News Feeds

On a Sunday in late March, more than four dozen United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers (UAW) union members joined a Zoom training put on by Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD), a UAW caucus. A year prior, in 2025, UAWD went through a divisive public split between reformers closely aligned with UAW President Shawn Fain and those who sought an independent caucus with a class-struggle focus. Coming out of that period, UAWD, in its current form, has set out to concretize and develop its organizational ideas.

The March training, called “Class Struggle Unionism 101 Training,” was part of those ongoing efforts. It aimed to provide new rank-and-file organizers with basic skills “to build strong teams, develop an escalation plan, and win fights against the boss,” according to the meeting’s billing.

For anyone who’s attended an introductory labor organizing course like those hosted by Labor Notes, the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee, or other left-leaning labor groups, large chunks of the presentation would be familiar. The training explained the historical role of unions in the U.S., showed the century-long downward trend of unions with a graph charting union density against broader income inequality, and spoke to the crisis faced by workers everywhere and the need for them to organize, now more than ever.

The second half of the presentation presented tried-and-true organizing strategies for the shop floor, beginning with coworker support mapping and tactical issue escalation schema. These modes of organizing are now common in any union organizing training aimed at empowering workers.

It was the first half of the UAWD presentation that one won’t find offered in the typical union organizing space today. It discussed the fundamentals of class struggle–a deliberate framing that placed workers at odds with the owners of the means of production. UAWD co-chair Nolan Tabb, a long-time member of Local 281 at John Deere in Davenport, Iowa, identified what class-struggle unionism boils down to in one word: power.

“Class-struggle unionism recognizes that, at the end of the day, it’s all about power: who has it, who doesn’t; how we build it, how we use it,” Tabb said during the Zoom training. The dynamic, he went on to explain, was a struggle between two competing classes, those that work and those that rule, with goals that work directly against each other.

“These opposing interests can’t be reconciled, and they can’t coexist. That means we have to fight,” said Tabb.

This rhetoric of boss antagonism and worker power fills speeches made by labor leaders and their supporters, all of whom are eager to capture the current moment of enthusiasm. For example, UAW President Shawn Fain has blasted “corporate greed,” “company unionism,” and pledged to fight for “the good of the entire working class.” The result is that hearing terms like “rank-and-file organizing” and “class warfare” now make it hard to pin-down a meaningful idea. This doesn’t appear accidental. The rhetoric of the labor bureaucracy and its backers gets defined on the shop floor and in meetings of the local. It’s made real in the power union members are invested with, in their day-to-day work space, in the say they have over working conditions, and in the role they have in building the union itself.

UAWD clearly sees a gap (or a chasm) between the words of union leaders and the deeds of the union as it operates in reality. Whereas generations of business-friendly unionism have reduced most labor battles to so-called “bread-and-butter issues” of wages and benefits, the focus on class-struggle unionism that UAWD advocates for harkens back to the heyday of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the early 20th century and the battles over virtually every aspect of working conditions. Not only are economic demands on the table, but the decisions about hours and shifts, safety and production output, and even what goods and services are actually produced.

The idea that owners had the “right” to run their companies however they like? Tabb called that idea “bullshit.”

Over the last year, UAWD has worked to mold itself into something that stands in contrast to much of today’s structured labor organizing efforts: avowedly militant, steeped in broad class solidarity, and focused first and foremost on workers themselves as the central figures–both to be organized and to be empowered, on the job and in the union. Those involved in these efforts are not shy about their struggles. Nor do they grandstand about outcomes; if anything, they’re hyperrealistic about the challenges ahead and the potential for failure.

UAWD has worked to mold itself into something that stands in contrast to much of today’s structured labor organizing efforts: avowedly militant, steeped in broad class solidarity, and focused first and foremost on workers themselves.

A year after the split, despite the difficulties, today’s UAWD is providing both a new and revived historical model for organizing, one that has the potential to challenge the way business is done in the C-suite and the union hall alike.

Left evolution

The split that divided UAWD in 2025 was never inevitable. But in hindsight, a number of factors made it much more likely.

Since the late 1940s, the UAW existed under the one-party rule of the Administrative Caucus, which began with Walter Reuther. It ended when federal prosecutors put away a baker’s dozen UAW leaders, including the president of the international, on corruption charges in 2020. This opened a window of opportunity that reformers, led by UAWD, quickly took advantage of in 2021 by winning a union-wide referendum to change the voting process for union leadership to a one-member-one-vote system. The success of that campaign led the fledgling UAWDto assemble and lead the campaign for a new leadership slate that saw Shawn Fain and a number of others elected as reformers.

Yet the questions of UAWD’s politics–what the caucus, only a few years old, would stand for following its successful campaigns–began to crystallize during the first major test of Fain’s leadership. In Summer 2023, Fain took the union into conflict with the “Big 3” automakers during a series of simultaneous contract negotiations–a bold first. Ultimately, the union would secure tentative agreements from all three companies. What role, then, would UAWD play, if any, to help the union’s leadership secure support for the proposed contracts?

Two competing views began to develop, although not yet with clearly defined groupings or fully-formed strategies, setting the stage for the tension within the caucus. One tendency adopted a loyalist reform stance that sought to keep itself and the caucus close to Fain and the rest of the new leadership, while prioritizing union reform. In contrast, another tendency sought to maintain UAWD as independent of leadership and, instead, beholden only to members. They would come to identify themselves almost a year later as the class-struggle wing.

Two competing views began to develop…setting the stage for the tension within the caucus. One tendency adopted a loyalist reform stance…In contrast, another tendency sought to maintain UAWD as independent of leadership.

At the end of August 2023–weeks before the Big 3 strikes began–a resolution was put forward within UAWD that called for weekly membership meetings as long as a strike continued, as well as members’ meetings to discuss and debate any tentative agreement. Ultimately, the resolution passed, but the internal debate foreshadowed the groupings that would come to define the split, with those eager to show independence strongly supporting the measure, hoping to empower rank-and-file workers to make their own call on any agreement, and those opposed more concerned about the impact on Fain and the rest of UAW leadership.

By early 2025, the year-plus of internal conflict within UAWD was reaching a crisis point. A few months earlier, at the annual UAWD convention, a slate close to the union’s leadership won a majority of the caucus’s steering committee. Fain himself made an appearance. Members of the class-struggle wing claimed the win was bolstered by paper members and support from more progressive members of the Administrative Caucus, the long-time leadership caucus UAWD worked to defeat in the 2022 election, who had come to align with Fain in the years since.

Disagreements about the future of UAWD persisted. The class-struggle wing continued organizing around its priorities and winning when it did so. This was made possible by the fact that it aligned with the vast majority of the caucus’s active members in manufacturing and other sectors. The pro-Fain reform wing would later point to debates during this period as being highly politicized and designed as “a political litmus test,” with the debate over support for Palestine, in their words, an example of high-minded union activists who had lost sight of the shop floor.

Yet the class-struggle group took on a full array of issues, including support for Palestine, that were important to workers, and won. They took on the Federal monitor over his improper interference in UAW’s internal policy decision making, calling his actions “an example of the government and the billionaire class working to undermine our union’s political independence”. They spearheaded resolutions that rescinded endorsements for two UAW leaders, Margaret Mock and Rich Boyer, over failures in office. They anchored UAWD’s Electric Vehicle committee, which raised awareness about mass layoffs. They argued against Fain’s support of Trump’s tariffs in trainings, voted down a resolution to disenfranchise non-manufacturing workers, and launched a campaign to organize for a bottom-up general strike in 2028.

On March 26, 2025, a majority of the UAWD steering committee, all Fain-backing reformers, released a statement. Members of the caucus could “no longer work together toward common goals,” they said. While they believed in the need for a caucus like UAWD, the current group had become “one that is constantly engaged in insular debate that distracts from the work of building the union.” The class-struggle wing issued a rebuttal to the claims of the steering committee majority and reaffirmed the principles of class-struggle unionism.

At the UAWD membership meeting the following month, the steering committee majority pushed through its resolution to dissolve the caucus. Members of the class-struggle wing later found at least seven caucus members, including Ben Rosenfield—a member of the Association of Legal Advocates and Attorneys, UAW Local 2325—who appeared blocked from access to the Zoom meeting where the vote took place. Rosenfeld later asked: “How can such a vote be seen as legitimate?” The activists also detailed a long list of issues and procedural violations by the leadership of UAWD during the meeting, including allowing a majority vote to pass the dissolution proposal, despite bylaws calling for a supermajority. Ultimately, thanks to undemocratic tactics like those faced by Rosenfield, the class-struggle wing believes that a swing of more than two-dozen votes went towards dissolution, which was more than the 23-vote margin by which it passed at the meeting.

Ultimately, thanks to undemocratic tactics… the class-struggle wing believes that a swing of more than two-dozen votes went towards dissolution [of UAWD].

“In all aspects, in all angles, it was a coup; that’s what it was,” said Tabb.

Regroup, refocus

Today, UAWD is the project of the class-struggle unionism faction and the majority of UAWD’s pre-split active membership, while those committed to continuing the reformist tack that is aligned with UAW leadership split off to create a new organization called UAW Member Action. The postdiluvian afterlife of each caucus provides a window into what separates both the theory and the practice of class-struggle unionism from mainstream union organizing found in most labor spaces today.

On UAW Member Action’s website, the caucus states it is a “union-wide network of members supporting each other to stand up to employers, grow as activists and organizers, and carry on the transformation of our union at every level.” Its bylaws have a heavy focus on the collective bargaining process and the role of contracts between workers and management. Under its “Resources” section these priorities– “UAW Contracts,” “Contract Negotiations,” “Grievance Handling”–are alongside support for the union’s bureaucratic structure: “Stewards Network,” which looks to connect officials to “troubleshoot handling grievances, building member involvement, and enforcing our contracts;” and “Running for Union Office,” a how-to if one is considering a position.

The contrast between the public presentations by UAWD and Member Action points directly to the gulf between the now-separate aims and agendas. UAWD member Nevena Pilipović-Wengler, out of Local 22 in Detroit, sees the two groups as coming out of “fundamentally different starting points.” She noted that the word “class,” working or otherwise, appears nowhere in Member Action’s bylaws or on its website.

“We have two very different projects. They think having elected positions locked down is what will lead to victories for the working class. We believe that it actually starts on the shop floor and through the politics of challenging capital, like fighting layoffs and overloaded jobs, and ending forced overtime,” Pilipović-Wengler said. “I think Members Action is thinking about reform within the constraints of labor law and within the constraints of capital. I don’t think they’re interested in increasing worker control of not just the shop floor, but in the larger production process.”

Multiple requests to speak to someone from Members Action for this piece received no acknowledgement or response.

A class-struggle focus, UAWD argues, rests on the belief that workers themselves–not management, not union leadership–are where all organizing should begin and end. Critically, the focus is not simply on the four corners of a contract, or on the most efficient ways to handle the grievance process, or even on wages and benefits.

Class-struggle unionism begins with a different analysis entirely, one familiar to many of the Left. Yet the focus on “class-struggle” versus an overt socialist framing is intentional. While the “big picture” class-struggle discussion reads like a typical Marxist analysis of the extractive labor-value relationship between workers and capitalists, the class-struggle focus brings the larger picture framing down to the quotidian concerns most workers face. This is praxis for those not necessarily soaked in or sold on socialism, but who comprehend the curse capitalism sets upon us.

UAWD sees its work within the widening gap between the real-world experience of workers under capitalism and the unsatisfactory solutions offered by the reformist labor organizing efforts of UAW Member Action and others.

The theory rests on five core values presented in the UAWD Member Platform. The first is worker control. It is workers, not managers or owners (nor union bureaucrats) who should be in control–from the shop floor on up to how production and the supply chain are managed. But that first step is critical in this formulation; it’s not expressed in grandiose statements as much as through the slow, difficult, uncertain process UAWD is in now, of trying to develop UAWD chapters within locals across sectors.

