusion of war-making and market manipulation by top Trump officials isn't entirely without precedent," said one observer, "but the speed and brazenness does seem new."
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fracking executive, was accused on Tuesday of manipulating global markets after he posted a striking claim on social media: The American Navy, he wrote, had "successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz to ensure oil remains flowing."
The post on X was deleted minutes later, after "oil prices slid at their steepest pace in years," according to the Wall Street Journal. The White House press secretary later acknowledged publicly that Wright's claim was false, and the Energy Department—which has been scrambling to quell mounting fears of a sustained increase in oil prices and broader supply chain chaos stemming from the US-Israeli assault on Iran—threw unnamed staff under the bus, saying they "incorrectly captioned" the post.
"So who just made $100 million dollars shorting oil for the 3 minutes that Chris Wright had that post up?" asked hedge fund manager Spencer Hakimian.
Anti-monopoly researcher Matt Stoller wrote in response to the post and its deletion that "the fusion of war-making and market manipulation by top Trump officials isn't entirely without precedent, but the speed and brazenness does seem new."
The debacle also notably drew a reaction from the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, who wrote on X that "US officials are posting fake news to manipulate markets."
"It won't protect them from inflationary tsunami they've imposed on Americans," wrote Araghchi. "Markets are facing the biggest shortfall in HISTORY: bigger than the Arab Oil Embargo, Iran's Islamic Revolution, and the Kuwait invasion COMBINED."
The Strait of Hormuz has become a critical flashpoint of the US-Israeli war on Iran, whose military has threatened to attack vessels that attempt to pass through the route in retaliation for the deadly missile onslaught. An estimated 13 million barrels per day passed through the strait in 2025—roughly 31% of all seaborne crude flows.
“At the beginning of the war we announced, and we announce again, no vessel associated with aggressors against Iran has the right to pass through the Strait of Hormuz,” said the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. “If you have doubts, come closer and find out.”
Reuters reported Tuesday that, contrary to Wright's deleted post, the US Navy has "refused near-daily requests from the shipping industry for military escorts through the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the war on Iran, saying the risk of attacks is too high for now."
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center said early Wednesday that a cargo vessel in the strait was "hit by an unknown projectile," causing a fire onboard and forcing crew members to evacuate.
The report came hours after the US military said it "eliminated multiple Iranian naval vessels," including "16 minelayers near the Strait of Hormuz." The announcement followed, by less than two hours, a social media post from President Donald Trump declaring that "we have no reports" of Iran laying mines in the strait.
"If for any reason mines were placed, and they are not removed forthwith, the Military consequences to Iran will be at a level never seen before," Trump wrote. "If, on the other hand, they remove what may have been placed, it will be a giant step in the right direction!"
After attending a classified briefing on Tuesday, US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote that it was obvious the administration "had no plan" regarding the Strait of Hormuz prior to launching its assault on Iran.
"They don't know how to get it safely back open," Murphy wrote. "Which is unforgivable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable."
"The state was set to execute Sonny for a crime he didn't commit, but tens of thousands of people nationwide demanded justice—and our voices were heard," said the ACLU.
Amid nationwide public outcry, Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey—a staunch supporter of capital punishment—on Tuesday spared a death row inmate who did not kill the man for whom he was sentenced to die and scheduled for execution on Thursday.
“I firmly believe that the death penalty is just punishment for society’s most heinous offenders, as shown by the 25 executions I have presided over as governor," Ivey said in a statement. "In order to ensure the continued viability of the death penalty, however, I also believe that a government’s most consequential action must be administered fairly and proportionately."
"Doug Battle was brutally murdered by Derrick DeBruce while shopping in an auto parts store. But DeBruce was ultimately sentenced to life without parole," the governor continued. "Charles Burton did not shoot the victim, did not direct the triggerman to shoot the victim, and had already left the store by the time the shooting occurred. Yet Mr. Burton was set to be executed while DeBruce was allowed to live out his life in prison."
