Teachers Say 'See You In Court' as Trump Tries to Abolish Department of Education


"We won't be silent as anti-public education politicians try to steal opportunities from our students, our families, and our communities to pay for tax cuts for billionaires," said the head of the nation's largest labor union.


Demonstrators gather outside of the U.S. Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C. on March 13, 2025 to protest mass layoffs and budget cuts at the agency, initiated by the Trump administration and Department of Government Efficiency.
(Photo: Bryan Dozier/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

Brett Wilkins
Mar 20, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Update:

U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday afternoon directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin the process of shutting down the Department of Education.

"Hopefully she will be our last secretary of education," Trump said of McMahon, promising to "find something else" for the billionaire businesswoman to do.

Sunrise Movement, the youth-led climate campaign, responded to Trump's move by announcing a Friday "study-in" outside Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Earlier:

As U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to sign an executive order Thursday directing officials to shut down the Department of Education, Democratic politicians, teachers and communities across the nation are vowing legal and other challenges to the move.

Trump is set to check off a longtime Republican wish list item by signing a directive ordering Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the states."

Shutting down the department—which was created in 1979 to ensure equitable access to public education and employs more than 4,000 people—will require an act of Congress, both houses of which are controlled by Republicans.

"Trump and his Cabinet of billionaires are trying to destroy the Department of Education so they can privatize more schools."

Thursday's expected order follows the department's announcement earlier this month that it would fire half of its workforce. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and more than three dozen Democratic senators condemned the move and Trump's impending Department of Education shutdown as "a national disgrace."

Abolishing the Department of Education is one of the top goals of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led roadmap for a far-right takeover and gutting of the federal government closely linked to Trump, despite his unconvincing efforts to distance himself from the highly controversial plan.

U.S. Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) called Trump's bid to abolish the Department of Education "more bullshit" and vowed to fight the president's "illegal behavior until the cows come home."

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on social media: "Trump and his Cabinet of billionaires are trying to destroy the Department of Education so they can privatize more schools. The result: making it even harder to ensure that ALL students have access to a quality education. Another outrageous, illegal scam. We will fight this."



New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, a Democrat, warned that "ending the U.S. Department of Education will decimate our education system and devastate families across the country."


"Support for students with special needs and those in rural and urban schools will be gone," he added. "We will stop at nothing to protect N.J. and fight this reckless action."

Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association (NEA)—the nation's largest labor union—said in a statement Thursday that "Donald Trump and Elon Musk have aimed their wrecking ball at public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America, by dismantling public education to pay for tax handouts for billionaires."

Musk—the de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—is the world's richest person. Trump and McMahon are also billionaires.

"If successful, Trump's continued actions will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training programs, making higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle-class families, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections," Pringle warned.

"This morning, in hundreds of communities across the nation, thousands of families, educators, students, and community leaders joined together outside of neighborhood public schools to rally against taking away resources and support for our students," she continued. "And, we are just getting started. Every day we are growing our movement to protect our students and public schools."

"We won't be silent as anti-public education politicians try to steal opportunities from our students, our families, and our communities to pay for tax cuts for billionaires," Pringle added. "Together with parents and allies, we will continue to organize, advocate, and mobilize so that all students have well-resourced schools that allow every student to grow into their full brilliance."




The ACLU is circulating a petition calling on Congress to "save the Department of Education."

"The Department of Education has an enormous effect on the day-to-day lives of students across the country," the petition states. "They are tasked with protecting civil rights on campus and ensuring that every student—regardless of where they live; their family's income; or their race, sex, gender identity, or disability—has equal access to education."

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, responded to Trump's looming order in four words: "See you in court."

'No More Cuts': Colorado Teachers Rally for Quality Education

"We must take action to protect funding for education in Colorado to ensure that the budget is no longer balanced off the backs of students," the state's largest teachers' union said.


Art teacher Thad McCauley holds a sign at a March 20, 2025 rally calling for fully funded public schools outside the Colorado State Capitol in Denver.
(Photo: R.J. Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Mar 20, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Thousands of teachers and allies rallied at the Colorado State Capitol in Denver Thursday to demand that officials stop diverting money meant for public education to balance the state's budget.

Led by the Colorado Education Association (CEA), the state's largest teachers union, protesters wore crimson T-shirts reading "#RedForEd," a nationwide campaign for quality public education. Demonstrators chanted slogans including, "You left us no choice, we have to use our teacher voice!" and held placards with messages including "No More Cuts" and "Fund the Future."

CEA president Kevin Vick toldChalkbeat Colorado that "we feel like we've done our time. We simply are at our limit and we can't absorb any more losses."

"Districts are operating at such a thin margin that if there is significant losses in revenue at this point, it's going to mean a lot of teachers lost," Vick added. "It's going to mean a lot of schools closing."


Rob Gould, president of the Denver Classroom Teacher's Association, toldKMGH that "our teachers are tired of always—and every year—balancing the budget on the backs of our students."

Many Colorado school districts canceled classes for the day due to the high number teachers who said they would miss work to attend the protest. The Colorado Sunreported that around two-thirds of schools in Denver, the state's largest district, were closed Thursday.

Rally participants demanded that state lawmakers and Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis preserve education funding jin the face of a $1.2 billion budget shortfall for next fiscal year. This could complicate a promise by Polis and lawmakers to stop using a mechanism called a budget stabilization factor—often derisively dubbed the "B.S. factor"—to divert funding from public schools to cover other budget items. Colorado state lawmakers are now considering allocating less money than promised to school districts in order to address the projected deficit.


According toColorado Public Radio:
Last year, state lawmakers voted to fully fund Colorado schools by no longer withholding funding from schools and diverting it to other departments. In January, two studies commissioned by lawmakers concluded that full funding—$9.8 billion this year—isn't enough. The studies said Colorado needs to spend $3.5 billion to $4.1 billion more per year to adequately fund its public schools.