“If the workers were to step outside with the bosses, the workers would win that fight,” Josh Trombley, a UAW Temp Organizer based in Region 9A, said during the UAWD presentation. “You and your coworkers are the drivers of change. Our power comes from working together with our coworkers. Our power doesn’t come from our bosses, the government, from union staff, or even elected union leaders…you must be the ones to actually take action.”

The next is militancy. Union leaders, in particular, are fond of tough talk about the power of unionized workers, but the reality is that militancy has become a dirty word in business unions. Class-struggle unionism seeks to return the willingness to be overtly confrontational to the core of worker organizing. Wildcat strikes, sitdowns, slowdowns–these and more need to be on the table for workers, even as UAWD acknowledges most workers aren’t yet ready to take militant action.

The third is working class solidarity, one that extends beyond a local or a sector, that stretches beyond borders and industries. Democracy is the fourth value, placing decision-making in the hands of workers, not as an ideal but as “a strategic form of organizational power building,” according to the UAWD website. Lastly, independence–from not only union leadership, but more broadly in mainstream politics as a key towards charting a different and better course.

UAWD organizers are okay if this means not everyone is on board. UAWD co-chair Andrew Bergman, based out of General Motors Local 22 in Detroit, explained this understanding as one of concentric circles. Too small a circle, like the one a socialist-explicit formulation might create, would likely be focused on distant, abstracted political goals, failing to attract enough people or to meaningfully advance shop-floor activity or class-struggle politics, especially given UAWD’s goal of building organized branches within UAW locals across sectors.

Too big and broad a focus, which Bergman likened to the way UAWD operated prior to the split, would have the opposite issue: it could attract a broader group of people, of both viewpoints and numbers, but it would struggle to articulate a core motivation for action that would translate to local organizing.

“After the split, we realized that it wasn’t just our internal structure that allowed UAWD to be captured by the leaders we elected, it was our unclear political goals: a vague, apolitical notion of democracy and reform,” said Bergman. “In that way, having a smaller group of only a couple hundred more committed cadre was almost a good problem to have, because it meant we needed to be long-sighted and not imagine we already had the ideas, formations, or members necessary to race to the finish line.”

In that Goldilocks space is class-struggle unionism.

If there’s a specific dividing line between the class-struggle approach and what most labor organizing efforts look like these days, it’s in the relationship between workers and the union itself. This broad generalization has ample caveats. But it means that, whereas most organizing is focused on the structures of the union itself–the need for ratification through the approved legal process, the focus on their bureaucratic structure, the solutions to workers’ problems through contractual negotiations alone–are taken as givens, necessities, rather than choices made.

If there’s a specific dividing line between the class-struggle approach and what most labor organizing efforts look like these days, it’s in the relationship between workers and the union itself.

Tapping a more radical tradition, class-struggle unionism necessarily rejects this framing. But it also goes further, making the union itself a space of contest and struggle, where organized workers must also fight to make their goals real in the face of an entrenched bureaucracy that is more interested in labor peace than worker control. These battles come at every level, from the struggles on the shop floor created by both management and union officials, to the loftier goals of a union that fights against state violence or for control over the means of production–something that seems today wildly out of reach, but which locals within UAW itself fought for at times in the early 20th century.

As Judith Stepan-Norris and Maurice Zeitlin note in “Left Out: Reds and America’s Industrial Unions,” in the 1930s and 40s radical organizers in UAW Local 600 at the Ford River Rouge plant–the largest industrial manufacturing complex the world had ever seen–were unwilling to cede conditions on the shop floor, and beyond, to control from above: “For working-class radicals or socialists, ‘management rights’ [‘to decide not only what they produce but how they produce it’] are neither ‘inherent’ nor legitimate; on the contrary, such alleged rights constitute, in their view, a quasilegal form of illegitimate class power.”

For UAW organizers of the day, Stephan-Norris and Zeitline write, this “struggle over the frontier of control in American industry” opened up the possibility of a formalized relationship between labor and management that put workers in control of greater parts of their work life and, intentionally, raised the specter of the ability to gain control of a bigger swath of the broader social system as a whole. Quoting a management expert who interviewed radical workers at the time, those interviewed indicated that, “[i]n both spheres [state and industry] they see the necessity of controlling authority in the interests of those who take the orders.”

This, then, is the shared spirit class-struggle unionism seeks, at least in theory, to embrace. In today’s labor dynamic, this means a battle not only with the ownership class, but with business unionism that long ago yielded to the interests of capital.

Comparing notes

UAWD is not alone among militant efforts within major trade unions. However, there is a contrast of styles in these efforts, with different priorities and tactics allowing for a useful comparison of strategies that ultimately have similar, if not mirror, end goals.

Shortly before Shawn Fain led UAW through its contract process with the Big 3 automakers in 2024, labor supporters were focused on another major contract battle. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, led by the pugnacious Sean O’Brien, was poised for negotiations with UPS.

UPS is the single-largest employer of Teamsters in the country. The approximately 300,000 Teamsters working at the company account for roughly a third of all the union’s members in the U.S. The looming contract fight presented a rare and unique opportunity to see a major union fight to undo years of givebacks and clawbacks from one of the most recognizable companies in the world.

For part-timers, who make up more than 60 percent of the unionized workforce at UPS, this was also a moment of much-needed action. Conditions for part-time workers were far worse than those of full-time UPS employees, and many part-timers saw O’Brien’s bombast ahead of threatened strikes as an encouraging sign that he would fight for them.

The strike never came. The tentative contract agreement, hammered out between UPS and union leadership behind closed doors, failed to live up to expectations for many, including part-time workers. Ahead of the ratification vote, a group of these workers formed a new caucus, Teamsters Mobilized, to urge their coworkers not to accept O’Brien’s deal. They, too, faced a split with a reform faction within the Teamsters that had become closely tied to the union leadership: Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) had helped propel O’Brien to victory and were unresponsive to concerns about the plight of part-time workers in the bargaining process, leading some of them to form Teamsters Mobilize.

The contract ultimately passed, but Teamsters Mobilize continued to grow as a force of its own. Today, it has expanded beyond its core of part-timers to include a broader base of Teamsters across sectors. As the caucus has developed and grown, the group has retained a militant formation with an activist focus. This has meant pushing the Teamsters on issues around Palestinian solidarity and anti-ICE efforts. It has also meant taking aim at the Teamster leadership, especially O’Brien, whose active flirting with Trump and bizarre rightward shift provide ample fodder.

Jess Lister has been with Teamsters Mobilize since the beginning. A part-time UPS worker in Georgia, Lister sees the organization’s focus as addressing a set of needs for a broad set of people.

“We all had these big ideas, even back then, about what Teamsters Mobilize could possibly lead to. We wanted it to be Teamsters, all industries, both part-time and full-time,” she said. “I think we would all agree that we’re thrilled with the growth.”

Teamsters Mobilize operates at a high elevation. Group chats, with participants from across the country, provide central spaces for dialogue, information sharing, and planning. Political discussions, even arguments, get hashed out largely online. There are no Teamsters Mobilized local chapters to speak of; the closest formation is the unofficial SoCal Teamsters Mobilize grouping in California. While only Teamsters can be members, like-minded members of other unions or even non-union individuals have opportunities to be involved in the work. The group is currently going through a process of determining a membership-dues schedule.

“So many of these people thought we were a flash in the pan,” Lister said. “The fact is that not only are we still around; we’re actually doing a lot.”

Lister said that some discussion has occurred about developing more location-specific structures, likely by region. The focus currently is on utilizing online and social media channels as Teamsters Mobilize’s primary arena of agitation. This is conducted overwhelmingly on Instagram (the group is also active on Facebook). Their nearly 2,400 Instagram followers have seen a growth of content that features Teamsters Mobilize members at events, speaking directly to the camera about issues, and critiquing the regressive moves of the O’Brien administration, all in unvarnished left language.

For Lister, this is a strategy of growth grounded in principles that can help rebuild a militant labor movement.

“Anybody that wants to expose something, or bring awareness to something–or even a win, like, ‘I’ve accomplished this in my union, this is how I did it’–we want to put out more material educating people and bringing awareness to different things,” she said.

Chantelle Schultz has a particularly unique vantage point. She was an early member of Teamsters Mobilize as a part-time UPS worker in New Jersey. The Maoist Communist Union member is now with UAW Local 2179 in the Strand book shop’s warehouse, while continuing to work with Teamster Mobilize as a supporter.

Schultz is a firm believer in how Teamster Mobilize is looking to advance its purpose–and sees those efforts as something UAWD should likewise embrace.

“TM has had a particular emphasis on putting out media–instagram posts, blog posts, articles–to reach Teamsters members to talk about what the issues are that we face as workers, to talk about the issues of class collaboration in our unions, how the union leadership collaborates with the capitalist class and tries to get us to believe the lie that as workers we can have class harmony and shared interests with the capitalists and so on,” Schultz said, adding that there was a specific focus on addressing “working class position on all these issues that we see in society, economic and political” that include the war in Iran, the genocide in Gaza, and U.S. imperialism.

Schultz has been a member of UAW for a short period–since the autumn of 2025–and involved with UAWD for only a few months, but sees a qualifiable divide in the two organizational focuses. She sees that “there is an idea in UAWD that we should only focus on shop-floor organizing right now, and that we shouldn’t try to do national-scale organizing, or national-level campaigns, or spend much time on exposing what’s going on at [upcoming international union elections].”

“I think this is a mistake,” she said.

The “larger issue” of UAW’s overall business unionism orientation is tied directly to the issues on the shop floor: “We’re only going to be able to get so far in terms of organizing on the shop level if it’s not connected up on the national scale…In order to really fight for some principles about waging the class struggle, we need to not only think about our struggle as UAW members being on a national scale, but really as the class as being on the national scale.”

The solution? Be more like Teamster Mobilize: see social media as a vital arena for member outreach and propaganda, focus on broader sets of political and economic issues, and pick a fight with UAW’s leadership.

“There’s a difference in how much TM and UAWD have respectively criticized the international leadership of the two unions,” Schultz said. “Teamsters Mobilize…has put out very consistent, scathing criticism of O’Brien and the union leadership. TM sees this as absolutely necessary to expose him for what he is and to develop the necessary consciousness amongst Teamsters members to wage a militant fight. I think UAWD should have been putting out consistent criticism of Fain and other UAW leadership.”

This tactical focus is a familiar one to anyone who engages on social media with issues on the Left. Groups aplenty have developed outsized online presences that see combat by online posting as not only a legitimate way of advocating for their issues, but as the most effective. Outrage and frustration are easy to both find and stoke online, and this tactic seeks to connect with those most impacted by the messaging and the targets, in the hopes of persuading them to join in the fight.

It would be foolhardy and counterproductive for any group, be they an activist organization or a militant union caucus, to ignore the very real power social media plays these days in the lives of everyone, and most notably among younger generations. The question is not do or do not, but rather what are the political aims? Who are you trying to organize? What are the outcomes you’re looking to realize along these tactical lines?

Every set of choices has pros and cons. Here, the answer to the above points to two different projects. Teamsters Mobilized is a highly dispersed organization, one that was described as a reform-focused group by Jess Lister. Their aims are upwards; the fight focuses mainly on top union bosses and their allies, the capitalist ownership class, and the political actors who support them. The demands on these power structures hope to find resonance with individuals online, both Teamsters and others, who seek to join the fight.

This is a well-worn tactical array. Most issue-based nonprofits, and more than a few left groups, utilize a similar playbook of online-first advocacy around big-picture issues. The challenge (or problem, depending on one’s point of view) is that there isn’t a track record for success. Targeting individuals like union bosses doesn’t mean the next person is going to be any better. Building a network of individuals spread out all over the country means that very little collective action on physical ground is possible.

And while online advocacy is an indispensable part of any contemporary political fight, success in the digital realm is not a stand-in for success in the real world. Teamsters Mobilize has an Instagram account with 2,500 followers as of this writing. Some of their videos have gotten more than 400 likes at times, but many others received less than 200. In a world where interactions in the thousands are a baseline for meaningfulness, this strategy has a significant threshold yet to be met.

While online advocacy is an indispensable part of any contemporary political fight, success in the digital realm is not a stand-in for success in the real world.