"I cannot proceed in good conscience with the execution of Mr. Burton under such disparate circumstances," Ivey added. "I believe it would be unjust for one participant in this crime to be executed while the participant who pulled the trigger was not. To be clear, Mr. Burton will not be eligible for parole and will rightfully spend the remainder of his life behind bars for his role in the robbery that led to the murder of Doug Battle. He will now receive the same punishment as the triggerman."
Burton—who is 75 years old and goes by the name Sonny—has been on Alabama’s death row since 1992, a year after Battle's murder.
"I didn’t kill no one, true enough, but I made a mistake by being part of the crime,” Burton told CNN in an interview last week, anticipating his execution. “I made a mistake, and it seems like all my friends have forgave me. I hope that my friends will remember me and remember that I was a real friend, a good friend.”
While Republican Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall condemned Ivey for sparing a "murderer," both death penalty supporters and opponents welcomed the commutation.
BREAKING: Alabama Governor Kay Ivey commuted the death sentence of Sonny Burton.The state was set to execute Sonny for a crime he didn't commit, but tens of thousands of people nationwide demanded justice — and our voices were heard.
— ACLU (@aclu.org) March 10, 2026 at 9:18 AM
“It’s absolutely not fair. You don’t execute someone who did not pull the trigger,” Priscilla Townsend, one of three jurors in Burton's trial who asked Ivey for clemency, told the Associated Press, adding that she supports executing "the worst of the worst."
Tori Battle, Doug Battle's daughter, had also pleaded for clemency for Burton.
"No one from the state has ever sat with me to explain why Alabama believes it must execute a man who did not kill my father," Battle wrote in an article published last December in the Montgomery Advertiser. "My love for my father does not require another death, especially one that defies reason."
Laura Burton, executive director of the US Campaign to End the Death Penalty, said in a statement Tuesday: "We are grateful that Gov. Ivey recognized that Charles 'Sonny' Burton should not be executed. The death penalty process is deeply flawed when someone who was not present for the killing faces execution, while the person who committed the murder does not. It is uplifting to see that more and more governors across the ideological spectrum are recognizing problems with death penalty cases."
Last November, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Still—also a staunch death penalty advocate—granted clemency to Tremane Wood with just minutes to spare before his scheduled execution for a murder his late brother confessed to committing.
Last year, Ivey also commuted the death sentence of Robin “Rocky” Myers to life in prison without parole, citing serious doubts about his guilt.
There are still 155 people on Alabama's death row, according to the state Department of Corrections. The state has executed five people since the beginning of 2025—one by lethal injection and four by nitrogen gas, a method rejected by veterinarians for euthanizing animals and condemned by United Nations human rights experts as possible torture.
Demetrius Minor, executive director of the death penalty abolition group Conservatives Concerned, said Tuesday that “we want to thank Gov. Ivey for granting clemency for Charles 'Sonny' Burton."
"This brings tremendous relief to his family and so many across the country," Minor added. "Conservatives know that government power can be abused and should not be used to execute someone who was not in the building when the murder was committed. Gov. Ivey acted on these conservative principles."
"The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform, and the potential for further escalation."
Democratic US senators left a classified Tuesday briefing with senior defense and intelligence officials with serious concerns that President Donald Trump will order a ground invasion of Iran in what would be a perilous escalation of his illegal and unprovoked war of choice.
White House officials—including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—and Pentagon brass have held a series of closed-door meetings with congressional lawmakers since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran late last month.
While Democratic lawmakers have said that the classified status of these briefings prevents them from disclosing key information about the administration's war plans, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) emerged from Tuesday's meeting with a warning to reporters that “we seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives" outlined during the briefing.
Blumenthal after getting briefed on Iran: "We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here. There's also the specter of active Russian aid to Iran putting in danger American lives ... China also may be assisting Iran"
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) March 10, 2026 at 9:42 AM
“I am left with more questions than answers, especially about the cost of the war,” Blumenthal said. “My questions have been unanswered, and I will demand answers because the American people deserve to know."
