News Feeds

As China erects the largest hydropower installation on Earth atop an active fault line in the Himalayas, Chinese scientists are calling on engineers to guard against risks from earthquakes.

Read more on E360 →

The United States government is responsible for environmental regulations. It has promised to take action on climate change. But lately, it has been going back on those commitments. 

Some state governments are stepping up to fill in the gaps.

Requiring Manufacturers to Take Responsibility for the Waste the Create

Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, is one of many interlocking policies that are crucial for developing a robust circular economy, where waste is reduced and reused. Without EPR policies, taxpayers and governments are left to clean up waste. That waste is often hard to recycle or reuse. 

But EPR policies make sure that companies that make things have to think about what happens to their products after they are used.

Communities on the frontlines of mining and mineral production benefit from good EPR policies and other policies that support a strong circular economy. Mining harms people and permanently damages the environment, including by contributing to greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet. 

The easiest and best way to make mining less harmful is to do less of it. Recycling and reusing minerals that are already above the ground is part of that equation.

New Jersey Forges the Way for Electric Vehicle Recycling

In 2025, New Jersey became the first state in the country to pass an EPR law for electric vehicle batteries. 

The batteries in electric vehicles slowly become less effective. After ten to fifteen years, they usually stop holding enough power to make a car work. 

The New Jersey bill requires manufacturers to create management plans for electric vehicle batteries after they wear out. These batteries still have two-thirds of their original capacity. They can be used for other things, including stationary storage.

European Union Battery Recycling Policy Sets the Example

The governing body of the European Union has taken similar action. States can learn from the EU’s experience. 

A few years ago, the European Commission passed sprawling battery regulations. The rules touched on many parts of the battery supply chain. 

This includes EPR policies and recovery requirements for when batteries are recycled. 

Recycling is the next step after reuse in a strong circular economy. Ideally, it should only happen once the batteries have been reused and only under the strictest environmental and labor laws. 

New Colorado Law Sets the Standard for Electric Vehicle Battery Recycling

In June 2026, Colorado Governor Polis signed Senate Bill 26-003, End-of-Life Management of Electric Vehicle Batteries. Earthworks partners Western Resource Advocates and the Union of Concerned Scientists supported the law. 

Dr. Jessica Dunn at the Union of Concerned Scientists said the bill “will set the standard for the rest of the country.” 

It goes beyond what’s in New Jersey’s bill. SB26-003 requires recycling to recover a certain percentage of minerals. It requires battery-makers to report on how they’re recovering the minerals. It makes it easier to reuse batteries, too, by allowing auto mechanics, scrap yards, and other businesses to reuse or recycle batteries or have the automaker collect them free of charge.

Colorado’s bill is a victory for circular economy advocates. It’s also a victory for communities affected by mining or processing minerals for batteries.

States Can Lead the Way to Less Need for New Battery Minerals

National laws and regulations would be the best solution. Until those exist, other states should look to Colorado’s example. 

States where electric vehicles are popular or becoming popular can have the most impact. But every state that takes action can move us forward.

The post States Step Up to Require Recycling and Reusing Electric Vehicle Batteries appeared first on Earthworks.

Suresanathan Murugesu is the country director of Action Against Hunger in the Philippines

The Philippines is caught in an extreme weather trap. Here, forecasts for a strong El Niño in the months ahead do not just indicate a period of drought – they also point to torrential rain and flooding.

It could hardly come at a worse time, threatening communities that are still struggling to recover from previous typhoons, such as last year’s Typhoon Tino, as well as two strong earthquakes – in Cebu in September 2025 and last month’s 7.8-magnitude quake in Mindanao.

Forecasts point to the arrival of one of the most intense El Niños in recent history this year and into 2027, with the United Nations warning that it could be the strongest in decades around the world.

The peak of the El Niño is expected towards the end of the year, but the weather phenomenon is already estimated to have caused agricultural losses of nearly €30 million (£25.9 million), potentially affecting the livelihoods of 4 million farmers.

• May 12, 2026 News Scientists warn El Niño could intensify climate extremes in 2026 Climatologists say a particularly powerful weather pattern could amplify wildfire risk, heatwaves and flooding worldwide as global temperatures continue to rise Read more
• Jun 11, 2026 Science WHO issues new guidance on heat-health action plans, as El Niño sets in Amid warnings of “unprecedented” weather extremes this year, the World Health Organization urges governments to strengthen protections for vulnerable groups Read more
• Oct 23, 2025 Justice Philippines storm victims to seek damages from Shell in “unprecedented” climate claim The case is the first civil claim to directly link an oil firm’s climate impact to deaths and personal injury in the Global South, its backers say Read more

On the climate frontline

For many, El Niño is a figure in a report or a distant headline, but for those of us who live and work on the ground, it is a reality that is already hitting the most vulnerable families.

When I travel through the communities of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region – in the south – or speak with families on the island of Siargao or in the Zamboanga region, I do not see data or graphs.

I see a father looking at his cracked rice field, wondering how he will pay off the debts from a harvest that is already lost before it has even begun. I see a mother walking under a relentless sun because her village’s well has dried up, carrying the water that sustains the health of her children and her entire community.

And what we are seeing today – 26 provinces experiencing drought and millions of dollars in agricultural losses – is only the beginning.

Loss and damage fund delays first project approvals as needs dwarf resources

Many Filipino families are still trying to rebuild and recover after last year’s typhoons and the two earthquakes. In Mindanao, where the recent magnitude 7.8 earthquake displaced more than 90,000 people and destroyed over 19,000 houses, uncertainty remains about when the people will be able to fully recover and return home. 

Today, they are trying to protect the meagre possessions they have and, if they are lucky enough to have their home unscathed by typhoons and earthquakes, their homes from flooding; tomorrow, they will have to survive the hardship and impact of drought.

The effects of El Niño threaten to exacerbate their troubles.

Struggle for basic needs

Many low-income Filipino families already face significant challenges to meet their basic needs.

In our daily visits, we see how life is becoming increasingly difficult for millions of people. Rising fuel and transport costs are driving up the price of basic foodstuffs, making them unaffordable for many families. At the same time, crop failures and income losses are leaving households without livelihoods, while disasters contribute to further suffering.

A farmer collects rice along the side of the road during a hot day in Candaba, Pampanga, Philippines, April 30, 2024. REUTERS/Eloisa Lopez A farmer collects rice along the side of the road during a hot day in Candaba, Pampanga, Philippines, April 30, 2024. REUTERS/Eloisa Lopez

But we are not just talking about hunger. We are talking about health, safety and dignity. Water shortages are forcing many people to resort to unsafe sources, increasing the risk of disease. And, as is the case in so many crises, it is the most vulnerable who bear the heaviest burden: walking long distances every day to fetch water or food, enduring enormous physical strain and facing risks of violence and insecurity.