As it pertains to UAWD, these issues, as realistic as they are, are almost insignificant. They aren’t targeting the same priorities. Rather than making the powered elite the specific target, the class-struggle perspective goes in the opposite direction, placing the organizational priority on organizing, developing, and growing shop-floor worker power. While both objectives are the overthrow of the extractive capitalist order, the focus on workers has the longer, more uncertain prioritization of a working-class movement built out of the shop floors, offices, and institutions that workers toil in every day.

The difficulties down this path are not lost on UAWD organizers.

“Our coworkers often see the bureaucracy as ineffective in providing an expected service, but don’t yet see our union as capable of waging or winning militant fights, even though they’re often ready to fight the bosses themselves,” UAWD’s Bergman said. “The challenge is to build up rank-and-file political and organizational capacity for collective struggle, which we’re working to anchor through local chapters and class struggle propaganda. We believe that when our coworkers are engaged in struggle and see their elected leaders collude with management to undermine them, then our critiques of the bureaucracy will resonate much more broadly.”

The future is uncertainty

As of early June 2026, UAWD has approximately 200 dues-paying members. There are currently three chapters organized with union locals across the country, with a number of additional ones in the pipeline. To better serve its educational and propaganda purposes, it launched a new publication, Daily Struggle, last October, because, as an editorial note in the first issue stated, the “lack of any serious response by organized labor to the attacks on our unions, our rights, and the very principles of democracy and equality since the start of Donald Trump’s second term points to the need for a renewal of independent working-class militancy.“ Recent articles include a look at commitments by UAW Local 2325, the legal services workers in New York City, to authorize a strike to resist ICE, and a critique of the grievance process and how it can be used in more militant ways. UAWD recently published its second issue.

Labor organizers, staff, activists, and press will gather in mid-June for the annual Labor Notes conference in Chicago. During the registration process, Labor Notes informed Teamsters Mobilize steering committee member Colleen Donovan that they were refunding her registration, in effect banning her from the conference. TM has spent weeks highlighting the decision, conducting an online campaign on social media over Donovan’s ban, and has plans to host actions during Labor Notes. UAWD has minimal plans for Labor notes, with those members attending focusing on connecting with rank-and-file UAW members present and sharing copies of Daily Struggle.

For UAWD, a larger organizational get-together looms. UAW is holding its annual constitutional convention in Detroit immediately after Labor Notes this June. The caucus has released its “Class Struggle ConCon Program” ahead of the event. Two priority amendments have been put forward. The first calls for the union to actively fight layoffs–the Big 3 are estimated to have cut more than 20,000 jobs so far in 2026–by demanding work sharing across individual bargaining units. The second would call for the abolition of ICE and other attacks by the state on workers.

UAWD organizers know they are far from having the internal strength to push a union as big as UAW to not only left political priorities like standing up to ICE but to even to take a more aggressive stance towards work losses. Winning amendment fights isn’t the goal right now; being able to argue for these kinds of ideas and actions among the wider union membership is a win of its own kind.

“We put [the amendments] forward knowing they weren’t something we could win, but we wanted to show people what workers could demand if we wanted to,” said Margie Thornton, the recording secretary for UAWD and a member of the legal services UAW Local 2320 in Colorado.

The hope is that the path forward of leading by example within the larger union context, developing a working class propaganda arm to speak directly to workers on the shop floor about shop floor issues, and continuing to develop local UAWD chapters inside UAW locals is the right one.

Navruz Baum works in legal services as a paralegal and is a member of UAW Local 2325 in New York City. He is a veteran of the split last year and, since then, has been actively developing a UAWD chapter with his coworkers in Local 2325.

For him and other UAWD organizers, this will remain the priority.

“Our chapters are very, very young. I think we chartered our first chapter, like, two months ago. We’re still very much implementing and growing this strategy,” he said.

Despite these still early and modest beginnings, Baum feels that UAWD has “an outsized presence” within the larger UAW universe–through their policy activism, Daily Struggle, and influential members on shop floors. Even so, there is little appetite to leverage what resources there are to pick fights with the powers that be in the union.

“The focus is very much on growing a base for class-struggle unionism. We’re going to do what we can with these moments, and we’re bringing our program to the [UAW constitutional convention], but the forces that are against, the more conservative unionism, they’re much stronger than us in the UAW. They have firm control of the bureaucracy, of the [union’s leadership]; there’s a lot stacked against us. We’re not under any illusions about that,” Baum said.

This goal–the hope–is that this slow-boil process will spread, creating ever-more pockets within locals committed to the vision of class-struggle unionism, until a critical mass can take the fight to the next level–and beyond.

“We really see these moments as a means, not the end. Winning a battle over an amendment, or even winning control of the UAW–these aren’t the big goals,” Baum said. “At the end of the day, the big goal, the big strategy, is to win the working class over to class struggle.”

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Unite All Workers for Democracy; modified by Tempest.

The post UAWD Getting Back to the Future of Labor Organizing appeared first on Tempest.

When Ben Haywood moved to his current home in South Carolina, he quickly made two friends: The pair of Eastern Bluebirds that readily took to the nest box he put up outside his home in the spring of...

The global roadmap on transitioning away from fossil fuels now being developed should be a “continuing conversation” which is part of UN climate talks, not just a one-off report, several governments told the Brazilian COP30 Presidency on Friday in Bonn.

During a 90-minute exchange of views at the annual mid-year climate talks in Germany, several European governments and the Marshall Islands said the roadmap that Brazil is due to finish by November should be incorporated into the official negotiations.

Any such push is likely to be resisted by nations whose economies are reliant on fossil fuel production. While Russia did not speak on Friday, it has said in earlier written submissions that the roadmap should not be referenced in any document approved by governments at UN climate talks. 

At COP30 last year, Brazil tried to get governments to agree to produce a roadmap on how to transition away from fossil fuels but the proposal did not win consensus, with major nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia opposed. 

Feedback in Bonn

To save the day, Brazil’s COP30 president André Aranha Corrêa do Lago promised at the closing plenary in Belem to draw up a voluntary roadmap in consultation with interested governments. Over 20 countries have officially submitted their opinions on this roadmap and, in Bonn on Friday, Corrêa do Lago sought their views – and those of civil society – in person after the presidency presented its findings so far.

The roadmap will also incorporate outcomes from the first global conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels held in Santa Marta, Colombia, in April and attended by around 60 countries. 

A negotiator for the Marshall Islands told Friday’s meeting that at COP31 this year all governments should “welcome the collaborative effort behind the roadmap and the Santa Marta conference and for this work to be taken on to COP32 and beyond”.

• Jun 11, 2026 Politics Fewer journalists register for Bonn talks, as cuts to climate reporting bite UN data shows a smaller number have signed up to cover the mid-year climate negotiations in Germany than in any year since the COVID-19 pandemic Read more
• Jun 9, 2026 Politics COP31 leaders unveil global targets, with spotlight on electrification Co-hosts Türkiye and Australia want countries to sign on to global targets in three of their priority areas for this year’s COP climate negotiations Read more

A spokesperson for Switzerland said on behalf of a group of nations which includes South Korea and Mexico that the roadmap must be a “sustained process, not a one-off report” and “we would welcome an ongoing platform for dialogue, for learning and cooperation including among fossil-fuel production countries”.

“We expect more than a document, rather a process whereby we come together to develop concrete steps, recommendations and tools to prepare for the transitions,” she said, calling on the COP31 co-presidents Australia and Turkiye and COP32 host Ethiopia to “take up the leadership” for implementing the roadmap”.

Global stocktake response

France’s negotiator said the roadmap “is a process and we will need continuing discussions” as “implementation needs time”, while the UK called for a “continuing conversation, including as we head towards the second [global stocktake]”. 

The global stocktake (GST) is an official five-yearly report into how the world’s governments are doing on their Paris Agreement goal to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures.

The second stocktake will be published in 2028 and governments are likely to negotiate a response to it, which could include new commitments to reduce emissions, at COP33 that year. The response to the first global stocktake included the landmark COP28 commitment to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems.

Activists and Indigenous people take part in a Stop EACOP campaign protest against fossil fuels during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belem, Brazil, November 13, 2025. REUTERS/Adriano Machado Activists and Indigenous people take part in a Stop EACOP campaign protest against fossil fuels during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belem, Brazil, November 13, 2025. REUTERS/Adriano Machado

“Even though it’s not a formal part of the negotiation agenda, the roadmap can be a key input for the entire information-gathering phase of the second GST,” Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis, an independent climate policy consultant, explained to Climate Home News. 

“The key is for countries not to focus the discussion on defending the roadmap itself, but rather on its content, which is what truly matters,” he added.

At the Bonn event, civil society organisations also supported continuing the roadmap inside the formal climate process.

Natalie Jones, policy adviser for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, told Climate Home News the roadmap should be “an ongoing dialogue where countries can exchange their experiences, best practices and continue implementing the [transitioning away from fossil fuels] consensus”.

Russian resistance

But economies reliant on fossil fuel production are likely to oppose incorporating the roadmap into negotiations in Bonn and at COP summits. Russia’s written submission to Brazil’s consultation says the roadmap was not agreed by governments at COP30.

It says such work should therefore take place on the margins of the UNFCCC process, adding that “ the inclusion of any references to the “Roadmap” in the agenda or in official or informal documents” at Bonn or COP “would constitute a deviation from previously agreed consensus outcomes”.

Other major oil and gas producers like Saudi Arabia have not made written or spoken submissions and the US, as it has left the Paris Agreement, is not involved in discussions. But countries other than Russia are likely to resist incorporating the roadmap into official talks.

The UN climate process needs ambition – the law demands it

The submission by Japan, which is not a major producer of fossil fuels but consumes them from overseas, suggests nervousness about the roadmap. It asks Brazil for clarity on how the roadmap is “envisaged to be utilised” and argues that as many countries continue to rely on fossil fuels for electricity, a full and fast shift to “full decarbonisation” is “challenging.

After Friday’s event, Corrêa do Lago told Climate Home News that “the suggestions and the key milestones of the roadmap are not clear yet”. He added that the next step for the COP30 presidency will be to “sit down in July and August to really prepare” the content.

The veteran Brazilian diplomat added that the roadmap will have a section on the challenges of the transition and another section on solutions.

National fossil fuel roadmaps

Brazil, as COP30 president, is drawing up the global roadmap but its leader Lula da Silva has also ordered his officials to draw up a national roadmap. 

In April, France became the first and so far only nation to produce a roadmap, which amalgamated different existing energy and decarbonisation plans and targets. Colombia is reportedly drawing up a roadmap too, based on a draft document by academics.

On Friday, a coalition of nearly 100 civil society organisations called on the COP31 co-presidents Australia and Türkiye to both come up with national roadmaps in order to “lead by example”. Türkiye produces about a third of its electricity from coal, while Australia is the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter, the NGOs said.

But in the Brazil-led consultation meeting, a Norwegian negotiator downplayed the importance of separate national roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

While they can “have a supporting role”, the official said countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) “must remain the primary vehicle for driving global climate transition.” 

NDCs are climate plans, usually containing emissions reduction targets, which the Paris Agreement states governments must update with higher ambition every five years. 

The post European, island states seek clear future for global roadmap to cut fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

Nurses at Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital in Chicago returned to work today following their one-day strike against Prime Healthcare’s illegal firings of six nurses. After hundreds took to the strike line on June 11, nurses are back at the bedside ahead of next week’s election to join National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United, the country’s largest nurses union.

MEDIA ADVISORY

For Immediate Release

Just or Bust:

Will Bonn deliver a truly just transition, or bust the phase-out with false solutions?

Bonn, Germany— Saturday marks the close of week one of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Bonn, Germany. With only one more week left to go, so much remains to accomplish before these negotiations– SB64 – can be considered a true success. 

In one room, governments are discussing the next steps for the Just Transition Mechanism, which was agreed at COP30 thanks to the sustained organising of civil society and movements. But importantly, the creation of a mechanism alone does not guarantee justice. A central question in Bonn is whether the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) will be people-powered, align with just transition principles and become fully operational by 2027. 