But two months later, it's clear that doing so will be impossible in the short term and could mean asking voters for more money in the long term. A coalition of education advocacy groups say lawmakers' current struggles and the history of K-12 spending in the state illustrate why Colorado needs to discuss a long-term solution to increase revenue for school funding.

"Colorado students and educators are already being asked to do more with less every year—and now lawmakers are considering even more cuts to public education," CEA said in a statement promoting Thursday's rally. "Despite being one of the wealthiest states in the country, Colorado chronically underfunds its public schools by $4,000 to $4,500 per student per year compared to the national average."

"Now, facing a budget shortfall of over $1 billion, we must take action to protect funding for education in Colorado to ensure that the budget is no longer balanced off the backs of students across all four corners of the state," the union added. "Let's be clear: A cut is a cut, and students pay the price."

Thursday's rally came as U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the states."

Joan Marcano, whose two daughters attend a Denver elementary school that was closed for the day, said he backs the protesters.

"I support the teachers," he told KMGH. "These are the people who take care of my daughters every day."

Columbia University Historians Warn of Trump’s Threat to Academic Freedom

“Authoritarian regimes always seek to gain control over independent academic institutions,” the historians warned.

By Zane McNeill , 

Truthout

March 20, 2025

Pro-Palestine activist demonstrate in front of Columbia University in support of Mahmoud Khalil, in New York on March 14, 2025.Charly Triballeau / AFP via Getty Images

Members of Columbia University’s History Department have sent a letter to the university president and Board of Trustees, urging resistance against the Trump administration’s attempts to influence university policy. Their letter follows reports that Columbia is nearing a deal to acquiesce to the Trump administration’s demands — which include a major crackdown on pro-Palestine protesters on campus — in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal funding.

“As faculty members of the Department of History at Columbia University, we recognize in the recent actions of the Trump Administration a desire to assert political control over the university,” the historians wrote. While not an official statement from the department, the letter was signed by 41 of its approximately 50 members.

On March 7, the Trump administration revoked $400 million in federal research funding from Columbia, alleging that the university had violated Title VI by failing to address the “persistent harassment of Jewish students.” On March 15, the administration sent what Columbia professor Sheldon Pollock described as a “ransom note” to the university, outlining a series of conditions that Columbia must meet in order for the funding to be restored. Pollock, writing in The Guardian, called it “the most dangerous letter in the history of higher education in America,” arguing that the Trump administration seeks to “destroy the independence of American higher education.”

Despite the risks, The Wall Street Journal reports that Columbia is nearing an agreement to comply with the administration’s demands, which include banning masks on campus, implementing a plan to punish student protesters, and placing the Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies under “academic receivership,” stripping faculty of control. The administration has also called for the university to expand the authority of campus police to “arrest and remove students” — a demand that comes just days after a Palestinian student protester was abducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from his Columbia-owned apartment after pleading with the university for protection.

Columbia’s historians emphasized in the letter that while academic freedom at the university has been endangered before — citing incidents such as faculty dismissals during World War I, expulsion of a student protester against Nazism in the 1930s, and repression of anti-apartheid demonstrations in the late 20th century — this situation is fundamentally different. “Authoritarian regimes always seek to gain control over independent academic institutions. That is what we see unfolding now,” they warned.


Khalil Case Shows How Migrant Justice and Palestine Solidarity Are Tied Together
The detention of Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil was made possible by the normalization of deportation. By Silky Shah , Truthout March 15, 2025

Recently, Michael Ignatieff, former president of Central European University (CEU), drew parallels between Columbia’s predicament and his own experience resisting Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s attempts to expel CEU from Budapest. Writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, he recounted being called by a university president whose institution faces severe federal funding cuts, endangering its medical school and research labs. While he did not name the university in his article, his description strongly suggests Columbia.

“The question the embattled university president asked, in effect, was how a university fights an authoritarian regime,” Ignatieff wrote. His advice: build alliances. “Make the case to the public that these attacks are senseless assaults on institutions that promote what America is famous for: life-saving science and world-class innovation.”

However, some critics argue that Columbia’s recent actions — such as authorizing police to conduct a brutal raid of pro-Palestine encampments, surveilling student protesters and punishing them through a secretive disciplinary committee, revoking student’s degrees for participating in protests, and failing to protect its students from politically-motivated deportation — have alienated potential allies.

“With each act of oppression, the bar for respect of human liberties and the freedom of academic spaces wanes,” CUNY professors Heba Gowayed and Jessica Halliday Hardie wrote in an article for Truthout earlier this month. “We must all insist, vocally and without fear, that colleges and universities recommit themselves to the principles of academic freedom and free expression before it is truly too late.”

Columbia’s historians echo this warning. They argue in their letter that compliance with the administration’s demands will not only endanger academic freedom, but historic scholarship itself.

“We call on scholars, students, administrators, and staff here at Columbia and around the world to reject such efforts to dominate colleges and universities,” the letter says. “Such interventions jeopardize our ability to think honestly about the past, the present, and the future, and to do so with our students, who deserve every opportunity to learn and to think for themselves.”

The Wall Street Journal has noted that compliance with the government’s demands does not guarantee the reinstatement of federal funds. A letter from the Trump administration last week described meeting its nine demands as merely a “precondition for formal negotiations” and outlined further “immediate and long-term structural reforms” it expects from Columbia.

“Should this control be realized, here or elsewhere, it would make any real historical scholarship, teaching, and intellectual community impossible,” the historians say in the letter.

Columbia is not the only university currently facing federal pressure. The Education Department is investigating 60 colleges and universities for “antisemitism” — which has been redefined to target people who are protesting Israel’s genocide in Gaza — and sent notices to more than 50 institutions regarding their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Additionally, on Wednesday, the administration announced that it was suspending approximately $175 million in federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania over a transgender swimmer who last competed for the school in 2022.

US and Israel Have Laid the Groundwork for War With Iran. Will Trump Set It Off?