Building resilience

Faced with this reality, our response is based on a simple idea: to be there before the crisis reaches its most critical point. At Action Against Hunger, we work alongside communities to anticipate the situation, assessing the impact of the drought and activating early response mechanisms to protect their livelihoods and access to water.

We translate climate forecasts into concrete action plans: from support for farmers to programmes ensuring safe water. All of this is done in coordination with local authorities and international partners, because we know that what we do today will make the difference tomorrow.

A supercharged El Niño is coming – are we ready?

The hardest months are yet to come. But the question is not just what will happen, but what we are doing now to prevent it. How many tables will remain empty and how many children will see their health compromised will depend on our ability to act in time.

We cannot stop El Niño. But we can prevent it from becoming a crisis of human dignity. We cannot afford to look the other way whilst the earth cracks and opportunities disappear. Because behind every statistic, there is a family struggling to get by. And that is a reality we cannot ignore.

The post A strong El Niño spells more climate pain for the Philippines appeared first on Climate Home News.

A variety of climate action strategies improve people’s quality of life, including strategies that require people to shift their behavior to use less energy, according to a new analysis. The study challenges the conventional wisdom that fighting climate change imposes a burden on the public—and offers a hopeful message about people’s willingness to engage.

In the past, most of the debate about policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has centered on cost versus amount of carbon saved. The new study adds quality of life as a third, previously overlooked dimension to the picture.

Researchers used computer simulations of national energy systems to evaluate how six different climate mitigation strategies affect various aspects of quality of life, performing this analysis for 18 countries.

They analyzed one so-called “supply-side” strategy focused on replacing fossil energy with clean technologies and one “demand-side” strategy involving reduced use of energy and materials for each of three major economic sectors: transport, buildings, and industry.

Until now, most research on climate mitigation has emphasized supply-side strategies, in part because of an assumption that demand-side measures would make people’s lives more difficult and thus be unpopular.

That’s not the case. All six climate strategies improve overall quality of life, the researchers found.

Both high-income and low- to middle-income countries see quality-of-life benefits from climate action, challenging the usual narrative that fighting climate change pits countries’ interests against each other. “Framing the climate change mitigation conversation around quality of life could break political stalemates” arising from this mistaken assumption, the researchers write.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:The energy requirements of a good life are surprisingly low

 

The researchers analyzed six different dimensions of quality of life—household income, jobs, health, energy security, fairness, and environmental conditions. Demand-side interventions perform slightly better across a wider range of quality-of-life aspects, the researchers found.

The best performers overall are demand-side interventions: reducing energy use in buildings by beefing up insulation and tweaking thermostat settings, and shifting car trips to other modes of transport like public transit, walking, and cycling.

The researchers also surveyed between 800 and 1,400 residents in three of the countries—the Netherlands, Brazil, and China—making the study one of only a few studies that have provided both objective and subjective data on the quality-of-life dimension of climate action.

In all three countries, people were open to both supply-side and demand-side climate strategies, and expected both to improve their quality of life. “People evaluate demand-side strategies positively, even if there is a tendency to evaluate supply-side strategies even more positively,” the researchers write.

What’s more, sharing evidence about the quality-of-life impacts of the six climate strategies tends to increase people’s support for them, the researchers found.

Overall, the findings suggest that in designing climate policy and selling it to the public, policymakers should emphasize well-being, not just cost-effectiveness—and they shouldn’t shy away from proposing demand-side measures, the researchers say.

Source: Grubler A. et al. “The undervalued quality-of-life benefits of demand-side energy and climate strategies.” Communications Sustainability 2026.

Image: © Anthropocene Magazine.

 

• July 14, 2026

OPEN LETTER: GREEN CONNECTION QUESTIONS ISRAELI OIL COMPANY’S BID FOR SOUTH AFRICAN OFFSHORE BLOCK AMID ICJ CASE

Environmental justice organisation The Green Connection has written an open letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa about reports that Israeli-owned Navitas Petroleum LP is set to become operator of offshore oil and gas exploration Block 1 CBK in the Orange Basin off South Africa’s West Coast. The organisation believes that the proposed transaction raises questions about whether South Africa’s commercial decisions align with the principles underpinning its international stance on Israel and Palestine, including its ongoing case against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The Green Connection’s letter has thus far been endorsed by thirty-five (35) civil society organisations,
and counting.

“The Green Connection is not calling for the transaction to be automatically rejected. It is urging government to provide clear political and policy leadership on commercial engagement involving Israeli-owned companies while South Africa continues to pursue accountability through international legal processes,” says Lisa Makaula, Advocacy Lead at The Green Connection. 

Block 1 CBK is the northern-most offshore block on South Africa’s West Coast, extending about 250 kilometres west along the South Africa–Namibia maritime border and covering approximately 19 907 square kilometres. Media reports say Navitas Petroleum LP, through Navitas Petroleum Africa Limited, has agreed with Eco (Atlantic) Oil and Gas Ltd., through Azinam South Africa Limited, to acquire a 37.5% participating interest in Block 1 CBK and assume operatorship. If completed, Navitas and Eco Atlantic will each hold 37.5%, while Orange Basin Energies (Pty) Ltd will retain 25%.

South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel before the ICJ in December 2023, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention. The case remains before the Court, which has issued provisional measures. This includes requiring Israel to prevent acts prohibited under the Convention, enable humanitarian assistance and halt action that could bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza.

“This is about far more than a single commercial transaction,” says Makaula. “South Africa earned international respect by taking the unprecedented step of asking the ICJ to hold Israel accountable under the Genocide Convention.

The eco-justice organisation also argues that the proposed transaction is inconsistent with South Africa’s commitments under the Just Energy Transition Partnership, which aims to accelerate a fair and equitable shift to cleaner energy rather than expand offshore oil and gas development. A just transition involves moving away from carbon-intensive fossil fuels that drive global warming and climate change, towards cleaner, more sustainable and safer energy sources.

Neville van Rooy, Outreach Coordinator and Ambassador at The Green Connection, says that offshore oil and gas decisions directly affect coastal communities. He says, “Small-scale fishing communities often carry the risks of offshore oil and gas development while seeing few promised benefits. Too often, decisions affecting our oceans are made without meaningful participation from the people whose livelihoods, culture and food security depend on healthy marine ecosystems.” 