In other rooms, governments– especially from Global North countries– are seeking to seed carbon markets in place of true climate finance and ramp up dangerous, risky technologies like geo-engineering in place of keeping fossil fuels in the ground. All of this equates to those who have done the most to cause the climate crisis orchestrating their great escape from accountability and liability. 

What are the differences between false solutions and real solutions that will advance a just transition and help address the climate crisis?And is progress so far at the Bonn climate negotiations meeting expectations? Join members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) as we close week one of the UN Bonn climate talks to hear more about the state of negotiations and what governments must make happen in week two.

WHEN: Saturday 13 June 2026, 11-11.30 CEST (UTC + 2) 

WHERE: Nairobi 4, Main building, Inside the World Conference Center and webcast here

WITH: 

• Nona Chai, Just Transition Alliance 
• Theresa Rose Sebastian, Re Earth Initiative
• Ranjana Giri, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development
• Kaveri Choudhury, ETC group 
• Moderated by Rachitaa Gupta, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

CONTACT: dcj.comms@demandclimatejustice.org 

The post Media Advisory: Just or Bust appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

  In this June 11 webinar, MEIC outlined the major shortcomings in NorthWestern’s IRP, discussed what has been changed since NorthWestern released its Draft IRP in January, and gave tips on how to provide persuasive public comments to the PSC in writing and in person at the PSC’s upcoming public meetings this summer. NorthWestern’s IRP …

The post Webinar: NorthWestern Energy’s IRP Revisited: A Plan for Montana’s Energy Future and How You Can Get Involved appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

This article Time traveling to a 1980s ACT UP meeting through theater was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Imagine a murder mystery dinner party, where everyone sheds their true identity at the door and assumes a role to play in the night’s events — only instead of solving a crime, they must reenact a contentious activist meeting. That’s what artist David Wise tasks participants with in his immersive theater piece “Fight Back.” He recreates the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, or ACT UP, meeting on March 13, 1989 in the same room where it happened nearly 40 years ago. 

It’s impossible to sit in the same room in New York City’s LGBT Community Center where their meetings happened nearly 40 years ago without feeling the echoes of today’s governmental failures, and the urgent need for both resistance and mutual aid.

At the May 18 performance of “Fight Back” — which takes its title from ACT UP’s chant: “Act up! Fight Back! Fight AIDS!” — I did something we rarely have to do these days: relinquish checking and doomscrolling on my phone to spend uninterrupted time face-to-face with strangers, co-creating something from scratch. Nearly 40 of us had two and a half hours to make our way through a 26-item agenda, an education in ACT UP’s work. 

ACT UP is a direct action group formed during the AIDS epidemic to fight for visibility, healthcare access and an end to the crisis. To mark the second anniversary of the group’s formation, they were in the midst of planning Target City Hall — the kind of creative, high-profile direct action for which the group had become known — to protest Mayor Ed Koch’s failure to adequately address the AIDS crisis in New York City. 

By the beginning of 1989, more than 18,000 New Yorkers had been diagnosed with AIDS and over 12,500 had died. ACT UP was demanding affordable access to the highly toxic but potentially life-saving drug AZT, which had just come on the market a year earlier. They also demanded housing for people living with AIDS and changes to the Food and Drug Administration’s drug trial policy to give more patients hope. They demanded dignity for the living and the dead. In the midst of all this, members still found the time and space to plan fundraising parties and, more importantly, to flirt.

The 1980s was an era of phone trees and answering machines. We checked our cell phones at the door. The experience is an invitation to follow the advice writer Mira Jacob gave on Instagram earlier this year: “Stop scrolling. Do literally anything else … We’re going to prevail, but only if you don’t let this app scare you numb.” If you were mad in 1989 because your friends were dying at the hands of the government and you wanted to yell at someone about it, you had to show up to a meeting or participate in a phone zap or volunteer to surreptitiously print flyers at your office denouncing Mayor Koch as a closet case. (One attendee politely corrected our pronunciation of “Koch” — no relation to the present-day billionaire brothers who pronounce their last name “coke.”)

A smaller group within ACT UP gathers during David Wise’s experimental theater piece, a reminder that the organization was not a monolith. (Hong-An Tran)

The atmosphere in the room was tentative. Every question opened up a minefield that only the basic tenets of improv could answer: Say “yes, and” to help the scene unfold; make bold choices, even when you are unsure of them, and don’t “break” the illusion. Most of us had brought hastily scribbled notes about our assigned historical personas, pulled from summaries and the ACT UP oral history archive. This background helped with questions like, “What affinity groups are you in?” and “Is this your first meeting?” But they offered little to lean on when it came to more quotidian conversation starters, “Are you coming from work?” or “Are you out to your family?” Those we stumbled through, together.

I had been assigned the role of Bill Bahlman, my first part since a non-speaking role in the middle school production of “Schoolhouse Rock!” A lifelong New Yorker and a music journalist, Bill had been a part of the Gay Activists Alliance and the Gay and Lesbain Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD. A self-described anarchist, he sometimes found the groups to be too soft, particularly the Gay Activists Alliance’s discussions of whether to drink mixed drinks or soft drinks at their dances. He splintered off from GLAAD into the Lavender Hill Mob, a direct action group formed in 1986 and named after a British comedy film. The dozen members focused on AIDS activism and organized disruptive “zaps,” interrupting a CDC meeting, a Catholic mass and other high-profile events with leaflets and banners bearing slogans like, “Gays and lesbians will not be silenced!” 

When ACT UP formed in March 1987, Bill and many other Lavender Hill Mob members joined, but their affiliation and camaraderie with one another remained. While ACT UP is often remembered as a monolith, it was in practice a true coalition under which many smaller groups coalesced, including affinity groups like Delta Queens, La Cocina or Wave 3 that demonstrated together at actions.

Bill was slated to speak late in the agenda. The items were laborious in their minutia. Should the flyers Wave 3 planned to wheat paste around the city to gather people for Target City Hall in two weeks be printed in color, or black and white? Should we send three or four people to the Lesbian and Gay Health Conference in San Francisco? We rose from our chairs for civil disobedience training, half of us playing cops and half of us playing protesters gone limp to resist arrest, but then it was butts right back in seats. 

By the two-hour mark, I could no longer stifle my yawns. There may have been flirting at meetings, and even a little in our reenactment, but the agenda was a reminder that there is little instant gratification in organizing. It took much longer than an Amazon delivery or a ChatGPT response. This focus on consensus decision making has undergirded some of the most visible movements and organizations, like Occupy Wall Street, Jewish Voice for Peace and the Democratic Socialists of America. While they don’t offer an instant dopamine hit, the memorable actions and ballot wins delivered by these groups are clear evidence of their effectiveness.

#newsletter-block_7b6e49f1db5b793b9852a4a3908831a9 { background: #ececec; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_7b6e49f1db5b793b9852a4a3908831a9 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

There are no professional actors associated with the production. Every meeting member was a stranger assigned to play their role for one night only. That said, I recognized an actor from an old TV show who attended as a curious citizen. She had been assigned the role of our chant leader Ron Goldberg, and I expected that, given her background, she might be the one to voice the most objections. Or, I thought, they might come from the tall, brawny and bespectacled man who wore a Larry Kramer name tag, a historical figure whose outspoken anger and divisive politics had been a catalyst for ACT UP’s formation. Instead, the objections came from Karen Ramspacher, a 24-year old curatorial assistant played by a middle-aged white woman seated in the back row with a bun on top of her head. “People are dying and we can’t cobble together the money for color printing?”

The meeting’s facilitators, one of whom I assumed must be Wise himself, tried to keep us on track. I kept glancing at my watch, hoping that time would run out before it was my turn to speak. When my name was called, my hands shook. I stood at the front of the room and looked out at the gathered crowd, some in their 50s, some in their 20s, many filling out the ages in between. I held the mic and spoke about Steve Zabel, my friend who I had found murdered in his apartment at the beginning of the month. The police had done nothing. What could we do to put pressure on them? Steve was just one man, but we all knew a Steve. To my surprise, everyone had ideas. The Media Committee wanted to take it to the press. The woman with the bun wanted to agitate with the neighbors. They had Bill’s back.

When the bell rang to return us to 2026, I made my way over to the outspoken woman, who in real life looked closer to 54 than 24.

“You were great!” I said, relieved to speak as myself again. “Really channeled the anger of the time.”

“I was there,” she said.

“What?”

The woman who had interjected so many times during “Fight Back” had attended ACT UP meetings as a teenager. She had a job in the 80s in Philly calling men to let them know where they were on the wait list to see the only doctor in the city who would treat AIDS patients. Many had died before their turn came. 

A little group gathered around to hear her story. One man shared that he had come to the center that night with a friend who had also been a part of ACT UP, but he had turned around at the door because she wasn’t ready to reopen the emotions of that time. Wise revealed himself to have been Iris Long from the Treatment and Data Committee, a cancer researcher determined to publicize the life-saving uses of aerosolized pentamidine. The reenactment of the meeting had, in fact, been facilitated by everyday people.

Later, the woman continued, she had worked as a social worker in New York City with young transvestites, as they called themselves then, and sex workers. At one point she was given one dose of AZT and had to choose who to give it to in her community. She didn’t realize at the time that the medication had to be taken once every 12 hours to be effective. Of course she was still angry.

#support-block_60b2657cb3d363e27ae29128da32576b { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

After everyone else dispersed, I lingered. The woman pointed across the room at her adopted daughter, a young Black woman whose biological parents had died of AIDS in Africa. She had remained in the global AIDS fight her whole life.

“If the AIDS crisis happened in New York today, we’d all be dead already,” she told me. “You had to be out there, you had to be visible, you had to be risking arrest to make yourself heard. Today everyone is stuck at home. You know what you have to do?”

I leaned in closer.

“Host a dinner party of strangers. You don’t even have to cook. Tell everyone to bring their favorite dish. People love to show off their culinary skills. Think about the seating arrangements. You don’t even need to set an agenda. That’s where political action comes from, talking to people.”

Wise had laid the groundwork for such unexpected offline encounters. His theatrical experiment will take place again on June 15, but Wise hopes to make his impressive research on these figures widely available someday, so school groups and others can try to reenact the meeting on their own.

Art about AIDS abounds. For starters, there’s “Rent” and there’s “Angels in America,” there’s Sarah Schulman’s “People in Trouble,” Rebecca Makkai’s “The Great Believers,” and, more recently, Natalie Adler’s “Waiting on a Friend.” Those pieces invite sorrow and rage, empathy and memory in equal measure. “Fight Back” invites you to act.

This article Time traveling to a 1980s ACT UP meeting through theater was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

The power purchase agreement builds on the existing partnership between the tech giant and renewable energy company, which are backing several solar projects across the U.S.

The plaintiffs argued the 11 projects – located in New York, Oregon, Connecticut, Minnesota and Colorado – were targeted because those states voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris.

Rushed environmental reviews won’t speed up new mines. Evidence suggests it slows them down

Cutting environmental red tape to speed up mining in America has become a popular talking point across party lines. On the right, the Trump administration has made expediting mineral production a signature effort; on the left, the “abundance” movement argues that faster permitting is essential to building a clean energy future. But both arguments rest on a flawed premise.

Research and real-world examples show that “permitting reform” targets the wrong problem, and the proposed solutions from both sides increase delays and opposition to projects, not reduce them.

As former Interior department official Steve Feldgus explained in a recent episode of the Center for Western Priorities podcast, The Landscape, and as University of Utah researcher Jamie Pleune lays out in a forthcoming article titled “Red tape is a red herring,” the real obstacles to responsible mining lie elsewhere: misleading industry claims, financing and market dynamics, inadequate agency staffing, and a loss of public trust.

Much of the problem starts with flawed statistics that purport to pinpoint singular bottlenecks in the process of developing a mine. For example, mining industry advocates frequently claim that it takes between seven and ten years to permit a mine in the United States, citing a report that was funded by, among others, the National Mining Association. However, as both Feldgus and Pleune point out, this industry-funded report notes that its authors did not do independent research to arrive at this statistic, and that it relied on data provided by “third parties,” including the National Mining Association.