For decades, the US political establishment has treated war with Iran as an inevitability.

 We must reverse course.

By Hanieh Jodat & Emma Claire Foley , 

Truthout

March 19, 2025

The return of Donald Trump to the White House intensifies concerns about whether the United States will further engage in yet another conflict, this time with Iran. On Monday, Trump announced that Iran will be held responsible for attacks by the Houthis in the Red Sea, and will suffer “dire” consequences.

While Trump has brought his characteristic bombast to the issue, he is far from the only voice calling for U.S. military action against Iran. For many years, U.S. foreign policy leaders and media have habitually framed a war with Iran as increasingly inevitable. Public discourse has largely characterized Iran as a “destabilizing force” in the Middle East, and the idea that military action is the next logical step has been promulgated by mainstream Democratic Party leaders as well as the right.

In the past, Trump has surrounded himself with Republican foreign policy thinkers known for their hawkish views on Iran. While he may have become alienated from some of the more pronounced voices leading this charge (such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo), the confirmation of Marco Rubio as the U.S. secretary of state, and Trump’s unequivocal vows of support for any Israeli actions would seem to overwhelm speculative narratives of his aversion to war. On October 1, Rubio issued a statement urging the reimposition of a maximum pressure campaign against Iran, and showed full support for Israel to “respond disproportionately” against Iran.

Never miss another story

Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day.

Email*









National Security Adviser Michael Waltz said in an interview with Fox News last month that “all options are on the table,” when it comes to U.S. policy on Iran’s nuclear program, and that the U.S. will only enter negotiations with Iran if “they want to give up their entire program and not play games as we’ve seen Iran do in the past in prior negotiations.”

Nothing about U.S. or Israeli policies suggests that either country is really driven by ideological opposition to Iran’s leadership; at different times, both have found it convenient to cooperate with Iran. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, despite their official stances against Iran, Israel and the U.S. discreetly supplied Iran with weapons and spare parts, mainly for American-made military equipment left over from the Shah’s era — even as the U.S. also quietly supported Iraq. While Israel’s aid aimed to destabilize Iraq, which was then seen as a major regional threat to Israel, the U.S. aimed to limit Soviet influence in the region as part of what would become known as the Iran-Contra affair.

Related Story
News |
Politics & Elections
Trump Issues Sanctions on Iran, Threatens to “Obliterate” It If He’s Killed
Trump has signed an executive order to exert pressure on Iran while also trying to obtain a nuclear deal.
By Sharon Zhang , TruthoutFebruary 6, 2025

Under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government, Israel has long openly expressed its desire for regime change in Iran while laying the groundwork for a military conflict. Speaking alongside Rubio in his recent visit to the White House last month, Netanyahu praised Trump’s strong leadership and celebrated Iran’s weakened regional position as a result of the war between Israel and Hamas, as well as the expansion of the war into Lebanon. He expressed confidence in “finishing the job” with Iran.

The consequences of a U.S. or Israeli conflict with Iran would be catastrophic. The Iran-Iraq War, which lasted eight years, left deep scars on the lives of millions, with children bearing the brunt. Iranian men were drafted; fathers, brothers and boys as young as 12 volunteered to fight, leaving behind fractured, grieving communities struggling with shortages of food, water and electricity.


Now is the moment to commit to the work of negotiating a new deal that prioritizes the long-term prosperity of regular people and rejects endless warmongering.

Even without direct war, the United States, United Nations and the European Union have already inflicted sanctions upon Iran, some of which date back to soon after the 1979 Revolution, with the aim of immiserating and pressuring Iranians enough to revolt against the current government. For far too long, the U.S. and its allies have used sanctions as weapons of war, hurting the people of Iran without achieving their purported goals. Iran’s foreign assets have been frozen, and trade embargoes have been imposed with varying degrees of severity over the years. During the last few years, sanctions have tightened further due to Iran’s support for Russia in its invasion of Ukraine and the brutally suppressed protests after the death of Mahsa Jina Amini, weakening Iran’s economy and crushing its working class.

According to experts, as a direct result of sanctions, over 20 percent of Iran’s middle class has fallen below the poverty line. Eighty percent of the country’s citizens have been forced to seek government assistance — hardly driving a wedge between people and government. Iran’s middle class, a potential force for change in the country, has been disproportionately affected. The effects on individuals have been diverse but devastating: Human Rights Watch reports that many Iranians with complex medical conditions cannot access essential treatments as the result of sanctions. Sanctions have reportedly strengthened the Iranian state and military, allowing government-owned companies with the resources to evade sanctions to become more powerful within the domestic sphere.

Despite consistent fearmongering, there is no evidence that Iran currently possesses a nuclear weapon. But it’s closer than it was before; a December 2023 IAEA report stated that Iran had begun producing approximately nine kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent Uranium-235 every month, making it easy to quickly accelerate to producing the 90 percent enriched Uranium-235 necessary to build a nuclear bomb.

The current political status quo doesn’t offer much by way of incentives for Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions once and for all. The Iran Deal provided for sanctions relief and IAEA oversight of Iran’s nuclear facilities, against those who called for military action against the country. But without such an agreement, and without any assurance that the U.S. will not support or participate in a major military action against Iran, there’s little reason to expect Iran to step back from the nuclear edge.

And the stakes are even higher than they might seem to a casual observer. Israel already has nuclear weapons, despite its decades-old commitment to coyly denying its arsenal exists. And Saudi Arabia’s crown prince has stated that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, his nation will follow suit. This would mean three nuclear-armed states in the Middle East. And despite the increasing willingness in some quarters to discuss a “limited” nuclear exchange as something short of a catastrophe, nuclear weapons use in the Middle East would have horrendous implications across the world.