In its letter, The Green Connection calls on the Presidency to ensure that the government develops a lawful, transparent policy position on commercial engagement involving Israeli-owned entities, that is consistent with South Africa’s constitutional values, international obligations and stated foreign policy positions. 

“We are not asking for political interference or automatic rejection,” says Makaula. “We are asking for any decision, including under section 11 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, to be made lawfully, transparently and with proper regard for South Africa’s constitutional values, international obligations and stated commitments.” 

“This is ultimately about South Africa’s credibility,” says Makaula. “The world has looked to South Africa for principled leadership because of our willingness to stand up for justice. Today’s decisions will show whether our commitment to human rights, international law and justice extends beyond our words.”

The Green Connection administrator September 4, 2024 Past News THE GREEN CONNECTION AND NATURAL JUSTICE NOW HAVE THE RECORD OF DECISION TO PROGRESS LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES

September 4, 2024 THE GREEN CONNECTION AND NATURAL JUSTICE NOW HAVE THE RECORD OF DECISION TO PROGRESS LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST

The Green Connection administrator October 30, 2024 Past News COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND ECO-JUSTICE GROUPS’ OFFSHORE DRILLING APPEAL HIGHLIGHTS THREATS TO LIVELIHOODS, MARINE ECOSYSTEMS, AND CLIMATE GOALS

October 30, 2024 COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND ECO-JUSTICE GROUPS’ OFFSHORE DRILLING APPEAL HIGHLIGHTS THREATS TO LIVELIHOODS, MARINE ECOSYSTEMS, AND CLIMATE GOALS

The Green Connection administrator November 6, 2024 Past News TO PROTECT OCEANS AND LIVELIHOODS, WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT SET TO HEAR ANOTHER CASE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES DRILLING PLANS IN SOUTH AFRICAN WATERS

November 6, 2024 TO PROTECT OCEANS AND LIVELIHOODS, WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT SET TO HEAR ANOTHER CASE AGAINST TOTALENERGIES DRILLING

The Green Connection administrator November 17, 2024 Past News WITH CLIMATE TALKS UNDERWAY, WHY MUST CIVIL SOCIETY STILL FIGHT TOTALENERGIES’ FOSSIL FUEL DRILLING IN COURT?

November 17, 2024 WITH CLIMATE TALKS UNDERWAY, WHY MUST CIVIL SOCIETY STILL FIGHT TOTALENERGIES’ FOSSIL FUEL DRILLING IN COURT? As

The Green Connection administrator January 24, 2025 Past News Eskom’s Proposed Retail Tariff Plan: The Green Connection Joins Calls For Energy Justice And Stakeholder Engagement

January 24, 2025 Eskom’s Proposed Retail Tariff Plan: The Green Connection Joins Calls For Energy Justice And Stakeholder Engagement. Photo

The Green Connection administrator February 28, 2025 Latest News Eco-Justice Organizations Reject Draft Scoping Report For Offshore Drilling On SA’S West Coast (TEEPSA DWOB South).

February 28, 2025 Eco-Justice Organizations Reject Draft Scoping Report For Offshore Drilling On SA’S West Coast (TEEPSA DWOB South). Just

The post OPEN LETTER: GREEN CONNECTION QUESTIONS ISRAELI OIL COMPANY’S BID FOR SOUTH AFRICAN OFFSHORE BLOCK AMID ICJ CASE appeared first on The Green Connection.

In this four part mini-series, Spring Radio takes a closer look organized labour. The series dives into the rank-and-file strategy, the history of the labour...

The post Spring Radio: Why organized labour is the key to fighting back (feat. Ayesha Jabbar and Dave Bush) first appeared on Spring.

Dalam tradisi pemberitaan klasik, sebuah informasi dinilai layak dipercaya apabila didukung oleh sumber yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Prinsip tersebut tetap relevan hingga saat ini. Berbagai ahli di bidang teknologi menjelaskan bahwa permainan modern umumnya memanfaatkan sistem yang telah dirancang dengan mekanisme tertentu. Hasil yang muncul selama permainan tidak dapat dipastikan hanya karena seseorang baru pertama kali bergabung atau membuat akun baru.

Pengalaman banyak pengguna juga menunjukkan bahwa setiap individu dapat memperoleh hasil yang berbeda. Ada yang merasa beruntung pada awal permainan, sementara pengguna lain tidak mengalami hal serupa. Perbedaan pengalaman tersebut menjadi bukti bahwa klaim “member baru pasti turun scatter” tidak dapat dijadikan patokan umum. Oleh sebab itu, masyarakat perlu membedakan antara pengalaman pribadi dengan fakta yang dapat diverifikasi.

Dari sisi keahlian, pemahaman mengenai sistem permainan online perlu didasarkan pada informasi yang bersumber dari penyedia resmi maupun penjelasan teknis yang kredibel. Banyak platform menerapkan teknologi yang dirancang agar setiap putaran berjalan sesuai mekanisme sistem, bukan berdasarkan status pemain sebagai anggota baru ataupun lama. Dengan demikian, peluang yang diperoleh pengguna tetap bergantung pada mekanisme permainan yang berlaku.

Aspek otoritas juga menjadi bagian penting dalam menilai suatu informasi. Media yang bertanggung jawab tidak hanya menyampaikan kabar yang sedang populer, tetapi juga memberikan penjelasan yang seimbang agar pembaca memperoleh pemahaman yang benar. Sikap kritis terhadap judul-judul sensasional merupakan bagian dari literasi online yang perlu terus dikembangkan, terutama di era ketika informasi dapat menyebar dengan sangat cepat melalui berbagai platform media sosial.

Kepercayaan publik dibangun melalui penyampaian informasi yang jujur dan transparan. Oleh karena itu, masyarakat dianjurkan untuk tidak mudah mempercayai klaim yang menjanjikan hasil tertentu tanpa adanya bukti yang dapat diuji. Membandingkan informasi dari beberapa sumber terpercaya merupakan langkah yang bijaksana sebelum mengambil kesimpulan.

Sebagai penutup, istilah “Member Baru Pasti Turun Scatter” lebih tepat dipahami sebagai ungkapan yang berkembang di kalangan komunitas pengguna daripada sebagai fakta yang telah terbukti. Pendekatan yang mengutamakan literasi, pengetahuan, dan verifikasi informasi akan membantu masyarakat mengambil keputusan secara lebih rasional. Dengan mengedepankan prinsip pengalaman, keahlian, otoritas, pembaca dapat menyaring setiap informasi secara objektif sehingga tidak mudah terpengaruh oleh klaim yang belum memiliki dasar yang kuat.