Statistics on mine development timelines are also inconsistent regarding when the clock starts and what parts of the process are included. Most mines begin with exploration, where individuals or companies search for minerals, assess whether mining those minerals would be profitable, and seek investors to finance development of a mine. As Pleune notes, exploration that disturbs five acres or less of public land does not require a mining plan—the person or company just has to notify the Bureau of Land Management—and for exploration that disturbs more than five acres and requires an exploration plan, those approvals are usually granted in six months or less. So permitting does not delay exploration, and yet exploration is often included in mine development timelines that blame permitting for how long mine development takes.

The Mountain Pass rare earths mine in California, Tmy350 via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

Pleune also points out that in some cases, a smaller mining company may start exploration and then negotiate with a larger company to take over development of an actual mine. Negotiating these deals adds to the timeline, and permitting is not responsible for causing delays at this stage. Arranging financing for mine development is another large and complex hurdle that extends mine development timelines. As Pleune explains, investors prefer projects that offer predictable returns on short timeframes with manageable risks; most mining projects check none of these boxes, making financing challenging to secure. Global minerals markets and geopolitical dynamics introduce even more complexity into mine development. A company might complete its permitting process, but decide to wait for more favorable market or geopolitical conditions before it begins operations—again, dragging out the timeline and blaming permitting when it’s actually other factors driving production decisions.

Feldgus points to the Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada as a recent example of a misleading timeline. Lithium was discovered there in the 1970s, but no effort was made to develop a mine until much more recently when demand for lithium had skyrocketed—yet advocates for permitting reform claim that the Thacker Pass mine has taken 40 years to develop and blame permitting for the delay.

Aerial view of the Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey

Other legitimate examples do exist of mines that have genuinely taken decades to permit, but in those cases, as Feldgus points out, “There’s a reason it takes that long. You’re trying to build a mine next to a wilderness area or in a very sensitive fishery. These are mines where people get very worked up and very concerned, and there’s a lot of political pushback. Mines can take a long time, but that’s not the NEPA process doing that.” In other words, this is the National Environmental Policy Act working as intended to ensure projects undergo rigorous review so the government and communities are aware of likely environmental damage.

For the most part, though, once the Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service has received a proposed mine plan, the process of reviewing the plan, seeking and reviewing public comment, and eventually approving the mine plan takes three to four years, even for the largest mines. However, both Feldgus and Pleune emphasize that mine plan approval is a small piece of a much longer process which includes exploration, technical and economic analysis, securing investors, and building trust with neighboring communities. In other words, Feldgus says, artificially limiting the environmental review process to two years (as was recently mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility Act passed in 2023) isn’t all that meaningful in the grand scheme of taking a mine from exploration to production. On the contrary, rushed environmental reviews can actually introduce more delays if they are flawed and can’t withstand legal challenges, or if they drive opposition to the project by creating a perception in the community that the project is being rushed and corners are being cut. A mining company may save a year in the NEPA process, but add five years in litigation or overcoming public opposition to the project.

Currently, Feldgus notes, “Congress is very fixated on the idea of speeding up the back end of things. ‘How do we get NEPA done as fast as possible? How do we cut off lawsuits so that these things don’t go through the courts for years and years?’ It’s all on the back end, basically.” A more helpful approach, according to Feldgus, would be to do more on the front end, in the form of early coordination between the mining company, the land management agency, and the local community. He mentioned the BLM in Nevada as an example of a state office that has successfully reduced timelines, without increasing conflict, by doing more and better early coordination.

Gypsum mining in Wyoming, BLM Wyoming

“What we have found, what mining companies find, what academic researchers find, is the best way to ensure better permitting is to do more early on. Talk to people early, engage with them, find out what their concerns are,” Feldgus says. “And the earlier and the more meaningful you make that engagement, the better the permitting process works, because you’re removing sources of conflict that are what causes things to take a long time on the back end.” Feldgus also notes that it’s up to the mining industry to do more of this front-end work to secure local support for projects. Building relationships and trust over time isn’t something that can be legislated or regulated by the government, and attempts to do so turn into empty box-checking exercises.

So what role should the federal government be playing? Both Feldgus and Pleune point to policy proposals that would address some of the issues that are delaying responsible mining projects. Many of these are outlined in a September 2023 Interagency Working Group report on potential mining reforms, which offered 65 recommendations. In Feldgus’s view, the biggest change that would address many issues at once would be to shift mining to a leasing system, similar to what currently exists for other resources such as oil and gas, and to make mining subject to land management planning the way other resources already are. These changes would bring mining into long-term landscape-scale planning processes that would identify and address conflicts and concerns at the outset, develop a plan to address them, and provide greater certainty for both the mining industry and other stakeholders over the years or decades that a land management plan remains in place. However, Feldgus doesn’t believe a shift to a leasing system is realistic anytime soon.

Pleune also emphasizes the need for sufficient experienced staff to review mine plans, citing a body of research that identifies agency budgets, staffing, and coordination as significant challenges that actually delay permitting but that lawmakers are less interested in addressing. “Without adequate staff that have the necessary expertise, an efficient, productive regulatory regime is highly unlikely, regardless of statutory reforms,” Pleune writes. She also points out that permits, while maligned by the mining industry, are tools used to implement laws and regulations that were passed by Americans’ democratically-elected representatives. In other words, permits protect the values and protections that Americans want to see protected. Weakening or eliminating permitting systems will reduce the public’s trust in the regulatory environment, which will in turn increase public suspicion of the mining industry and opposition to mining projects. In other words, if the public doesn’t trust the process, they will reject the outcome. For this reason, deregulation is an unsound long-term strategy for the mining industry and could destroy the public support that projects need to move forward.

Featured image: Oak Flat in Arizona, near the site of a proposed copper mine; Elias Butler/CC BY-SA 4.0

The post Red tape isn’t the problem appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Nearly 320,000 acres of public land in northwest Arizona have been nominated for oil and gas leasing since January 2025, despite geologists saying the region has little to no known oil or gas reserves.

The nominations came from Zonaco, LLC, a shell company traced by the Arizona Republic to Rodney Ratheal, a Utah man who settled a 2012 SEC civil action alleging he raised more than $4 million from roughly 100 investors for an oil and gas scheme on the same stretch of federal land, then spent about $3 million of it on himself. Ratheal confirmed his identity to Arizona Republic reporters who showed up at his house. He told them he’s still working out how to finance the effort, targeting older investors who “understand this may be the last time they see their money.”

That opportunity for Ratheal to do this exists because of changes to the federal leasing process. The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the $5-per-acre nomination fee, required BLM to hold quarterly lease sales regardless of market demand, and opened nominations to essentially any bidder. Nominating 318,000 acres under the new rules cost Ratheal approximately nothing, but prior to the new rules, it would have cost about $1.59 million. About 80,000 of the nominated acres are now scheduled for auction in December.

The BLM is not equipped to screen out nominations like these. Arizona lost 24 percent of its BLM workforce in 2025, and the Arizona Strip Field Office is processing this leasing surge without a staff geologist. “The BLM just doesn’t have the people to do this correctly,” said Center for Western Priorities Executive Director Aaron Weiss. “Because now the law says the BLM has to offer anything that’s a valid nomination.”

Burgum doubles down on support for selling off public land, cuts partnerships to get Americans outdoors

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum joined RFK Jr. in Grand Junction, Colorado to promote public lands as a public health resource. The next day, the Interior department announced it was cutting 43 partnerships with groups that help get Americans outdoors, including internship programs, conservation initiatives, and recreational access partnerships. Burgum also used the appearance to defend Senator Mike Lee’s failed proposal to sell off 2-3 million acres of public land, telling the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel that “in America, you can do two things at the same time.”

Quick hits Trump opens up Pacific marine national monuments to commercial fishing

The Hill | Seattle Times | Hawaii News Now | PBS | Newsweek

Senate committee passes Mike Lee’s Roadless Rule repeal amendment

Salt Lake Tribune | MeatEater | Source NM | Outdoor Life | Missoula Current | More Than Just Parks | Cowboy State Daily

Inside America’s ugly birthday battle

The Atlantic

At least five states are bowing out of Trump’s ‘Great American State Fair’

CNN | NOTUS

At this New Mexico park, mountain bikers pedal amid hundreds of oil wells

Source NM

Interior puts wilderness study areas under scrutiny

National Parks Traveler | Sierra Sun Times

$103M in federal contracts flows to Freedom 250 events

Public Citizen

American Prairie, conservation groups appeal bison grazing decision

Daily Montanan

Quote of the day

The administration is saying one thing and doing another—touting the outdoors as crucial for physical and mental health while cutting programs that increase access to outdoor recreation.”

—Kate Groetzinger, Communications Director for the Center for Western Priorities

Picture This @nationalparkservice

Me: I hate drama. I stay out of it.
Also me at the first sign of it:

The Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), a year-round resident across much of the continental U.S., is the ultimate drama chaser. This bird is lightning fast and highly agile when pursuing prey through forests or even suburban neighborhoods: Speeds can exceed 50 mph (80 km/h) during a chase or when they fly over to the neighborhood Facebook page after hearing a loud noise outside. Fun fact: unlike falcons, which rely on high-speed dives, Cooper’s Hawks are masters of agility and acceleration, weaving between trees with jaw-dropping precision. Their long tail acts like a rudder, enabling sharp turns to snatch birds such as doves, robins, and starlings. The drama!

Image: Cooper’s Hawk peeking over the fort’s wall @castillonps in Florida.

 

Featured photo: Paiute Wilderness, in the northwest portion of the Arizona Strip. Bob Wick/BLM

The post Trump’s new drilling rules encourage leasing where there’s no oil appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The Boone County, Nebraska Planning and Zoning Board is meeting on Monday, June 22 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss a proposed ordinance that would address CO2 pipelines in the county.

• WHAT: Public Meeting on CO2 Pipeline Ordinance
• WHO: Boone County, Nebraska Planning & Zoning Board
• WHEN: Monday, June 22, 7:30 p.m.
• WHERE: 222 South 4th St., Albion, NE, 68620

Landowners and residents of Boone County and others in the vicinity who want to protect property rights against eminent domain land seizures, and who oppose the risky Summit CO2 pipeline are encouraged to attend the meeting in person, and share their concerns.

Faced with the looming prospect of local landowners being targeted by Summit Carbon Solutions to obtain easements for its proposed risky CO2 pipeline, and potentially seeking to use eminent domain, elected leaders in Boone County are taking action to protect their community.

Last month, Boone County Commissioners held a public hearing to discuss a proposed moratorium on the construction of CO2 pipelines. Bold delivered a letter of support for the moratorium signed by over 150 Nebraskans during the hearing.

The move follows similar previous actions taken by neighboring counties. Stanton County unanimously denied Summit’s permit request in February 2024, and Dakota County tabled the company’s request in November 2025 and has since removed it from their agenda.

Bold Nebraska supported a bill introduced in the Nebraska Legislature in 2026, LB 916, which would have banned eminent domain for CO2 pipelines in Nebraska. Shelli Meyer, whose family’s land in Dixon County is threatened by the Summit pipeline, testified and Bold’s Founder Jane Kleeb also submitted testimony along with over 700 Nebraskans who wrote letters to their Senators urging them to support LB 916.

Bold will support another bill to ban eminent domain for CO2 pipelines next year.

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

The FIFA World Cup is here! Learn how you can get around to major summer 2026 events without a car, or being stuck in traffic with GoPhillyGo: Car-Free Routes Map!

Image Source: The Inquirer

The Inquirer: Philly has a new law to boost development around transit. Which neighborhoods will benefit? – City Council has approved a bill to incentivize denser and taller development around Philadelphia transit stations. City Council expanded the existing housing agenda to a quarter-mile radius around SEPTA rail, intercity bus stations, PATCO, water taxi, and some bus or trolley stops. However, the unique caveat making it different from other cities is that City Council must opt stations into the transit-oriented development policies. West Philadelphia representatives have opted in most Market Frankford Line stations, but no stops on the Broad Street Line have yet to be included. Factors making this difficult include different representative districts on the same transit lines and other political disagreements.