When it comes to Iran, diplomacy has proven effective at preventing nuclear proliferation, increasing transparency and cooperation, and reducing nuclear risks. The Iran Deal should be remembered as a success, not a moment of weakness for the United States. Now is the moment to commit to the work of negotiating a new deal that prioritizes the long-term prosperity of regular people and rejects endless warmongering.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Hanieh Jodat is a political strategist and a key strategist with Defuse Nuclear War, an initiative of RootsAction. She also serves as the Chair of Progressive Democrats of America – Middle East Alliances, focusing on fostering dialogue and progressive policies on critical global issues.

Emma Claire Foley  is the campaign director for Defuse Nuclear War. She is a nuclear weapons policy expert, writer and filmmaker who has spent her career working for nuclear disarmament campaigns. Her commentary has been featured in Newsweek, NBC, The Guardian, and other international news outlets

World Meteorological Organization: Last 10 Years Have Been the Hottest on Record

A WMO report also found that 2024 was the warmest year in a 175-year observational period.

By Eloise Goldsmith , 

CommonDreams

March 19, 2025

Smoke rises from the chimneys of wood-processing industrial plants at the seaport of Wismar, Germany, on March 12, 2025.Jens Büttner / picture alliance via Getty Images

A report released by the World Meteorological Organization on Tuesday found that not only was 2024 the warmest year in a 175-year observational period, reaching a global surface temperature of roughly 1.55°C above the preindustrial average for the first time, but each of the past 10 years were also individually the 10 warmest on record.

“That’s never happened before,” Chris Hewitt, the director of the WMO’s climate services division, of the clustering of the 10 warmest years all in the most recent decade, told The New York Times.

All told, the agency’s State of the Global Climate 2024 adds new details to the public’s understanding of a planet that is getting steadily warmer thanks to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

2024 clearly surpassed 2023 in terms of global surface temperature. 2023 recorded a temperature of 1.45°C above the average for the years 1850-1900, which is used to represent preindustrial conditions, according to the report.

The report from the WMO, a United Nations agency, includes “the latest science-based update” on key climate indicators, such as atmospheric carbon dioxide, ocean heat content, and glacier mass balance. Many of these sections report grim milestones.

2024 Was the World’s Hottest Year, Exceeding Paris Climate Agreement Threshold
“The trajectory is just incredible,” the director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service said on Friday. By Chris Walker , Truthout  January 10, 2025

In 2023, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide reached the highest levels in the last 800 000 years, for example, and in 2024, ocean heat content reached the highest level recording in the over half-century observational period, topping the previous heat record that was set in 2023.

As of 2023, two other greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, also reached levels unseen in the last 800,000 years.

“Over the course of 2024, our oceans continued to warm, sea levels continued to rise, and acidification increased. The frozen parts of Earth’s surface, known as the cryosphere, are melting at an alarming rate: glaciers continue to retreat, and Antarctic sea ice reached the second-lowest extent ever recorded. Meanwhile, extreme weather continues to have devastating consequences around the world,” wrote WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo in the introduction to the report, which drew its findings from data drawn from dozens of institutions around the world.

“While a single year above 1.5°C of warming does not indicate that the long-term temperature goals of the Paris agreement are out of reach, it is a wake-up call that we are increasing the risks to our lives, economies and the planet,” wrote Saulo.

In 2015, 196 party countries signed on to the agreement to pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.” According to the United Nations, going above 1.5ºC on an annual or monthly basis doesn’t constitute failure to reach the agreement’s goal, which refers to temperature rise over decades.

There are multiple methods that aim to measure potential breach of 1.5°C over the long term, according to the report. The “best estimates” of current global warming based on three different approaches put global temperatures somewhere between 1.34°C and 1.41°C compared to the pre-industrial period.

The report also details the damage brought on by a number of extreme weather events last year, including Hurricanes Helene and Milton in the United States, and Cyclone Chido, which impacted the French territory of Mayotte.

WTF?!

Setting Ominous Precedent, US Court Tells Greenpeace to Pay $660M to Pipeline Firm

The March 19 ruling from a jury in North Dakota sets a chilling precedent that could erode protest rights in the US.

By Cody Bloomfield , 

Truthout

March 20, 2025

Indigenous Water Protectors and other environmental activists protest the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in North Dakota on February 22, 2017. Greenpeace was ordered by a jury in March 2025 to pay millions in damages to Energy Transfer Partners, the corporation that constructed the Dakota Access Pipeline, for supporting anti-DAPL protests.Michael Nigro / Pacific Press / LightRocket via Getty Images

On March 19, 2025, a jury in Morton County, North Dakota, issued a catastrophic verdict against Greenpeace in a high-stakes lawsuit over Greenpeace’s actions during the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests, forcing Greenpeace to pay over $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer Partners, the corporation that constructed the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Over the three and a half week trial, Greenpeace and Energy Transfer Partners sparred over the extent of Greenpeace’s involvement on the ground during the 2016-2017 #NoDAPL Water Protectors uprising. At the height of the movement, thousands of Indigenous people and allies converged in North Dakota to protest to protest the construction of the pipeline. The epicenter of the protests centered around the spill risks posed by the crossing of Lake Oahe, a section of the Missouri River and sole source of water for the Standing Rock Sioux Nation.

Energy Transfer Partners sought to hold Greenpeace liable for “inciting” illegal conduct that took place during the protests, business damages as a result of Greenpeace’s role in divestment campaigns against DAPL funders, and defamation damages for statements made by Greenpeace that Energy Transfer Partners regards as false. After being asked for support by Indigenous organizers, Greenpeace USA sent support to protests on the ground, providing solar panels to charge protesters’ phones and issuing a $20,000 grant to support direct action trainings. These direct action trainings covered civil disobedience tactics, including the use of “sleeping dragon” lockboxes to form barricades. Greenpeace sent six employees to the protest camps, but argued in court that Greenpeace personnel never engaged in trespassing or any other form of illegal conduct. According to Greenpeace’s testimony, the two other Greenpeace entities named in the suit — Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International, never put employees on the ground at the protests, nor funded the trainings. In the suit, the only allegation made about Greenpeace International was that the organization made false statements in a civil society open letter to pipeline financiers. The letter was not led by Greenpeace and was signed by over 500 organizations.