Nearly two years after the Constitutional Court’s decision to annul Romania’s 2024 presidential election, there is no clear end in sight to one of the most divisive political sagas in the country’s recent history. With anti-establishment sentiment on the rise, evidence of Russian interference might not settle the matter and rebuild trust with citizens.

Since his election as president in Romania’s May 2025 re-run, Nicușor Dan has yet to fulfil a key campaign promise: releasing a detailed report explaining why the Constitutional Court cancelled the 2024 presidential race after far-right candidate Călin Georgescu won the first round with nearly 23 per cent of the vote.

The Court justified its unprecedented intervention on the basis of intelligence assessments alleging a coordinated foreign interference operation. According to those evaluations, the campaign involved illicit financing, online manipulation, and Russian-linked networks that artificially boosted Georgescu’s visibility on platforms such as TikTok.

Dan repeatedly promised greater transparency on the matter. He initially suggested the report wouldlikely be released by the end of January 2026. Officials within the presidential administration later shifted the expected release date to the end of April. However, no report was published. Then, the president said that it would come out later this year, without providing a clear timeline.

In the absence of the promised report, Dan has nevertheless made increasingly categorical public claims. He has stated that, “without a doubt”, Georgescu had benefited from “an infrastructure created by Russia”. Dan has also argued that Romania has been the target of Russian hybrid warfare for at least a decade, and suggested that around 90 per cent of the information gathered by state authorities could eventually be disclosed publicly.

Dan may be right. The interference may have been real, serious, and well-documented. Still, there remains a consequential question that no authority has publicly addressed: Was annulling the election a proportionate response? Did the alleged Russian campaign decisively distort the result, or did nearly a quarter of Romanian voters choose Georgescu for reasons of their own?

The legitimacy of the annulment ultimately depends not only on what happened, but on whether what happened justified one of the most extraordinary interventions possible in a democratic process. And even proving proportionality may not be enough in a country where trust in institutions has been eroding long before 2024, and where, for many, the verdict on that question has already been reached.

Uncharted territory

In March 2025 and in the wake of Romania’s decision to annul the elections,  the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters, released a report examining when constitutional courts may invalidate elections. The Commission emphasised that annulment should be a measure of last resort, reserved for exceptional circumstances and supported by clear evidence. Under international democratic standards, the Commission stressed, results should only be annulled when irregularities can be shown to have directly affected the vote’s outcome.

That is a high bar, and the Commission noted it is especially difficult to meet when the alleged irregularities concern online campaigning rather than voting or ballot counting. It added that online political speech is generally protected by freedom of expression standards, making it “currently hard to see how the form and content of campaign messaging of candidates could amount to a violation of electoral law that may lead to the annulment of the elections”.

How feasible, then, is it to demonstrate that the irregularities in campaigning invoked by Romania’s Constitutional Court determined the voting results? Luciana Alexandra Ghica, a political science professor at the University of Bucharest, argues that the challenge is notable. Establishing such a causal link requires long-term technical data, sustained multidisciplinary cooperation, and, above all, political will.

“This might be the most difficult part,” she explained, adding that success depends on “the mechanisms needed to support such an effort.” In her assessment, Romania currently lacks much of that institutional capacity, with “too little coordination, too little recognition of experts, and too many appointments based on personal connections”.

What the evidence shows

In its decision to annul the election, Romania’s Constitutional Court concluded that the electoral process had been “compromised throughout its entire course” by irregularities that “distorted the free and fair nature of the vote,” linking it to a coordinated foreign interference operation.  Yet the ruling did not explain why annulment was a proportionate response, nor did it attempt to demonstrate how the alleged irregularities concretely affected the outcome.

Subsequent investigations have strengthened the case that Romania was indeed targeted by a sophisticated influence campaign. In September 2025, the General Prosecutor’s office published a report that Dan presented to European leaders the following month. The report exposes a coordinated Russian-linked operation of considerable scale. It states that companies including AdNow, MGID, Geozo, and AdsKeeper built alarge online influence network using fake social media pages, AI-generated content, and native advertising, as well as cloned doppelgänger websites designed to mimic trusted news outlets and public institutions.

Neither the prosecutor’s report nor the Constitutional Court’s original ruling demonstrates how the interference altered voting patterns, or whether less intrusive measures could have been taken to address the situation.

More than 2,000 Facebook pages and coordinated Telegram, TikTok, YouTube, and clickbait ecosystems were allegedly activated to identify and grow receptive audiences by manipulating vulnerable individuals, spreading anti-government information, and eroding trust in institutions ahead of Romania’s 2024 elections.

Then, closer to polling day, the same pre-built ecosystem was reportedly “activated” or repurposed more explicitly for electoral influence, with content shifting toward coordinated messaging that supported Georgescu and amplified political disinformation during the campaign period.

These findings are substantial, but they do not resolve the question of proportionality. Neither the prosecutor’s report nor the Constitutional Court’s original ruling demonstrates how the interference altered voting patterns, whether Georgescu’s performance depended decisively on the operation, or whether less intrusive measures could have been taken to address the situation.

Lingering questions

Two considerations make the proportionality case harder to establish. One is the question of why voters supported Georgescu in the first place. While official explanations for the annulment have focused on foreign interference, analysts argue domestic political and social grievances also played a significant role in boosting his appeal. “External interference overlapped with internal anxiety, with Russia’s hybrid campaign exploiting a level of weakness within our own democracy,” stressed Ioan Stanomir, a political science professor at the University of Bucharest.

A key component of this anxiety was socio-economic dislocation. According to Stefan Hofmann, the head of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) in Romania, large segments of the electorate felt “isolated and shut out from opportunity”, particularly amid widening inequality. Georgescu was able to harness those frustrations by offering voters something more visceral than policy: a sense of belonging, identity, and recognition. “A discourse like Georgescu’s addresses the disorientation and fear people felt,” Hofmann said.

The second consideration is that this pattern was not unique to Georgescu.  Elena Lasconi, the runner-up of the first round of the 2024 election, also sat outside the mainstream political establishment and made the corruption and failures of the political class a key theme of her campaign.

That both frontrunners emerged as vehicles for anti-establishment sentiment points to a broader public dissatisfaction that predated the election and cannot easily be attributed to foreign influence alone. “When voters want to channel their frustration, to put it mildly, they turn to options outside the political mainstream,” Hofmann said.