Image Source: WHYY

NBC Philadelphia: Safety, accessibility upgrades debut in along Market Street in Philly’s Old City – Ahead of the 250th celebrations in the city this summer, Market Street between 2nd and 6th has completed safety and accessibility improvements. Upgrades include new traffic and pedestrian signals, wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and accessible curb ramps. Improvements should continue across the city ahead of the 250th celebrations this summer.

Image Source: WHYY

BillyPenn: World Cup fans can take a hike — literally. Soccer enthusiasts in Philly can access Lemon Hill fan fest and other sites via trails – Philadelphia will host its first FIFA World Cup game this weekend, with an influx of fans heading to East Fairmount Park’s Lemon Hill. To avoid extreme traffic congestion and parking scarcities, the Circuit Trails Coalition is reminding the public of over 400 miles of trails in the greater Philadelphia area. The Schuylkill River Trail is 120 miles long, and fans can access many World Cup festivities without cars. Find other ways to access summer 2026 events with Clean Air Council’s GoPhillyGo: Car-Free Routes interactive map.

Other Stories

PhillyVoice: With the World Cup set to kick off, SEPTA touts refurbished stations and additional train capacity

The Inquirer: City Council bans horse-drawn carriages in Philadelphia

BillyPenn: First modular shelters arrive for eventual inclusion in Chinatown Stitch cap park

The Inquirer: SEPTA is expanding daily bus service to the Navy Yard by extending Route 45

CBS Pittsburgh: Parkway East will close in 1 month for Commercial Street Bridge replacement project

Anthropocene: A landmark MIT study debunks persistent myths about electric vehicles

PhillyVoice: Walmart plans to bring delivery drones to Philly in 2027

If Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project customers were to schedule pool pump operations at midday instead of at night, it could shift up to 820 MW into off-peak tariffs, ASU researchers said.

UK Oil & Gas is selling its stake in the troubled Horse Hill production site and licence, the company’s last remaining hydrocarbon interest.

Stephen Sanderson, chief executive of UK Oil & Gas plc. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The company announced in a statement today (12/6/26) it had agreed sell its entire 85.635% interest in Horse Hill and PEDL137 to energy B plc for £1m.

energy B, led by Neil Ritson, a former executive at Solo Oil and Leni Gas and Oil, has interests in bitcoins and wind turbines.

It said the deal was part of a wider strategy for energy B to “build a portfolio of oil and gas projects in the UK in support of UK energy security”. At the time of writing, energy B shares had risen more than 125%.

Today’s news coincides with the appointment of David Lenigas as energy B executive chairman. This will be his second direct involvement in Horse Hill.

Mothballed

Horse Hill, near Redhill in Surrey, has been suspended since October 2024 after the Supreme Court stripped planning permission five months earlier in a landmark climate ruling.

The court judgement, known as the Finch Ruling, was the culmination of six years of legal action against oil production at Horse Hill by Sarah Finch and the campaign network, Weald Action Group.

The site, once nicknamed the Gatwick Gusher, has not lived up to its operator’s predictions of North Sea levels of oil extraction.

In 2015, UKOG described the oil discovery at Horse Hill in Surrey as “world class” and that the Weald in southern England could produce 100 billion barrels of oil. It later issued two clarifications to the London Stock Exchange.

In the last full six months of production, Horse Hill recorded an average of 30 barrels of oil a day, according to official records. The UK’s biggest producing field, at Wytch Farm in Dorset, extracted an average of 9,802 barrels of oil a day over the same period.

UKOG’s move from oil and gas

Today’s announcement marks the end of UKOG’s current interest in hydrocarbon extraction.

In 2015, the company had direct interests in the Avington and Horndean oil fields in Hampshire, Baxter’s Copse and Markwells Wood in West Sussex, the Holmwood prospect in Surrey and an offshore licence near the Isle of Wight. It also had indirect interests in the Brockham oilfield in Surrey and the Lidsey field in West Sussex.

A year later, UKOG acquired the Broadford Bridge site in West Sussex and the PEDL234 licence straddling the border with Surrey. It was also awarded PEDL331 onshore on the Isle of Wight but failed to get planning permission for a proposed site at Arreton.

In 2019, UKOG revealed plans for a new site near Dunsfold in Surrey. It finally got planning permission in June 2022 after an appeal. But no work was carried out at the site and DrillOrDrop understands the planning permission has now expired.

In recent years, UKOG has switched its interest to hydrogen storage. Last month, the company reported declining assets and revenue. The most recent annual accounts confirmed that Horse Hill was then the company’s sole remaining oil and gas site.

Stephen Sanderson, UKOG’s chief executive, said today:

“Whilst the Company recognises that potentially material resources likely remain within HH [Horse Hill], this divestment presents a timely and attractive opportunity to complete UKOG’s exit from the UK onshore oil & gas sector, freeing our team and resources to focus upon our two material UK salt cavern energy storage projects and new international energy opportunities under active review.

“We wish energy B well in its future stewardship of Horse Hill and in realising its ambition to deliver the field’s full remaining potential.”

UKOG’s stake in Horse Hill is divided between subsidiaries.

It holds 77.9% of shares in the site operator, Horse Hill Developments Limited. UKOG (137/246) has a 35% working interest in Horse Hill.

At the time of writing, the UKOG share price was down 2.56%.

Executives return to Horse Hill

Both David Lenigas and Neil Ritson have had previous interests in Horse Hill.

Mr Lenigas was chairman of UK Oil and Gas Investments until July 2015. Four years later, he left Doriemus, which had a 4% stake in Horse Hill.

He said today:

“This is an incredibly exciting project and important for future of UK energy sovereignty. Not only is there a great deal of oil at Horse Hill, but there is also a lot of gas in this very live, shallow and extensive hydrocarbon system. That gas has historically been flared over the last decade, gas that could have been used to power or heat UK homes.

“The initial flow rates at Horse Hill were incredible but obstacles existed to fully assessing the true potential of the 500m thick oil-laden Kimmeridge limestones identified by some of the biggest independent oil consultancies in the world at the time.

“Only a few of the oil sequences in the Kimmeridge were tested in 2016 testing program. Time constraints limited the ability to test the Kimmeridge’s ultimate flow potential and less than 20% of the Kimmeridge interval was tested back in 2016.

“With the oil and gas window at Horse Hill being relatively shallow compared to the hydrocarbons in the North Sea, this project and many other onshore projects in the UK offer a highly credible solution to assist with the domestic energy crisis.

“Whilst many right now are vacating the oil and gas sector in the UK, we aim to go against the tide with energy B.”

Neil Ritson, chief executive of energy B, was chairman of Solo Oil when it had interests in Horse Hill, more than 10 years ago.

Solo Oil disposed of its stake in Horse Hill in 2018.

Mr Ritson said today:

“I am delighted to present shareholders of energy B with an opportunity to develop the Company as an onshore oil and gas participant, alongside the green energy technology being developed around the HFI patented wind turbine.

“The UK is on a path to net zero, however, we need to recognise that oil and gas will remain part of the energy mix for decades to come.  Importing foreign gas and oil; often with a much higher carbon footprint than indigenous supplies, is environmentally and economically unsound.

“We hope to bring Horse Hill back on to production as soon as possible and to develop its greater potential as a springboard.”

energy B said it was withdrawing from its Bitcoin treasury strategy. The company is listed on the UK’s Aquis Stock Exchange, which specialises in growth and entrepreneurial companies.

Deal details

energy B said it had entered into a share purchase agreement with UKOG for £1m. The deal gives energy B 100% of UKOG (137/246) and 77.9% of Horse Hill Developments Limited.

The purchase has been funded by an energy B share placing, which raised £1.2m. Some of the proceeds will be used to provide working capital, including payment of existing creditors, energy B said.

The agreement must be approved by the industry regulator and energy B’s shareholders.

Planning

UKOG announced more than a month ago that it had applied for planning permission to restart oil production at Horse Hill.

At the time of writing, Surrey County Council had still not published the application or begun a public consultation. DrillOrDrop understood this had been due this week. We will report when this happens.

At Broadford Bridge, another UKOG site where planning permission has lapsed, the company said it had plugged and abandoned the two wells. But the site has still not been restored to farmland, required b a condition of the permission. We continue to follow what happens at Broadford Bridge.

Incredible news: the attempt to undo the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan has failed! Together, we have defeated the efforts of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Representative Celeste Maloy (R-UT-02)! This is a major victory for the entire Protect Wild Utah movement, public lands advocates across the country, and most importantly, the landscape itself.

How did we get here? In March, Sen. Lee and Rep. Maloy introduced “joint resolutions” to disapprove the monument management plan. They did this using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a little-known law with a provision that allows Congress to pass a CRA joint resolution by simple majority votes—but the Senate must act within 60 session days. Thursday, June 11, was Day 60, so Lee’s resolution is now subject to the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster and we are confident it will not pass.

I couldn’t be prouder of SUWA’s national network of activists and our whole-of-organization response to this unprecedented attack. For all of 2026, defeating the Grand Staircase-Escalante CRA resolution has been our #1 priority. SUWA’s remarkable grassroots organizing team led efforts to reach persuadable members of Congress, fanning out across the country and working with members and supporters to hold in-district meetings with congressional staff. We became experts in arcane congressional procedures. We worked with the Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition and brought Tribal leaders, alongside grassroots activists and local business owners, to Washington, DC. We coordinated with friends in the conservation and recreation communities. SUWA’s Utah-based staff were frequent visitors to Washington, working day in and day out with our DC Team.

We gave it 110%, week after week, month and month, grinding away while the odds were stacked against us—with the Republicans controlling the House, the Senate, and the White House. This outcome was far from guaranteed; Republicans used the CRA six other times during this Congress to undo land management plans and a seventh time to undo a protective mineral withdrawal at the headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. But love for Grand Staircase-Escalante was strong and opposition to what Lee and Maloy were trying was widespread and overwhelming, across Utah and nationwide (see this webpage for highlights).

We are also clear-eyed: while we’ve defeated one major attack, both Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments, as well as the rest of the redrock wilderness, remain under attack from the Trump administration and Congress. But what we’ve said before bears repeating: SUWA has never backed down from a hard fight, and we’re not going to start now.

By raising your voice in opposition to Lee and Maloy you made a difference. We’re going to keep calling on you—your voice and advocacy will continue to be crucial in defending the wild public lands that inspire, heal, and renew us in the best and worst of times. Powered by love and hope, we know that we can still make the critical difference to protect the places and values that matter. Together, we just did! And we’ll continue to do so.

Thank you for standing with Grand Staircase-Escalante and SUWA at this critical moment. Take time to celebrate the important victory we just achieved together. And if you’re able, please consider financially supporting our work.

For Grand Staircase-Escalante,

Scott Braden

SUWA Executive Director
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

The post Breaking News: Mike Lee Fails, Grand Staircase-Escalante Protections Remain in Place! appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

June 12, 2026

Senator Lee’s Attempt to Fast-track Attack on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan Fails Opposition from across Utah and the nation leads to failure of Senator Lee’s efforts to attack one of the nation’s iconic national monuments

Contacts:
Grant Stevens, Communications Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); (319) 427-0260; grant@suwa.org
Keri Gilliland, Communications Manager, The Wilderness Society; (303) 386-2243; kgilliland@tws.org 
Perry Wheeler, Earthjustice, (202) 792-6211, pwheeler@earthjustice.org 
Tim Peterson, Cultural Landscapes Director, Grand Canyon Trust; (801) 550-9861; tpeterson@grandcanyontrust.org 
Andrew Scibetta, NRDC, (202) 289-2421; ascibetta@nrdc.org
Kris Deutschman, Conservation Lands Foundation, 505-498-0212; kris@conservationlands.org
Brian Willis, Sierra Club; 202-253-7486; brian.willis@sierraclub.org
Caitlyn Burford, Senior Communications Manager, National Parks Conservation Association, cburford@npca.org, 541-371-6452
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (801) 300-2414, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org

Washington, DC – Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT) effort to fast-track an attack on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) has failed. The CRA includes a provision that allows the Senate to pass a “joint resolution of disapproval” targeting an administrative action via a simple majority, but it must act within 60 Senate session days after that action is entered into the Congressional Record. Thursday, June 11, was day 60, meaning Senator Lee’s resolution is now subject to the 60-vote filibuster should he attempt to bring it up for consideration. This setback of Senator Lee’s attack on the monument comes the same week as the anniversary of the Antiquities Act, which was used to protect the 1.9-million-acre landscape.