In total, the pipeline corporation asked the jury to award over $800 million. During the trial, Energy Transfer Partners sought to hold Greenpeace liable for $75.7 million in direct damages from the protests, plus an additional $60.1 million the pipeline corporation expended on additional security. Other claimed damages included costs associated with loan refinancing and pipeline delays. In court, Greenpeace expert witnesses traced the cause of the five-month delay to permitting issues with the Army Corps of Engineers, not to protests. As one of the line items, Energy Transfer Partners sought recovery of the $7 million the company spent on public relations consultants seeking to rehabilitate the pipeline’s image. In addition to recompense for actual damages, Energy Transfer Partners sought punitive damages potentially adding up to over a billion dollars. The jury granted an estimated $700 million of this request.

The suit has broad ramifications in its adoption of a collective liability theory of protest. Holding Greenpeace accountable for illegal actions taken by some protesters and the economic impacts of protests on corporations sends a warning shot to all organizations seeking to provide support to social movements. The suit additionally attempts to hold Greenpeace accountable for spreading “misinformation” — listing a series of politically disputed claims widely repeated and argued within the #NoDAPL movement.

Greenpeace faces a $300 million lawsuit from Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. By Cody Bloomfield , Truthout February 23, 2025

This lawsuit fits with a global trend of corporations targeting environmental organizations for their advocacy, through the use of Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP. In SLAPP cases, the plaintiff often does not expect to win the suit on the merits; instead, the powerful corporations and individuals filing SLAPPs hope to intimidate their critics and force them to expend limited financial resources on legal defense. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe documented 1,049 SLAPP suits filed in Europe across all categories between 2010 and 2023, many against environmental defenders.

“The purpose of a SLAPP is to punish one’s critics by exposing them to lengthy, costly and stressful litigation,” Kirk Herbertson, U.S. director for advocacy and campaigns at EarthRights International, told Truthout. “That certainly seems to have been the intent all along. I think the difference here is that, in addition to using the litigation process itself to harass Greenpeace, Energy Transfer was also able to maneuver the case through a combination of courtroom tactics and propaganda tricks to position themselves where they had a realistic chance of actually securing a verdict against Greenpeace.”
A Trial in a Hostile Venue

The choice of venue for the suit substantially narrowed Greenpeace’s path to a favorable judgement. The trial was held in conservative Morton County, which voted for Trump by a margin of 75.9 percent to 22.2 percent in the 2024 presidential election. The courthouse is located just 45 minutes south of where the protests were held, and many Morton County residents had direct experience with the #NoDAPL protests. In jury selection, nearly half the jury indicated that they had been impacted.

Ahead of the trial, both sides conducted extensive jury pool survey research. In jury research commissioned by Greenpeace, nearly half of residents surveyed indicated that they could not be fair jurors in the case. (Energy Transfer Partners commissioned a study of their own, which reported that most people surveyed were not impacted. The results from the final juror pool in court indicated otherwise.) Greenpeace filed a petition to move the case to Cass County, where research indicated that potential jurors had fewer interactions with DAPL protests. The judge denied the motion. From the outset, Greenpeace had a tough uphill battle to convince jurors to rule in their favor.
High Stakes for Greenpeace; a Chilling Effect on Civil Society

For Greenpeace, the adverse judgement poses an existential threat. In court filings, Greenpeace wrote that an unfavorable judgement might render them unable to appeal the judgement due to lack of funds. Greenpeace has publicly stated an intention to appeal the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, if necessary, but the court filing indicated that Greenpeace fears bankruptcy, should they be required to pay the $300 million in damages that the suit sought. One of the three Greenpeace arms targeted, the fundraising arm Greenpeace, Inc., reported $40 million in income in 2023. According to Greenpeace USA’s financial audit, the organization had $6.5 million in liquid financial assets in 2023 — less than the amount of damages sought by Energy Transfer Partners for the cost of public relations consultants alone. Greenpeace has successfully fended off SLAPPs before, but the outlook in hostile Morton County represents a dire threat to the organization.

In addition to the hundreds of millions in damages owed, Greenpeace has spent “millions” in legal fees, according to Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor to Greenpeace. While 35 states and Washington, D.C. have SLAPP protections — and some allow for fee recovery — North Dakota has none.

The fallout for civil society could be significant. Many smaller organizations don’t have the funds or in-house legal firepower to fight yearslong legal battles. The danger of SLAPP suits lies in the potential chilling impact across civil society. Organizations providing protest support in hostile jurisdictions may constrain their activities out of fear of being targeted by calamitous lawsuits.

In a press conference, Padmanabha noted, “It’s clear that the intent behind the case is not just to destroy Greenpeace, but it’s to divide and destroy the movement and our right to protest.”

For its part, in a statement to Truthout, Energy Transfer Partners said: “Our lawsuit is about recovering damages for the harm Greenpeace caused our company. It is not about free speech. Their organizing, funding, and encouraging the unlawful destruction of property and the dissemination of misinformation goes well beyond the exercise of free speech.”

Asked by Truthout about Energy Transfer Partners’ statement, Herbertson commented, “They’re using public relations messaging to characterize Greenpeace’s role in a way that is not factual. To punish Greenpeace for some other unidentified people’s actions sends a dangerous message: that anyone who participates in a protest can be punished for anyone else’s actions.”

News outlets across the political spectrum have noted the ramifications of the case for free speech and protest. (The far right site Breitbart ran the headline “Greenpeace Trial Begins in North Dakota in Key Free Speech Case.”)
Challenging the Outcome; Penalizing SLAPP Filers

The U.S.-based entities of Greenpeace — assuming they don’t deplete their legal funds first — intend to take the case to the North Dakota Supreme Court, then to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. At the North Dakota Supreme Court, the appeal would be decided by a panel of five justices, as opposed to the jury determination at the local level.