"The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform, and the potential for further escalation," he added.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said after attending the briefing, "Here we are well into the second week, and it is still the case that the Trump administration cannot explain the reasons that we entered this war, the goals we're trying to accomplish, and the methods for doing that."
Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said that what she heard during the briefing "is not just concerning, it is disturbing."
"I'm not sure what the endgame is or what their plans are," Rosen said of the administration, adding that Trump has "not shown us any plans for what he wants to do for the day after, let's put it that way. That's as much as I can say."
Democratic lawmakers voiced similar concerns over a possible ground war following a March 3 classified briefing.
Trump and senior administration officials have not ruled out a ground invasion of Iran.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground,” Trump told the New York Post last week. “Like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a Sunday interview on Fox News that Trump has not ruled out either a ground invasion or a draft, although many experts say the latter option is highly unlikely.
Here's the Karoline Leavitt interview people are talking about. Maria Bartiromo asks if Trump might send ground troops into Iran, because "mothers are worried" about a draft. Leavitt replies that ground troops aren't in the current plan, but Trump won't rule them out. No mention of the draft.
[image or embed]
— Joshua J. Friedman (@joshuajfriedman.com) March 8, 2026 at 4:09 PM
Trump has also given mixed signals about the planned duration of the war, declaring Monday that the campaign is "very complete, pretty much" before stating that US forces “will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated.”
The president and his senior Cabinet officials have also waffled when attempting to explain the war's objectives, alternately suggesting that the goal of the campaign is and is not regime change, and shifting the narrative from eliminating Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program to destroying its ballistic missile arsenal.
Tuesday's briefing came on a day that Hegseth said would be the "most intense day of strikes inside Iran" during the 10-day war.
This, after a wave of US and Israeli airstrikes across Iran left at least scores dead on Monday, including 40 people massacred while sheltering in apartment blocks in eastern Tehran.
Hundreds of civilians have been killed by US and Israeli bombing in Iran and Israeli strikes on Lebanon, where more than 700,000 people have been forcibly displaced amid relentless airstrikes.
In what's being called "one of the deadliest school massacres in modern history," around 175 people, mostly schoolchildren, were killed on February 28 by what US intelligence said is a likely Tomahawk missile strike in Minab. Fragments from the missile marked with Pentagon contract information, the names of US weapons companies, and a "Made in USA" stamp provided the latest evidence that the attack was carried out by the US—although Trump has blamed the strike on Iran.
The Pentagon said that seven US troops have been killed and 140 others wounded by Iranian counterstrikes, which have also targeted Gulf monarchies allied with the United States, killing at least 15 people.
Noting that Trump—"who campaigned as the 'peace president'—led the United States into war with Iran with no clear objectives and no authorization from Congress," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI), and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) sent a letter to Trump on Tuesday demanding that administration leaders "appear before Congress and under oath in public hearings to provide answers" about the war.
The senators wrote that Trump's "ever-shifting goals and explanations suggest there is no clear plan."
"Further, this raises the risk of mission creep which, based on history, would likely lead to more US casualties and escalating costs for taxpayers," the lawmakers added. "The American people—including our men and women in uniform—deserve clear answers about the war and accountability from your administration."
The Senate and House of Representatives—both controlled by Republicans—have voted down proposed resolutions meant to prevent Trump from waging war without congressional authorization, as required by the War Powers Act.
A Quinnipiac University poll published Monday revealed that 74% of respondents—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 52% of Republicans—oppose a US ground invasion of Iran. A slim majority of respondents are against the overall war in Iran, which 55% of those surveyed said did not pose any "imminent threat" to the United States prior to the US-Israeli attack.
The survey also found that 62% of respondents "think the Trump administration has not provided a clear explanation of the reasons behind the United States' military action against Iran."