The stronger the role played by genuine domestic grievances, the harder it becomes to demonstrate that foreign interference was a decisive causal factor in producing Georgescu’s success. Hofmann notes that Romanian authorities could have considered a more targeted measure, like disqualifying Georgescu, while allowing the second round to proceed. Such an approach would have addressed concerns surrounding him without invalidating the votes already cast by millions of Romanians.

Whether that or other alternatives would have been legally viable or politically preferable, remains open to debate.

The counter-narrative

In the absence of a fully consolidated public justification, the annulment has not settled into a single authoritative interpretation. Instead, it has become a contested political reference point, increasingly shaped outside formal institutional channels. Many Romanians doubted from the outset that the circumstances justified the Constitutional Court’s decision. An IRES poll conducted shortly after the annulment found that 62 per cent of respondents considered it a bad one.

Public trust in institutions has continued to decline since then. An INSCOP poll comparing July 2025 with January 2026 showed trust in the presidency falling from nearly 35 per cent to around 28 per cent, while trust in Parliament dropped from 14.5 per cent to just under 12 per cent.

At the same time, support for far-right parties and figures has grown. A January 2026 CURS poll found Georgescu to be the most trusted political figure in the country with an approval rating of 36 per cent. Following him were George Simion – another far-right figure who lost to Nicușor Dan in 2025 – at 32 per cent, and Dan at 31 per cent. Meanwhile, an INSCOP survey on parliamentary voting intention placed the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) – the party founded and chaired by Simion – at around 38 per cent, significantly ahead of any competitor.

For AUR and Georgescu, the annulment has become a central mobilising narrative, framed as evidence of systemic illegitimacy: the 2024 election was “stolen”, Georgescu is the rightful president, and all Romanian elections are vulnerable to manipulation. In response to Dan’s report presented to European leaders, AUR published its own assessment, describing the annulment as a “state coup” carried out through “unconstitutional means”.

In AUR’s framing, Russia’s intervention in the election was used as the pretext to justify the coup. The report concludes that Romania is “not a democracy”, and that “the coup has exposed the general vulnerability of state institutions and of the oligarchic system governing the country”. In November 2025, when speaking about municipal elections in Bucharest, Georgescu argued that “all these elections are a farce”.

In 2026, he once again claimed that the annulment was an act of “desperation” because the Romanian people were about to “take back their country”. He added that the Constitutional Court’s decision was conducted with “external colleagues, namely the European Union,” thus inverting the foreign interference narrative to implicate Brussels rather than Moscow.

According to Ghica, the narratives being pushed by Georgescu and his allies are unlikely to fade quickly. Voters who feel they were deprived of a rightful president do not simply absorb that grievance and move on: they carry it forward. What makes this particularly hard to reverse, Ghica argues, is that the audiences most exposed to these narratives are also the least equipped to scrutinise them: people with “limited digital and functional literacy, heavily reliant on social media, and affected by considerable social and economic inequalities.”

Voters who feel they were deprived of a rightful president do not simply absorb that grievance and move on: they carry it forward.

Dan’s quicksand

While the “stolen election” narrative has provided AUR and Georgescu with a powerful mobilising tool, it does not fully explain their sustained popularity. Anti-establishment sentiment has been further reinforced by a broader climate of political instability that Dan’s first year in office has done little to change.

Dan, a former mayor of Bucharest, came to office as an outsider candidate, promising reform and a break with established political practices. That positioning made him vulnerable to any perception of indecision or continuity with the system he had promised to change. His first year as president has supplied critics with considerable material.

The most significant test came in early May 2026, when a no-confidence motion brought down the government of prime minister Ilie Bolojan. The procedure was initiated by the Social Democrats and AUR over painful austerity measures and tax increases introduced to address Romania’s fiscal deficit, the largest in the EU at9.3 per cent of GDP in 2024 and 7.9 per cent in 2025.

For the Social Democrats, this was also a political escape from the costs of staying in power as unpopular fiscal measures hit their voters and patronage networks, while AUR used the moment to amplify its anti-austerity, anti-establishment message.

Dan declined to publicly back Bolojan, arguing that his role was that of a mediator. Critics, however, say Dan’s position implicitly validated the legitimacy of the Social Democrats’ move. They are also openly questioning whether the president’s passivity in this and other matters can bring stability, or whether it surrenders control over key political outcomes to other forces, such as the Social Democrats.

Amid heightened political turmoil, the no-confidence motion passed.  Dan subsequently sought to reassure the public, insisting that Romania remained stable. But as weeks passed without the confirmation of a new government, his assurances rang increasingly hollow.

“President Dan is in a delicate situation,” stressed Professor Stanomir. “One year after his election, he is compelled to rebuild a parliamentary majority. Such a challenge is likely to affect the years of his mandate that lie ahead.”

The rule, not the exception

Romania has not been the only target of Russian electoral interference in the EU. Ahead of Poland’s 2025 presidential election, minister of digital affairs Krzysztof Gawkowski publicly warned of an “unprecedented” Russian attempt to influence the vote via cyberattacks, sabotage, and disinformation. Yet the elections proceeded.

In Croatia’s 2025 presidential election, researchers found that Russian-linked bots and disinformation campaigns favoured the anti-NATO candidate, Zoran Milanović,

spreading pro-Kremlin narratives on social media platforms to sway public opinion.

The EU has begun responding. In December 2024, the Commission launched a formal investigation into TikTok under the Digital Services Act, following the release of Romanian intelligence reports suggesting the platform had been used to facilitate foreign interference.

In an email exchange, a Commission spokesperson confirmed to me that the proceedings remain ongoing. The outcome of this initiative could have lasting implications for the role of major tech platforms in electoral processes and, more broadly, for the influence of privately owned tech companies on democratic institutions. Nevertheless, the Commission has been careful to define the limits of its role. “The organisation and conduct of elections is a national competence,” the spokesperson said. “Elections have always been and will always remain in the hands of the citizens.”

That delineation matters. The EU can pressure platforms to “protect the integrity of elections through the Digital Services Act” and sanction individuals linked to disinformation campaigns. It can also support member states through bodies like the newly established European Centre for Democratic Resilience, which aims to help EU countries build their capacity to detect threats to democratic processes and strengthen resilience.

What the EU cannot do is answer the questions that Romania’s annulment continues to raise. Those questions remain Romania’s to resolve.

Can the loose ends be tied?

This is why the long-promised presidential report matters. Its most important task is not simply to establish what happened, but to explain why the response that followed was necessary and why less intrusive alternatives would have been insufficient to protect the integrity of the democratic process.

But even a report that does so convincingly may not be enough to reverse the continued decline in trust in institutions or the rising support for anti-establishment forces in Romania.