On the international front, the Netherlands-based Greenpeace International is seeking remedy through the newly enacted European Union Anti-SLAPP Directive. Clamping down on SLAPPs became a political and advocacy priority in the EU after 2017, when news emerged that assassinated investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galiza was facing 48 pending lawsuits at the time of her murder. Designed to cut off “venue shopping” by SLAPP filers, the directive allows courts in EU member states to block enforcement of adverse SLAPP judgements rendered outside of the EU and recover SLAPP defendants’ legal fees. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), one of the leading advocates for the directive, emphatically endorsed Greenpeace International’s countersuit.

“By invoking the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, Greenpeace International is not only defending itself but also setting a precedent that could protect activists, journalists, and advocates everywhere,” commented Emma Bergmans, member of the CASE Steering Committee and senior policy advisor and advocacy advisor at Free Press Unlimited, in a Greenpeace press release.

The countersuit will be the first test of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. Reuters noted that it is unclear whether EU and Dutch law would apply to the Dallas-based pipeline company, but advocates of the directive are optimistic. With uncertain options in the U.S., the international approach could open another avenue of recourse for Greenpeace, potentially providing a bulwark against the looming threat of bankruptcy.
Verdict Endangers Free Speech and Protest

Walking out of the North Dakota courthouse, Padmanabha told reporters, “We know that this fight is not over.” In the U.S., any appeals will likely center around whether the jury pool provided the opportunity for a fair trial. Greenpeace’s odds of prevailing in North Dakota, a hostile jurisdiction, were slim. But the case sends a message to other organizations engaging in protest support that they, too, may be liable for millions in damages.

“It’s consistent with other intimidation tactics,” said Herbertson. “The strategy is to target a big name, where everyone else decides to keep their heads down and stay quiet.”

In awarding damages that punish commonplace speech and advocacy — in addition to validating a collective liability theory of protest — the North Dakota jury has endangered core exercise of First Amendment rights. With much of the case centered around the business impacts of Greenpeace’s advocacy, and one of the three Greenpeace branches alleged only to have signed a letter, the lawsuit strikes at protected speech. The success of Energy Transfer Partners’ suit could embolden other corporations to file SLAPP suits, sending a chilling effect across civil society.

As Greenpeace figures out its next steps, the organization has responded to the ruling with a renewed commitment to continuing its environmental defense.

The work of Greenpeace “is never going to stop,” Padmanabha was reported as saying by the Associated Press. “That’s the important message.”


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Cody Bloomfield is a journalist covering policing and protest. They are the former communications director of Defending Rights & Dissent.

Inside Trump's ultimate goal

Robert Reich

March 19, 2025
ALTERNET


Today I want to delve into the deepest, darkest, and perhaps most important question of our time — yet one that no one seems able to answer: What is Trumpreally after? What’s his ultimate goal?

I’ve heard at least four theories.

1. He wants to become dictator of the United States. According to this view, Trump is intent on ridding America of our democratic institutions and substituting himself as dictator. He has openly envied Putin, Xi, Kim Jong Un, and other dictators because they have no opposition and can remain in their positions for as long as they wish. So he’s aggressively breaking laws and practically daring the federal courts to stop him.

2. He wants to rule the world. A second view holds that he wants to dominate the entire world. He’s using the richest man in the world to help him and is on the way to creating an alliance with Putin to carve up the world into two giant spheres of influence (if that’s ever accomplished, he’d presumably find a way to get rid of Putin). According to this view, Trump will be satisfied only when the entire world bows down to his authority.

3. He wants to be the richest person in the world. A third view is that he’s not really interested in power for the sake of power. He’s really focused on what that power can bring him — specifically, extraordinary wealth. His goal is to make even Elon Musk look like a pauper. His aim is to use the office of the presidency to make him and his family the wealthiest oligarchic dynasty in history.





The video player is currently playing an ad.

4. He wants to be worshipped. A fourth view is that power and wealth are only means for Trump to get what he really wants: to be worshipped. His ultimate goal is to transcend the mere trappings of formal authority and extend his MAGA religious cult to all of America and then to the far corners of the world. He wants to be revered through history as a supreme being especially blessed by God.

So today’s Office Hours question: What do you think is Trump’s ultimate goal?

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/

Trump's deranged purge of American history is the story of white supremacy

: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, larger.jpeg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77823832

Michael Signorile, 

The Signorile Report

March 20, 2025

The iconic photograph from 1945 by Joe Rosenthal of the Associated Press of U.S. Marines of the 28th Regiment, 5th Division, raising the American flag atop Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima, sat for years on a Pentagon web page honoring the contributions of Native Americans who served in World War II.

One of the six Marines in the photo was Pfc. Ira Hayes, a Pima Indian. The page is now gone, targeted in the Trump purge of DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion—which has also removed other pages focused on the contributions of other Native Americans, women, Black Americans, LGBTQ service members and others.

How deranged is this? How can anyone not see the censorship and the erasure of history, and note that this is exactly what Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did while trying to control public discourse by revising German history?

The Washington Post uncovered the newest missing pages:
Multiple articles about the Navajo code talkers, who were critical to America’s victory at Iwo Jima and the wider Pacific theater of the Second World War, were also removed, along with a profile of a Tonawanda Seneca officer who drafted the terms of the Confederacy’s surrender at Appomattox toward the end of the Civil War.
The purge, which also targeted multiple webpages about women and LGBTQ+ service members, highlights how aggressively military leaders are pursuing President Donald Trump’s anti-DEI mandate. Their actions mean that some of the most authoritative sources of public information about the achievements of minority service members decades before government DEI programs existed have disappeared.

First, let’s be clear that DEI initiatives in hiring or any other programs are meant to make sure that a qualified pool of people of every race and background is reached out to via various channels.