The elected officials leading the effort to attack the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan, Senator Mike Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT-02), were some of the same members behind the 2025 failed public lands sell-off attempts. Then, as now, their ideas are deeply unpopular and have been fiercely opposed. If the CRA resolution were to pass, the management plan – which sets expectations for how these remarkable public lands will be managed for recreation, camping and outdoor access; collaboration with Tribal Nations; dark night skies; grazing and other uses – would be undone, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would be barred from issuing another plan that is “substantially the same” in the future. This assault on a national monument marked a significant escalation in Congress’ use of the CRA and – if it had been successful – would have led to chaos on the ground. 

“Senator Mike Lee’s misguided attack on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has failed. This is a major victory for the millions of Americans who care deeply about the Grand Staircase and for everyone who supports our nation’s wildest public lands and want to see them protected,” said Scott Braden, Executive Director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “While together we’ve defeated one major attack, both Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments, as well as the rest of the redrock wilderness in Utah, remain under attack from the Trump Administration and this Republican Congress. The lesson for politicians is clear: Americans cherish their public lands and want to see them conserved for current and future generations to enjoy, not attacked and exploited.”

“Just like the defeat of Senator Lee’s unpopular public land sell-off attempt last year, the dearth of support for this attack on Grand Staircase – Escalante reflects Americans’ fierce love for our public lands,” said Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice’s Rocky Mountain Office. “No one except extractive industry CEOs wants these special places destroyed. Senator Lee and Representative Maloy should take note.”

“The Utah delegation knows that our national monuments are well-loved by Americans and protecting them is overwhelmingly popular among Utahns regardless of party affiliation,” said Tim Peterson, Cultural Landscapes Director at the Grand Canyon Trust. “The public would not have stood for legislation that gets rid of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument outright, so the Utah delegation tried to eliminate the commonsense management plan that affords day-to-day protections to the monument. We’re so grateful that didn’t happen.”

“Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy’s failed attempt to overturn the Grand Staircase- Escalante land-use plan was out of step with what Americans want,” said Axie Navas, director of designation campaigns at The Wilderness Society. “The current plan, built on years of engagement with Tribes and local communities, balances the freedom to recreate with traditional uses and conservation in a way that benefits all. The public has made it clear they want these lands protected—and managed—so that future generations may experience Grand Staircase-Escalante as we do today.”    

“Grand Staircase-Escalante’s protections are still standing today because people would not let them fall,” said Bobby McEnaney, Director of Land Conservation, NRDC. “This was never really about land management. It was an attempt to make it easier to dismantle every national monument in the country, and that threat has not gone anywhere. Tribes, local communities, and voters saw this attack for what it was and spoke up. We owe it to them, and to the generations who will inherit these lands, to stay in this fight for as long as it takes.”

“While this is a welcome pause, we have no reason to believe Sen. Lee will stop his attack on the country’s national monuments and Grand Staircase,” said Chris Hill, CEO of the Conservation Lands Foundation. “Tens of thousands of people registered their opposition to this particular Congressional power grab–as hundreds of thousands have done over the past several years in support of conserving the country’s public lands. Local communities, business owners, and Tribes support and rely on the balanced management of national monuments and the overwhelming majority of voters in Utah and across western states want their Congress members to protect these places, not sell them off. We are here to make sure that Sen. Lee and other anti-public lands members of Congress cannot ignore the fact that Americans of all political identities don’t want what they’re selling and are fighting like hell to stop it.”

“Today, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument management plan will remain intact, and that’s a testament to the chorus of voices that showed up to protect this incredible landscape from attacks in Congress,” said Cory MacNulty, Southwest Campaign Director for the National Parks Conservation Association. “This management plan is more than a policy document. It reflects years of engagement with communities, Tribes and stakeholders to shape how the monument would be cared for. We know this monument, and all monuments across the nation, still face threats from Congress and the administration. But this is a reminder that public lands should reflect all of us, and people on both sides of the political aisle will continue to show up to protect them.”

“This outcome is bigger than one monument,” said Athan Manuel, Director of Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program. “Had this effort succeeded, it would have created a dangerous roadmap for dismantling management plans and undermining protections for public lands across the country. Instead, the broad coalition that came together to defend Grand Staircase-Escalante proved once again that Americans will unite to protect the places that belong to all of us. This failed fast-track attack should serve as a warning to anyone looking to weaken our public lands: people are paying attention, and they are prepared to fight back.”

“Veterans and military families understand what it means to protect something that belongs to all Americans. The failure of Senator Mike Lee’s attempt to fast-track an attack on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument is an important victory for those who believe our public lands should remain public. Places like Grand Staircase-Escalante are part of our shared national heritage and serve as places where veterans heal, reconnect with their families, recreate, and continue serving their communities. While we are encouraged to see this effort fall short, the broader threats facing Grand Staircase-Escalante, Bears Ears, and other treasured public lands remain very real. Veterans will continue standing up for these places because they are worth protecting for future generations, just as they were for ours.” — Janessa Goldbeck, U.S. Marine Corps veteran and CEO, Vet Voice Foundation

“Lee’s attempt to weaponize the Congressional Review Act to strip protections from Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was an affront to all Americans and I’m thrilled he failed,” said Taylor McKinnon, Southwest director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Like Grand Canyon and Zion, this iconic landscape and its extraordinary animals deserve permanent protection, not to be used as political pawns.” 

A compilation of opposition to the use of the CRA on Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument Management Plan can be found here; some highlights include:

• Inter-tribal Coalition members call for stop to proposal to use Congressional Review Act (CRA) to harm Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
  
• The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) issued a statement and the Navajo Utah Commission of the Navajo Nation Council issued a resolution opposing the use of the CRA resolution.

• Over 40 local businesses in gateway communities like Boulder, Escalante, Tropic, Cannonville, Kanab, and Page (AZ) support the Monument. Local business owners respond in this video montage after Rep. Maloy claimed the 2025 Management plan is bad for business.

• Faith Leaders across Utah and the American West oppose the use of the CRA, as do over 125 local, state, and national groups, and over 150 scientists.
  
• The Salt Lake Tribune, the Grand Junction Sentinel, the Durango Herald, the Las Vegas Sun, the Arizona Daily Star, and the Idaho Statesman have editorialized against the CRA and in support of the Monument. Letters to the editor have gone into papers across the country; particular powerful op-eds include “The strike on Grand Staircase is a strike on my culture and my history” by Autumn Gillard; “Stop Trying to Utah our Nevada” by Dackota York; “GOP leaders say local interests were ignored in the Grand Staircase-Escalante planning process. That’s not what I saw” by Erik Stanfield; “A Utah Monument Comes Under Attack – Again” by Stephen Trimble; and “Congress in gunning for a National Monument in Utah” by Scott Braden. 

About Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument & the Monument Management Plan

Since its establishment, heightened protections for the Monument’s geology, paleontology, wildlife, plant communities, and ancestral sites have succeeded in preserving these unique values for generations to come, and local communities on the Monument’s doorstep have benefited as well. Nearly 30 years later, the numerous benefits of protecting Grand Staircase-Escalante are clear: the Monument preserves a remarkable ecosystem at the landscape level and sets the stage for future discovery about human, paleontological, and geological history on the Colorado Plateau. 

On December 4, 2017, President Trump ignored millions of public comments and unlawfully eliminated large swaths of the Monument, slashing it by 47 percent – roughly 900,000 acres. Thankfully, on October 8, 2021, President Biden signed a proclamation restoring Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to its full, original boundaries. In 2023, BLM began developing a new management plan for the full Monument. As a part of that work, the BLM engaged in extensive outreach to Tribal Nations, the State of Utah, local governments, stakeholders (including local outfitters, guides, ranchers, and utilities), and the public. During the planning process, BLM received overwhelming support from throughout Utah and the nation for a holistic, conservation-based management plan worthy of this remarkable place.

In August 2023, a Federal District Court Judge in Utah dismissed lawsuits brought by the state of Utah and others challenging President Biden’s use of the Antiquities Act to restore the boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments. The state and other plaintiffs quickly appealed that decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held oral argument on September 26, 2024, and may issue a decision at any time. Conservation organizations intervened on behalf of the United States to defend President Biden’s restoration of the Monuments, as have four Tribal nations.

National monuments are overwhelmingly popular.Seventy-five percent of Utah voters support the President’s ability to protect public lands as national monuments. Three in four Utah voters, including a majority of Republicans, want to keep Grand Staircase-Escalante as a national monument.

About the Congressional Review Act (CRA)

The CRA is a federal statute enacted in March 1996 that requires federal agencies to submit “rules” to Congress for a mandatory review period “before they may take effect.” If Congress votes to overturn, or “disapprove,” the rule, it “may not be reissued in substantially the same form. . . .” The BLM has long maintained that its land management plans are not “rules” subject to the CRA. Other federal land management agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service, have similarly not submitted their land management plans to Congress under the CRA.

However, emboldened by a series of non-binding Government Accountability Office (GAO) opinions, Republican members of Congress have embraced the novel theory that federal land management plans are in fact “rules” subject to the CRA. This year, Congress has passed seven CRA resolutions overturning previously finalized land management plans or other types of public lands management decisions.  The GAO issued an opinion regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument Management Plan on January 15, 2026.

• While overturning the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument management plan would not change the boundaries of the monument or alter President Biden’s proclamation establishing the monument, it is a serious threat with potential implications for all national monuments. 
• Monument management plans set expectations for how the land will be managed for wildlife, outdoor access, dark night skies, grazing, and other uses. The Utah delegation’s gambit threatens that certainty. Using the CRA to overturn the Grand Staircase-Escalante management plan disregards years of public input on how these lands are managed for the public, including hunters, hikers, scientists, ranchers, and others who hold permits to use public lands inside the monument.
• Congress is ignoring Tribal Nations. Multiple Native American Tribes are connected to Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition advocates for the conservation of their ancestral lands and for the continued protection and preservation of the cultural and environmental resources found within the monument. Tribes provide deeply valuable perspectives related to the management of Monument lands and cultural resources that tell the story of their peoples, and are integral to the history of the United States, and should be consulted before any changes are made to the Monument’s management plan.

Additional Information

• March 4, 2026 Press Release – Senator Lee, Rep. Maloy Introduce Joint Resolution to Undo Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan 
• February 26, 2026 Press Release – Senator Lee formally begins process to fast-track the destruction of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah 
• The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Inter-Tribal Coalition who have spoken against using the CRA on the Monument Management Plan

###

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is a nonprofit organization with members and supporters from around the country dedicated to protecting America’s redrock wilderness. From offices in Moab, Salt Lake City, and Washington, DC, our team of professionals defends the redrock, organizes support for America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, and stewards this world-renowned landscape. Learn more at www.suwa.org.

 

 

The post Senator Lee’s Attempt to Fast-track Attack on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan Fails appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

A version of this piece was featured in Food Tank’s newsletter, released weekly on Thursdays. To make sure it lands straight in your inbox and to be among the first to receive it, subscribe now by clicking here.

We’re about halfway through the International Year of the Woman Farmer, declared by the United Nations to recognize a truth that Food Tankers already know well: That global food systems are cultivated by, sustained by, and nourished by women.

Some of my favorite parts of recent Food Tank events have been the nights we turn our stage over to farmers to share authentic stories from the ground. This year alone, women farmers have joined us onstage in Park City, UT; Dublin, Ireland; Adelaide, Australia; and Austin, TX to tell personal tales of their lives in the food system.