A detailed account might settle some of the concrete disputes that have festered since the annulment, like Georgescu’s claim that he is the rightful president. Rebuilding trust, however, will require more than evidence alone. “To get back some level of trust, people’s feelings have to be acknowledged and understood,” KAS’ Hofmann said, both in relation to the 2024 election and the broader dissatisfaction that preceded it. Romania’s traditional parties, he suggests, need to confront their own record more openly, even when doing so means acknowledging uncomfortable truths.

Ghica sees the structural obstacles as even more daunting. Trust in democratic processes and electoral integrity could be re-established, she argues, only through sustained, coordinated effort. “Time is not on our side in this hybrid war. The levels of social polarisation, digital and functional illiteracy, as well as economic inequality, which generates frustration toward others and toward authorities, remain very high.”

These technologies represent a new offensive by corporations to commodify life, seize control of seeds, and disregard the rights of the peoples who have protected biodiversity for millennia.

The post Latin American Organizations Unite Against Gene Editing in Agriculture and Seed Control appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Charting a path to protect human health during prolonged gas flaring in Kitimat

July 14, 2026 – In May, Douglas Channel Watch allies in Kitimat, British Columbia (BC) contacted ALERT. The community of 8,300 residents is a marine port at the head of the Douglas Channel, a principal fjord along the BC Coast, in the traditional and unceded territory of the Haisla Nation. Previously, I worked with First Nations and Canadian allies in a successful multi-year effort to block the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project that ended in November 2016 when the Canadian Prime Minister cancelled the project.

Much has changed in ten years. Kitimat now faces another daunting situation – a looming liquified natural gas (“LNG”) boom in northwestern BC, as part of the federal government’s plan to export liquified natural gas from Albert’s oil and gas fields to China. Exhausted from the pipeline battle, there was little resistance to the next wave of development pressure – this time for an LNG facility in Kitimat. No messy mixture of tar sands oil, but a clean natural gas! What could possibly go wrong?

Construction started on the Shell-led LNG Canada facility in fall 2018. According to an investigative report by The Narwhal, LNG Canada first tested its system to burn off gas by firing up its flare in fall 2024. By December, officials knew something was wrong – the 90-meter, roaring flare was a clue that the facility’s equipment was malfunctioning. LNG Canada first reported non-compliance with government air waste dumping permits in May 2025, adding that it could take up to three years to fix the problem. Nonetheless, the first tanker-load of natural gas shipped out to China in June 2025, and cargo continues to be shipped to this day.

In fall 2025, Kitimat residents first voiced health concerns from the natural gas flaring, despite offers from LNG Canada to temporarily relocate and pay people not to make complaints or raise concerns about LNG Canada’s flaring to government regulators, the media, or the District of Kitimat. By the end of 2025, LNG Canada was the estimated highest source of LNG flaring emissions in the world, based on 2024 emissions.

Kitimat is now “a compromised airshed.” A Northern Health study found Kitimat has 74 percent higher rates of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than the rest of the province. While the Rio Tinto (formerly Alcan) aluminum smelter, operational in Kitimat since 1954, is likely the source of these chronic health issues, the local nurse in Kitimat is concerned that the LNG flaring is exacerbating these illnesses – and he is among the health care providers and advocates calling for government regulation.

On July 7, at the Kitimat Airshed Group general meeting, Ott spoke about the need for symptom-based health assessment – something the U.S. National Response Team now recommends for oil-chemical workers, and science supports. Symptom-based surveys more accurately define the health risk and the health impacts that can occur from annual, persistent, low-level exposures to gas flaring emissions – even though exposures may be well below the mandated standards. Generally, symptom-based health monitoring gives a more accurate estimate of health risk than numeric-based standards when complex mixtures of chemicals in various phases (gas, aerosol, particulate) are involved and interacting with other chemicals in the atmosphere such as occurs during LNG flaring.

The extended Q&A session revealed a path forward from ALERT’s perspective. Kitimat residents could:

1. Petition the Kitimat town council with new information on the health risk of persistent, annual, low-level exposures from LNG emissions and ask the council to reverse its vote and support the call for a cumulative health impact assessment;
2. Petition federal regulators for stationary air monitors in Kitimat and downwind communities to augment the sparse RAM (“remote area monitoring”) data, collected by one vehicle; and
3. Work independently with the University of Texas TILT Research Team to conduct a pilot health study in their community and others in the Kitimat airshed.

Meanwhile, Canada’s first major LNG facility may soon be joined by others. Construction has already started on the Cedar LNG plant near LNG Canada in Douglas Channel. It is Canada’s (and the world’s) first Indigenous majority-owned LNG export facility. It promises to have “one of the cleanest environmental profiles in the world.”

What could possibly go wrong?

. . . . .

It bears mentioning that, over the last two decades, there have been other changes. Indigenous peoples have emerged as leaders in Canada’s renewable energy transition and are leading development in wind, solar, geothermal and utility-scale batteries. Even when faced with daunting situations, concerted efforts by people can lead to positive changes.

 

In solidarity,

Ding dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch is dead.

Senator Lindsey Graham died Saturday night of an apparent heart attack. Another horrible human being bites the dust. As Mehdi Hasan said it in his Zeteo column, Graham “never met a Middle East County he didn’t want to invade.” And in those invasions he wanted to “level” Gaza and kill as many brown, mostly Muslim, people as possible. The consummate opportunist, when it seemed impossible that Donald Trump would get the 2016 Republican nomination for president, Graham called him “a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.” By 2026, when Graham was well entrenched in Trump’s inner circle, Trump became “the greatest president of all time. . . Mr. President, you’re not far behind God.” Such great people as Benjamin Netanyahu and Volodymyr Zelensky rushed to say what a “wonderful friend” and “true believer of freedom” Graham was. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he helped pack the Supreme Court with the rightwing justices we have today and made sure federal justices were groomed by the Federalist Society, whose goal is to turn the country into a presidential autocracy. In Britain, Lindsey would be what they call a “reverse ferret.” In the U.S., we can just call him a blood thirsty monster.