They’re not about giving jobs to marginalized groups over others; they’re simply about making sure all groups know about a specific position or program and can apply, so that there is a big, diverse pool of qualified candidates. We like diversity. It’s what America is about—or was about.

But whatever you think of DEI, how it got distorted to where it’s now about removing images and documentation about people who already performed jobs—people who made enormous contributions to our country—is the story of bigotry and hate.

More to the point, it’s the story of white supremacy. There is simply no excuse for taking away aspects of history because you don’t like who made the history. That’s pure censorship, wanting to hold up only certain Americans as true Americans while erasing others. And that’s about an attempt to reshape Americans’ views, control their thinking, and suppress truths deemed threatening to a white supremacist worldview.

We saw it begin on day one of Trump’s presidency, when mentions of “lesbian,” “bisexual,” “gay,” “transgender,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity,” were expunged from the White House website. The Health and Human Services Department then removed all references to HIV and groups affected, such as transgender people.

Then we saw the Stonewall Monument page on the National Park Service website altered to take out the word “transgender”—when transgender people were at the forefront of the Stonewall riots.

Last Week the Arlington Cemetery page was altered to remove all references to Black, Latino and female veterans, with the claim, again, that they were doing to so to stop practices that “promote” DEI, which is nonsensical:
On these pages, users could read short biographies about the people buried in the cemetery, including Gen. Colin L. Powell, the youngest and first Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Hector Santa Anna, a World War II B-17 bomber pilot, Berlin Airlift pilot and career military leader;
members of the Tuskegee Airmen, the country’s first Black military airmen whose accomplishments include completing more than 1,800 missions during World War II;
and members of the6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion, the only all-Black, all-female Women’s Army Corps unit to serve overseas during World War II.
Users could also read about Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first Black person to sit on the high court, and JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg, who is buried alongside her husband, Martin Ginsburg, an Army veteran.

But now they’re gone. So far, war heroes are among 26,000 images purged from government websites, all in the name of eradicating the dreaded DEI.

The twisting of DEI—and the expansive way attacks on it are weaponized to censor and discriminate—has now extended to the Trump administration no longer explicitly prohibiting businesses from having segregated facilities as NPR reported today:

After a recent change by the Trump administration, the federal government no longer explicitly prohibits contractors from having segregated restaurants, waiting rooms and drinking fountains.
The segregation clause is one of several identified in a public memo issued by the General Services Administration last month, affecting all civil federal agencies. The memo explains that it is making changes prompted by President Trump's executive order on diversity, equity and inclusion, which repealed an executive order signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 regarding federal contractors and nondiscrimination. The memo also addresses Trump's executive order on gender identity.

To be clear, there are federal civil rights laws and state civil rights laws that ban such discrimination. So no businesses, whether or not they are federal contractors, can have segregated drinking fountains. But the fact that the federal government no longer explicitly restates to federal contractors that they cannot engage in discrimination—and actually took the action of changing text—raises a red flag about where this administration wants to go.

And it’s all under the cover of ending “DEI,” which is now just another term for installing fascism.

Robert Reich

What's behind Trump's attack on the American mind?

Robert Reich

March 20, 2025

ALTERNET

Today, Trump is dismantling the Department of Education. He’s ordering wrestling executive-turned-Education Secretary Linda McMahon to shut her department.

His executive order will effectively destroy a $100 billion-a-year executive department created by Congress under President Jimmy Carter 45 years ago.

But there’s a much larger plan here.

Combine this with Trump’s attacks on higher education — his gutting the funding of the National Institutes of Health (which provides a large portion of biomedical research) and the National Science Foundation (engineering and computer research), and his effective closure of USAID (which underwrites research in global diseases).

Put this together with Trump’s (and RFK Jr.’s) attacks on vaccine science,

Combine this with Trump’s attacks on the freedom of speech of university students and professors.

And Trump’s and rightwing governors’ attacks on teaching the truth in our schools about America’s history of slavery and Native American genocide.

Put this together with Trump’s attack on America’s libraries — last week’s executive order mandating cuts in the funding of libraries around the country — which will jeopardize literacy development and reading programs, reliable internet access for those without it at home, and homework help and other resources for students and educators.

Combine this with his attacks on America’s museums (the same executive order cut their funding, too). And his attack on the arts, as illustrated by Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center (last month, he announced himself its new chair, replaced 13 board members, and inserted a new interim president).

What’s the larger picture? What’s the overall purpose?

Not to mount an “attack on the liberal state,” as I keep reading. Not “a culmination of Trump’s culture wars.” Or that Trump seeking “small government” over “big government,” or is advancing traditional conservatism over traditional liberalism.

What’s really occurring is an attack on the American mind.

Throughout history, tyrants have understood that their major enemy is an educated citizenry. Slaveholders prohibited slaves from learning to read. Nazi’s burned books.

Ignorance is the handmaiden of tyranny.

Those who believe in democracy, on the other hand, have been at the forefront of the movement for free, universal public education; and for public libraries, museums, and the arts. They understand that democracy depends on people knowing what’s occurring around them and having the capacity to deliberate critically about it.

Trump is only the frontman in this attack on the American mind.

The attack is really coming from the anti-democracy movement: From JD Vance; and from Vance’s major financial backer, venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who staked $15 million on Vance’s Ohio senatorial election in 2022 and helped convince Trump to make Vance vice president; and from Thiel’s early business partner, Elon Musk.

Thiel is a self-styled libertarian who once wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

Hello? Freedom is incompatible with democracy only if you view democracy as a potential constraint on your wealth and power.

Behind Vance and Musk is a libertarian community of rich crypto bros, tech executives, back-to-the-landers, and disaffected far-right intellectuals.

Curtis Yarvin comes as close as anyone as being their intellectual godfather. He has written that political power in the United States is held by a liberal amalgam of universities and the mainstream media whose commitment to equality and justice is eroding America’s social order.