Women in agricultural communities are farmers and also simultaneously caregivers, nutrition providers, innovators, pillars of their communities, and so much more. As the International Year of the Woman Farmer calls attention to, gender gaps in income and in accessing resources like land ownership and financial markets have been well-documented. But there’s another factor that cannot get lost during this special year: Women’s health.

“Women are central to food systems, and therefore women’s health is also central to food systems,” Nabeeha Kazi Hutchins, President and CEO of PAI, a policy advocacy organization, told me on the Food Talk podcast. “If a woman’s health and reproductive health are not prioritized and supported…how is she going to be effective in her job, and how is she therefore going to be effective in feeding and nourishing the world?”

And the impact of women in food is multi-generational.

“Every day on our farm, we get up, we work hard,” Carina Roseingrave, Co-Founder of Burren View Farm, told our Food Tank audience from the stage at SXSW. “What we have, we’ve built for our family that are here now. But what’s very important to our family is to pass it on to the next generation. We don’t want to lose the next generation that’s coming behind us. We want to pass on the knowledge that was passed on from my grandmother.”

If that seems like a heavy load to carry mentally just as much as physically—it is. As Reema Nanavaty, Head of the Self- Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), told me on Food Talk, major challenges like the climate crisis weigh particularly hard on women farmers’ mental health and tend to impact their economic opportunities at disproportionately high levels. Part of Reema’s work with SEWA involves vital efforts to reduce the tragic rates at which young women farmers are dying by suicide.

For me, as someone who’s devoted my career to researching gender in food and agriculture systems, I think any push toward uplifting the needs and rights of women and young girls—like International Year of the Woman Farmer—is a step in the right direction. I also hope that, alongside addressing economic inequities, we don’t ignore the need to protect women’s physical and mental well-being as part of our food system and sustainability solutions.

This takes both big-picture and small-scale efforts. As Rosinah Mbenya, Country Coordinator for PELUM Kenya, told me on an episode of Food Talk, we see a gap in on-the-ground efforts focused on youth- and women-centered landscape transformation. This needs to catch the attention of international development organizations and business and philanthropic leaders.

“There is a lot of work that needs to go into capacity-building,” she says. “But I’m looking forward to seeing more investments so that we can have increased financing and attention.”

At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that food should be joyful and grounding and delicious—and that’s good for both physical and mental health, too!

I really loved what Lynsey Gammon, the Farm Director of Gracie’s Farm and the Lodge at Blue Sky, told us during a storytelling event at our All Things Food and Environment Summit during Sundance. It was her Italian grandmother, she said, who taught her “the art and love of growing food.”

“She could never really leave behind the love of growing food and the joy and love that it gave to her and the connection with the land and her history,” Lynsey told us. “Because, like so many women before her, farming was her ancestry. It ran through her veins.”

Here’s to the generations of empowered, hardworking, healthy women who feed us, from farms to our kitchen tables!

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Evan Rally, Unsplash

The post Where Does Women’s Health Fit into the International Year of the Woman Farmer? appeared first on Food Tank.

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed. 
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This week El Niño begins

‘DOMINO WEATHER’: The natural weather phenomenon El Niño, which can raise global heat and “bring domino weather effects across the planet”, is now underway, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared on Thursday, reported the Washington Post. The Japanese Meteorological Administration also identified the start of El Niño on Wednesday, said Bloomberg. According to the Japanese weather agency, the event is “expected to intensify in the coming months and become very strong later in the year, persisting into at least December”, reported the outlet.

‘SUPER EVENT’: BBC News reported that “many forecasts suggest this could end up as a so-called ‘super’ El Niño” and be “among the strongest ever recorded”. It added: “Coming on top of decades of human-caused warming, it could bring another record-hot year – most likely in 2027 – with disruption to weather, food supplies and economies running well into that year.”

COP31 hosts eye electrification

‘35 BY 35’: COP31 hosts Turkey and Australia have called for countries to support a target of electrifying 35% of global energy use by 2035, reported Politico. Speaking at climate talks in Bonn, Germany, Turkish minister Murat Kurum said that electrification would be a “flagship priority” at the COP31 summit, noted the publication. Kurum added that “electrifying daily life, from transport to buildings and industry” could “protect families and businesses from volatile energy markets”, said the outlet.

WASTE AND BUILDINGS: Climate Home News reported that electrification was one of three priorities unveiled by the COP31 hosts, with the other two being waste and buildings. On buildings, the COP31 hosts “quietly overhauled [their] goal”, Climate Home News said. It reported: “An initial press statement on Monday set out a target ‘to achieve at least a 25% increase in energy efficiency in buildings by 2035’. But…on Tuesday, that was replaced with a different goal to ‘reduce energy consumption intensity in the building sector by at least 25% by 2035’.”

‘HARDEST’ CHALLENGE: Elsewhere in Bonn, UN climate chief Simon Stiell said “governments must stop revisiting climate commitments and start delivering on them”, South Africa’s Mail and Guardian reported. It quoted Stiell as saying: “Tackling the global climate crisis is the hardest but most important thing humanity has ever tried to do together…We are not yet where we need to be. But we are somewhere we have never been before.”

Around the world

• ETS EXTRA: The EU has agreed “stronger” price controls on “ETS2”, its planned trading system for heating and transport emissions, according to Reuters.
• OCEAN STRESS: The rate of sea level rise has doubled in 10 years amid “severe and accelerating” pressures on oceans, said a UN report covered by Time.
• CLIMATE MIGRANTS: Donald Trump’s “immigration crackdown is largely targeting people from the countries most vulnerable to displacement from climate-driven disasters”, according to Guardian analysis.
• ULTRA-RICH: Investments by the world’s ultra-rich in 2022 are linked to nearly $1tn in climate damages, according to a Greenpeace Africa analysis covered by BusinessGreen.

Two

The number of bidders for Trump’s auction for drilling rights in an Arctic wildlife refuge, with big oil companies “sitting out the sale”, reported Bloomberg.

Latest climate research

• As the Arctic warms, increased iceberg activity could “reshape” deep-sea habitats and “elevate” navigational hazards as maritime traffic expands | Nature
• Around 11% of the population of the world’s “rarest great ape”, the Tapanuli orangutan, is estimated to have perished in an extreme rainfall event in Indonesia in 2025 | Current Biology
• Canada’s forests are shifting from a carbon sink to a carbon source, due to “wildfires disturbances” | Global Change Biology

(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)

Captured

Solar power has overtaken gas in Asia to become the region’s third largest electricity source behind coal and hydropower, according to Carbon Brief analysis of data from the thinktank Ember. Solar became the third largest electricity source for Asia on an annual basis in April 2026, according to the analysis. In the year to April 2026, solar generated 1,727 terawatt hours (TWh), while gas generated 1,711TWh, it added.

Spotlight Atlantic current monitoring at risk

This week, Carbon Brief reports on how Trump plans could disrupt efforts to track a major ocean current.

The Irminger Sea, a patch of frigid ocean east of Greenland, plays an outsized role in the Earth’s climate. 

Here, surface water that has travelled thousands of kilometres from the tropics grows cold and dense enough to sink to the ocean’s depths – a transformation that must occur for the water to begin a long journey back to the southern hemisphere.

This makes the Irminger Sea an “action centre” for the mighty Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the vast system of ocean currents that keeps temperatures in Europe mild.

Last week, the US government announced plans to dismantle ocean moorings installed in the Irminger Sea which, among other things, collect data on the health of the AMOC.

This came as part of a programme to “descope” the Ocean Observatories Initiative, a $368m network of ocean sensors installed in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

Two of the moorings earmarked for removal in the Irminger Sea form part of an internationally funded, trans-Atlantic AMOC monitoring array, known as OSNAP, that stretches from Canada to Scotland.

Experts told Carbon Brief the move by the Trump administration highlights the vulnerability of AMOC observation systems around the world. These deep-sea moorings – scattered across the Atlantic – collect real-time data on, among other things, ocean current, temperature, pressure and biochemistry.

Prof Penny Holliday, chief scientific officer of the UK National Oceanography Centre, told Carbon Brief that the OSNAP array, as well as the RAPID array at 26N, are “entirely dependent” on research grants that have to be “continually reapplied for”. 

“Funding is perilous all the time,” she said.

A report prepared last month by scientists for Nordic ministers exploring the security of funding for AMOC observing systems warned that RAPID and OSNAP were in “critical condition” and faced “material exposure over an 18-month horizon”. Meanwhile, other key basin-wide and global components of the global AMOC observing system were rated as “at risk”.

It is not just US funding that is uncertain. The report notes, for example, that the five-yearly funding the UK provides to RAPID and OSNAP is “at risk from 2027 due to year-on-year budget reductions” at the Natural Environmental Research Council. 

(RAPID is funded by the US and UK, whereas OSNAP is backed by five different countries, with the US contributing half of the total financial support.)

Report co-author Dr Femke de Jong from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research told Carbon Brief that “continued AMOC observations” are under pressure in “multiple countries”. She said:

“While the risk of a declining AMOC to society is starting to be recognised, there is not yet a system or institution in place to guarantee a way to monitor it.”

AMOC monitoring arrays are still in their infancy – RAPID, the oldest, was launched in 2004. Two decades of data captured so far shows that the AMOC is slowing down. However, scientists will need many more years of data to be able to confidently link the decline to climate change, rather than natural variability in the ocean. 

NOC’s Holliday points to the disconnect between scientific and funder timelines:

“The timescale of observations needed in order to be able to detect a climate change signal from the very naturally variable ocean is around 40-60 years…. [And yet], in the Netherlands, they have to apply for a new grant for their ocean moorings every two years. They are going to have to do that for 40 years. 

“This is a very inefficient way of getting funding for what should be critical infrastructure.”

This spotlight first appeared in Cited, Carbon Brief’s new fortnightly newsletter focused on climate research. Sign up for free.

Watch, read, listen

‘BEYOND GROWTH’: A group of economists set out a “roadmap for eradicating poverty beyond growth” in the Guardian.

OIL CAMPAIGN: Politico reported on how “oil industry allies” are campaigning against attribution science, including by working to discredit a US National Academies report that “will examine research into the ways corporate climate pollution is intensifying natural disasters”.

‘FIGHT BACK’: For the Apocalyptic Optimist podcast, Dr Dana Fisher spoke to historian and author Dr Naomi Oreskes about how to “fight back” against climate misinformation.

Coming up

• 8-18 June: Bonn climate talks, Bonn, Germany 
• 16-18 June: 11th Our ocean conference, Mombasa, Kenya
• 18 June: International Energy Agency Global Hydrogen Review 2026 report launch

Pick of the jobs

• S-Curve Economics, head of road transport | Salary: £75,000-£80,000. Location: Remote (UK)
• UK Department for Energy Security and Net-Zero, speechwriter to the secretary of state | Salary: £62,595-£69,765. Location: London (hybrid)
• Basque Centre for Climate Change, postdoctoral researcher for JustBioSolar project | Salary: €27,040-€34,320. Location: Bilbao, Spain
• Boston Globe climate science and environment reporter | Salary: Unknown. Location: Boston, US

DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

DeBriefed 5 June 2026: UK eyes 2040 emissions cut | US ‘dismantling’ oceans research | China’s solar slump

DeBriefed

|

05.06.26

DeBriefed 29 May 2026: Europe’s ‘mind-boggling’ May | Indian heat deaths | Nigeria’s solar mini-grids

DeBriefed

|

29.05.26

DeBriefed 22 May 2026: UN adopts landmark resolution | Trump takes on ‘RCP8.5’ | Climate migration

DeBriefed

|

22.05.26

DeBriefed 15 May 2026: Trump-Xi talk energy | ‘Supercharged’ El Niño | India’s first ‘heat lounges’

DeBriefed

|

15.05.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_7f15c34a759ce738497e30c9612d4f2b .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post DeBriefed 12 June 2026: El Niño begins | COP31 hosts eye electrification | Atlantic current monitoring at risk appeared first on Carbon Brief.