I want to tell a little story about how Congress came to be filled with people like Lindsey Graham. I recently read most of Rick Perlstein’s massive (914 pages) Reaganland: America’s right turn, 1976-1980. In his chapter “What is an Orrin Hatch?” Perlstein lays out the history of what became known as the “New Right,” or as Paul Weyrich, one of its main proponents put it, “radicals working to overturn the present power structure in this country”—meaning liberal elites. Rather mind boggling, this is where the notion of the Republican Party being the party of the working class originated, a notion that Missouri Senator Josh Hawley recently proclaimed while leading the charge that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Another of these proponents, Kevin Phillips, a former Nixon justice department official, wanted to build “a cultural siege-engine out of the populist steel of Idaho, Mississippi, and working class Milwaukee, and then blast the Eastern liberal establishment to ideological-institutional smithereens.” Also mind boggling is that these guys thought Barry Goldwater was too much a member of the establishment. Ergo, Orrin Hatch, the political neophyte elected senator from Utah in 1976 would be the torchbearer for the New Right. He represented the fundamentalist Christian coalition (he was a Mormon) that would soon come on board while the Heritage Foundation think tank would provide the intellectual underpinning. In 1973, University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize, signifying that his “trickle-down economics” would become the economic bible of the New Right. The election of 1976 also saw the rise of the neoconservatives from the flames of the Old Left: as Irving Kristol (Commentary magazine and the American Enterprise Institute) described them, a “liberal mugged by reality.” He was joined in the movement by all our favorite neocons of the George W. Bush era: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, and Richard Perle.

There’s a lot of history between then and now—Newt Gingrich’s reign of terror in the House of Representatives, George W. Bush’s “war on terror,” the Tea Party rebellion—that led to Trumpism and the failure of the left to be the alternative. This, unfortunately, gives some credence to the critique of journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi that our obsession with the election of Donald Trump was more detrimental to journalism than it was to democracy. Theirs is a broader critique that our obsession with him distracted us from examining much else that needed examining: what the so-called “deep state,” i.e., the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, etc., are doing to spy on us, foment regime change abroad, murder people with drones, or any of the nefarious things they’ve been guilty of for years without legislative oversight. Lindsey Graham and his senatorial cohort (we can’t really tell if that includes Mitch McConnell anymore despite his picture from the hospital) are our “Orrin Hatch.” Donald Trump is their God.

 

DENVER—President Donald Trump today signed proclamations attempting to shrink the boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments, reducing the size of each by about 90 percent. Bears Ears National Monument will be reduced by over 1.2 million acres, and Grand Staircase-Escalante will be reduced by nearly 1.7 million acres.

During the signing, President Trump falsely stated that “You can’t go hunting, you can’t go fishing, you can’t do anything, you can virtually not even walk on it.” Deputy Interior Secretary Kate MacGregor followed up by saying, “That’s exactly right sir, so you are remedying that today.”

In fact, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase explicitly allow hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation inside the monuments, something that the State of Utah’s own hunting regulations confirm.

MacGregor also misled the president and reporters when she claimed that the first monuments Teddy Roosevelt protected under the Antiquities Act were small in size. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act to protect 800,000 acres of public land at the Grand Canyon. The Supreme Court later confirmed that such landscape-scale protections were proper under the Antiquities Act, and that large landscapes were considered “objects” under the Act.

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Executive Director Aaron Weiss:

“We all know that President Trump has very little understanding of what he’s told to sign. But Kate MacGregor knows better. Giving the president documents to sign based on false information is unconscionable. If she’s going to take over running America’s public lands while Doug Burgum plays pool boy, the least she can do is be honest with the president and the American people.”

The proclamations also attempt to open the land originally inside the monuments for sale or lease to oil, gas, mining, and logging companies beginning in 60 days. Weiss added:

“Senator Mike Lee’s attempt to sell off America’s public lands failed last year. Now he’s a sore loser, trying again with language in the president’s proclamation that makes it clear America’s public lands are up for sale. The people of Utah and the entire country have spoken with one voice: These lands belong to all of us, not Mike Lee, President Trump, or the mining companies his kids are in business with.”

The Bears Ears proclamation also attempts to disband the Bears Ears Commission, a body that was created at the request of the five Tribal nations that advocated for the designation of the national monument. The new proclamation would create a new “advisory committee” that drastically dilutes Tribal input.

Public opinion: When the first Trump administration asked the public in 2017, it received 2.8 million comments, 98 percent of them in support of keeping national monuments in place. A 2024 poll conducted on behalf of the Grand Canyon Trust found 71 percent of Utah voters support keeping Bears Ears as a national monument and 74 percent support keeping Grand Staircase-Escalante, including majorities of Republicans. Three-quarters of Utah voters support presidents’ authority to protect public lands as national monuments. Across the West, Colorado College’s 2025 Conservation in the West poll found that 89 percent of Western voters, including 83 percent of Republicans, believe national monument designations made over the past decade should be kept in place.

The post Trump signs orders attacking Utah monuments based on false information appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Registered nurses from Kaiser Permanente facilities across California protested today outside the American Hospital Association (AHA) Leadership Summit in Denver, Colo., where Kaiser CEO Greg A. Adams is scheduled to speak this week.

DENVER—An attack on Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments is reportedly scheduled to happen today at 4:30 pm ET behind closed doors at the White House, according to sources cited in news stories out of Utah.

President Donald Trump’s public calendar lists the 4:30 pm Oval Office event only as “sign an executive order,” with no mention of Bears Ears, Grand Staircase-Escalante, or the roughly two million acres of protected public land on the chopping block. The signing is marked as closed to press, and the White House has no press briefings scheduled today.

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Executive Director Aaron Weiss: 

“Planning this attack behind closed doors and providing no notice to the press, the five Bears Ears Tribes, or the public shows the administration knows it’s on the wrong side of history.

“When Trump tried to shrink Bears Ears and Grand Staircase in 2017, he flew to Salt Lake City and announced it from the state capitol in front of Utah politicians. This time, the president wants as few cameras in the room as possible. The five Tribes of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition and the American people will learn what happened to their land from a press release.”

Public opinion: When the first Trump administration asked the public in 2017, it received 2.8 million comments, 98 percent of them in support of keeping national monuments in place. A 2024 poll conducted on behalf of the Grand Canyon Trust found 71 percent of Utah voters support keeping Bears Ears as a national monument and 74 percent support keeping Grand Staircase-Escalante, including majorities of Republicans. Three-quarters of Utah voters support presidents’ authority to protect public lands as national monuments. Across the West, Colorado College’s 2025 Conservation in the West poll found that 89 percent of Western voters, including 83 percent of Republicans, believe national monument designations made over the past decade should be kept in place.

Background: President Bill Clinton designated Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 1996, and President Barack Obama designated Bears Ears National Monument in 2016 at the request of five sovereign Tribal nations. In December 2017, President Trump cut Bears Ears from 1.35 million acres to roughly 228,000 acres and Grand Staircase-Escalante from 1.87 million acres to about 1 million acres, the largest rollback of public lands protections in American history. Lawsuits from Tribes, conservation groups, and businesses challenging those cuts were put on hold in early 2021 and remain pending in federal court in Washington, D.C. President Joe Biden restored both monuments in October 2021.