In Yarvin’s view, democratic governments are inefficient and wasteful. They should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose major “shareholders” select an executive with total power, who serves at their pleasure.Yarvin refers to the city-state of Singapore as an example of a successful authoritarian regime.

Make no mistake: Trump’s attack on the American mind — on education, science, libraries, and museums — is an attack on the capacity of Americans for self-government.


It is coming from the oligarchs of the techno-state who believe democracy is inefficient, and want to replace it with an authoritarian regime replete with technologies they control.

Be warned.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

Watch: Republican drowned out by 'tax the rich' chant at town hall in deep-red district

Woman shouting with a megaphone (Shutterstock)

Julia Conley

Common Dreams

March 19, 2025

A small Nebraska city where U.S. President Donald Trump easily won the 2024 election was the site of the latest chaotic Republican town hall on Tuesday evening, with Rep. Mike Flood facing a roomful of about 200 voters, many of whom refused to accept his excuses for the Trump administration's drastic cuts to the federal government.

Flood came to the Columbus High School auditorium prepared with a graphic showing the national debt, with a giant screen showing the sum ticking up to $36 trillion—evidently confident that the number would help explain to voters why Republicans are pushing for hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid and Social Security while backing billionaire Elon Musk's massive cuts to the federal workforce.

But when he displayed the number and told one voter who asked about cuts to the National Institutes of Health that, "ultimately, where we need to go is to a balanced budget," he was met with loud booing.

"How can you be against a balanced budget?" Flood asked the room—which prompted the reply, "tax the rich!" to ring out across the auditorium.

Flood was meeting with voters in Nebraska's deep-red 2nd District for the first time since Trump took office. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) recently advised GOP lawmakers to avoid town halls and claimed protesters who have shown up to numerous meetings with Republican representatives are "Democrat activists who don't live in the district," but he and other critics have presented no evidence that the anger directed at Trump's allies in Congress is coming from anywhere but their constituents.

Flood also faced questions about Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with one attendee asking, "What makes Elon Musk a better person to audit our government for waste, fraud, and abuse than the inspectors general that Donald Trump fired?"

"Elon Musk gets $40 billion a year in funding from the federal government. What makes you think he has no conflict of interest?" asked the voter. "Do you think he would cut that before he would cut our Medicare, or our Social Security, or our jobs?"

Flood replied that he supports both Musk and DOGE, prompting more loud booing and thumbs-down gestures.

With Republican lawmakers facing angry voters, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in recent weeks has toured states including Iowa, Nebraska, and Michigan, speaking to large crowds in Republican districts. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is scheduled to join him this week, while Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has also been holding town halls.

Watch the clip below or at this link:

'I hear you pivoting': CNN host battles MAGA schools chief accusing her of 'gaslighting'

CNN host Brianna Keilar (L) and Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters (R) on March 20, 2025 (Image: Screengrab via CNN / YouTube)

Carl Gibson

March 20, 2025
ALTERNET

Editor's note: This headline has been updated.

An exchange between CNN host Brianna Keilar and Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters got heated when the latter was confronted over his management of federal funds.

During the Thursday segment, Keilar hosted Walters to discuss how President Donald Trump's executive order intended to shut down the Department of Education in his state would impact public school students in the Sooner State. The two soon began cutting each other off, with Walters railing against Oklahoma's "radical left-wing teachers' union" and "woke administrators," while Keilar repeatedly steered the conversation back to Walters' widely criticized management of Oklahoma's public schools.

"I took on the worst, one of the worst education systems in the country and have embrace these reforms. so we have continued to see the improvement—"

"But overall you've had issues, sir," Keilar responded.

"No I haven't," Walters said, insisting that the only people complaining about his leadership were his political opponents.

Keilar reminded Walters that "Republican lawmakers as well as superintendents of schools who do not seem ideologically opposed to you" have been some of his most prominent critics. As the Oklahoma Voice reported last fall, Republican state representative Tammy West suggested that Walters' office was not providing appropriate "transparency, accountability and communication" when it came to how taxpayer dollars were spent.

"Superintendent, for instance, this whole business in the spring of not getting proper estimates to schools so that they could figure out how to plan for their federal funds that they were getting. You had them running right up into August," Keilar said. "Obviously, you know, in spring, you need to know, 'can I hire new teachers with Title I funds especially?' You're talking about impoverished students. Let's talk about them. That was something that you had Republicans in your state, superintendents in your state, very frustrated with because they were not able to plan. It seems like a miscarriage of just basic duties of how you handle funds."

Walters grew visibly frustrated, and pushed back on Keilar and the network itself, saying: "I know you're trying to railroad me here and gaslight here on CNN ... So what you continue to see is CNN here fighting for a status quo, instead of saying our education system has to get better, we should all agree on that ... No amount of gaslighting is going to change that."

Keilar reminded Walters that the Department of Education gave Walters' office a failing grade on 32 out of 52 indicators for how the state managed federal funding. She also pointed out that those failing marks were specifically about "how you are meeting the needs of students who are low income, the most at risk students in your state."

"The same department within a week also told us we had to allow boys in girls' sports and boys in girls' bathrooms, or they would take all of our funding away from us," Walters said. "The Biden administration Department of Education was constantly attacking conservative reforms, attacking school choice, sending the FBI and the DOJ to investigate parents —"

"What about you, superintendent, and your management here?" Keiler responded. "I hear you pivoting to talk about bathrooms, but your management of these funds — because what we're talking about now, Joe Biden's not president — but you're talking about getting this money in block grants. so let's talk about you and how you manage those funds because you're asking for it with fewer restrictions. That's what a block grant is. And there are serious questions about how you handle that."

Watch the segment below, or by clicking this link.

OKLAHOMA PUBLIC SCHOOLS BEING FORCED TO HAVE BIBLES, 1O COMMANDMENTS AND BIBLE STUDY