Learn more:

• Trump Orders Largest National Monument Reduction In U.S. History (2017) — NPR

• America to Trump and Zinke: Don’t touch national monuments – Westwise

• In defense of Bears Ears National Monument – Westwise

• STATEMENT on proposed Bears Ears National Monument management plan – Center for Western Priorities

• Bears Ears Plan Makes History – Grand Canyon Trust

The post Trump plans secretive attack on Utah national monuments, underscoring unpopularity appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

National Nurses United (NNU) is today condemning the latest murder by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, this time in Biddeford, Maine. NNU maintains that the only way forward on this issue of fascist authoritarian violence targeting communities nationwide is the abolition of ICE. This latest horror comes just days after ICE’s murder of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas.

Today, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ruled that President Trump’s lawsuit asking for $10 billion from the IRS was manufactured to justify a “settlement” that included a nearly $1.8B slush fund to reward political allies.

Robert Weissman and Lisa Gilbert, co-presidents of Public Citizen, issued the following statement in response:

“Donald Trump had the brilliant idea of suing the government he runs and resolving the lawsuit with the creation of an illegal and unconstitutional nearly $1.8 billion slush fund, paid for at taxpayer expense and likely to be distributed to January 6 insurrectionists, among others, as well with as an immunity deal protecting Trump and his family from IRS investigation. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was a willing participant in this fraud on the court and the American people.

“Trump and the DOJ tried to remove the issue from the court in which Trump originally filed the sham lawsuit but now Judge Williams has had her word. In a devastating order, she finds that ‘This lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights; it was brought to manipulate the judicial process to pursue benefits unavailable in litigation because the Parties were not adverse.” The abuse is so severe that she has ordered the bar to consider sanctions against Trump’s attorney; ordered that Trump and DOJ never again refer to their collusive deal as a ‘settlement;’ and authorized amicus filers in the case — including Public Citizen — to seek attorneys fees.

“Crucially, Judge Williams finds that the abuse is committed equally by Trump’s private lawyers and the Todd Blanche’s Department of Justice, with DOJ’s conduct ‘equally untenable.’ Blanche’s DOJ ‘disregarded DOJ policies, and accomplished objectives beyond those authorized, as well as those specifically prohibited, by law.’

“If the Senate needed an additional reason not to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, it just got it.”

On Monday, 12 state attorneys general launched an antitrust suit to block the proposed $111 billion merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery. California Attorney General Rob Bonta led the multistate lawsuit, joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington.

“The unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the U.S.,” Bonta said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

The combination of these two massive entertainment and news companies would create a media colossus with CBS, CNN, HBO, Nickelodeon and the Warner Bros. and Paramount film studios — among other major media properties — all under one roof. The deal’s announcement in 2025 spurred widespread protests led by a coalition of First Amendment advocates, unions, consumer-rights groups, and Hollywood actors and directors.

Free Press and others opposing the mega-merger explain that the deal would give one company the power and incentives to raise prices, lay off thousands of workers and limit consumer options, while giving the Trump-aligned Ellison family the power to shape public discourse at the president’s direction in exchange for the administration’s regulatory approval. That’s why administration officials like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have openly rooted for the Ellisons to obtain CNN, based on their documented promises to make “sweeping changes” to the network to please Trump.

State attorneys general can sue to block mergers that violate federal and state antitrust laws. In March, California and New York attorneys general led a multistate coalition in suing to block the merger of broadcasters Nexstar and Tegna. Typically, state attorneys general have coordinated such antitrust suits with their federal counterparts at the Justice Department, but the Trump DoJ has shirked its consumer-protection duties in mergers involving favored Trump allies. Free Press and allies delivered hundreds of thousands of petitions opposing the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery deal to Attorney General Bonta’s office in May, and hosted rallies against Paramount’s corruption in New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

Free Press Co-CEO Jessica J. González said:

“Today we thank these state attorneys general for listening to the hundreds of thousands of people who have taken action to oppose this mega-merger. This deal would result in higher prices and fewer choices for consumers. It would open the door to wholesale layoffs across the news and entertainment industry and lead to less competition and more propaganda in news coverage.

“President Trump and his cronies want to rush this anti-competitive deal through because David Ellison has demonstrated time and again that he will leverage his control of his media empire to silence Trump’s critics and amplify MAGA propaganda. That’s corruption, plain and simple. Any merger of this scale would diminish creativity and diversity in entertainment, weaken journalists’ ability to hold those in power accountable and further endanger our democracy. This is especially true when the Ellisons are in charge. To win approval for their takeover of CBS News, the Ellisons promised to gut hard-hitting reporting across the network — and have gleefully followed through. And they’ll do the same to undermine editorial independence at CNN if they gain control of the global news network.

“The states’ challenge means that this corrupt merger is far from a done deal. While the administration won’t take a stand against the president’s billionaire cronies, we can still stop the Ellisons’ power grab. While Paramount is flaunting its corruption and toasting Trump officials, we’re standing with the workers and artists at the heart of the news and entertainment industries — and with the American people, who deserve a diverse and independent media system that works on their behalf, and against the self-interest of greedy billionaires and unethical politicians.”

Declaración sobre Autonomía, Democracia Radical y autodeterminación [ English ] [ Español ] [ Français ] [ Português] Redactado en la “Confluencia Global sobre Democracia Radical, Autonomía y Autodeterminación”, Port Edward, Sudáfrica, del 2 al 6 de febrero de 2025. Organizado por el Tejido Global de Alternativas, la Academia de Modernidad Democrática, WoMIN y el Comité de Crisis de Amadiba. Ver AlternativesAlternatives

Declaration on Autonomy, Radical Democracy and Self Determination [ English ] [ Español ] [ Français ] [ Português] Issued at ‘Global Confluence on Radical Democracy, Autonomy and Self-determination’, Port Edward, South Africa, 2-6 February 2025. Organised by Global of Alternatives, Academy of Democratic Modernity, WoMIN, Jineology and the Amadiba Crisis Committee. See alternativesalternativesAlternativesMASSAAlternativesGTAAlternatives

Registered nurses and resident physicians at University of California San Francisco will protest a UC Regents meeting on July 15 to highlight their patient safety concerns about boarding in the emergency department. Combined with existing unsafe staffing, the boarding has created unsafe conditions caused by providing patient care in waiting rooms and hallways.