

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Dutch media please contact Greenpeace Netherlands, +31 (0)6 21 29 68 95, persvoorlichting@greenpeace.nl
Brussels media please contact Greenpeace EU press desk, +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org
International media please contact Greenpeace International press desk (24 hours), +31 (0)20 718 2470, pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org
Today Greenpeace Netherlands releases secret documents of the EU-US TTIP negotiations. On www.ttip-leaks.org the documents will be made available for everyone to read, because democracy needs transparency.
"These documents make clear the scale and scope of the trade citizens of the United States and the European Union are being asked to make in pursuit of corporate profits. It is time for the negotiations to stop, and the debate to begin.
Should we be able to act when we have reasonable grounds to believe our health and wellbeing is at risk, or must we wait until the damage is done?
Were our governments serious in Paris when they said they would do what was necessary to protect the planet, and keep climate change under 1.5 degrees?
Environmental protection should not be seen as a barrier to trade, but as a safeguard for our health, and the health of future generations.
We call on citizens, civil society, politicians and businesses to engage in this debate openly and without fear. We call on the negotiators to release the latest, complete text to facilitate that discussion, and we ask that the negotiations be stopped until these questions, and many more have been answered. Until we can fully engage in a debate about the standards we and our planet need and want" - Sylvia Borren, Executive Director Greenpeace Netherlands.
Which documents are we releasing?
The documents that Greenpeace Netherlands has released comprise about half of the draft text as of April 2016, prior to the start of the 13th round of TTIP negotiations between the EU and the US (New York, 25-29 April 2016). As far as we know the final document will consist of 25 to 30 chapters and many extensive annexes. The EU Commission published an overview stating that they have now 17 consolidated texts. This means the documents released by Greenpeace Netherlands encompass 3/4 of the existing consolidated texts.[1]
Consolidated texts are those where the EU and US positions on issues are shown side by side. This step in the negotiation process allows us to see the areas where the EU and US are close to agreement, and where compromises and concessions would still need to be made. Of the documents released by Greenpeace Netherlands, in total 248 pages, 13 chapters offer for the first time the position of the US.
How have the documents been handled?
The documents we received had clearly been treated to make it possible to identify individual copies. Prior to release they have been retyped and identifying features removed. We have not altered content of the documents and have preserved the layout. For this reason we are not offering access to the original documents.
How do you know the documents are genuine?
After receiving the documents both Greenpeace Netherlands and Rechercheverbund NDR, WDR und Suddeutsche Zeitung, a renowned German investigative research partnership have analysed them and compared them to existing documents. The Rechercheverbund, which consists of different German media outlets, has covered, amongst other big stories, the Snowden leaks and the recent Volkswagen emissions scandals.
What are the first conclusions from the documents?
From an environmental and consumer protection point of view four aspects are of serious concern.
Long standing environmental protections appear to be dropped
None of the chapters we have seen reference the General Exceptions rule. This nearly 70-year-old rule enshrined in the GATT agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO), allows nations to regulate trade "to protect human, animal and plant life or health" or for "the conservation of exhaustible natural resources" [2]. The omission of this regulation suggests both sides are creating a regime that places profit ahead of human, animal and plant life and health.
Climate protection will be harder under TTIP
The Paris Climate Agreement makes one point clear: We must keep temperature increase under 1.5 degrees to avoid a climate crisis with effects on billions of people worldwide. Trade should not be excluded from climate action. But nothing indicating climate protection can be found in the obtained texts. Even worse, the scope for mitigation measures is limited by provisions of the chapters on Regulatory Cooperation or Market Access for Industrial Goods. [3] As an example these proposals would rule out regulating the import of CO2 intensive fuels such as oil from Tar Sands.
The end of the precautionary principle
The precautionary principle, enshrined in the EU Treaty[4], is not mentioned in the chapter on Regulatory Cooperation, nor in any other of the obtained 12 chapters. On the other hand the US demand for a 'risk based' approach that aims to manage hazardous substances rather than avoid them, finds its way into various chapters. This approach undermines the ability of regulators to take preventive measures, for example regarding controversial substances like hormone disrupting chemicals.
Opening the door for corporate takeover
While the proposals threaten environmental and consumer protection, big business gets what it wants. Opportunities to participate in decision making are granted to corporations to intervene at the earliest stages of the decision making process.
While civil society has had little access to the negotiations, there are many instances where the papers show that industry has been granted a privileged voice in important decisions. [5] The leaked documents indicate that the EU has not been open about the high degree of industry influence. The EU's recent public report [6] has only one minor mention of industry input, whereas the leaked documents repeatedly talk about the need for further consultations with industry and explicitly mention how industry input has been collected.
###
Notes:
[1] The documents we are releasing are
[chapter 1.1.] National Treatment and Market Access for Goods
This chapter addresses trade in goods between EU and US.
[chapter 1.2.] Agriculture
This chapter deals with trade in agricultural products and illustrates EU-US disagreements on matters such as genetically modified organisms.
[chapter 1.3.] Cross-Border Trade in Services
This chapter addresses trade in the service industry sector.
[chapter 1.4] Electronic Communications
This chapter addresses Internet and telecommunications issues.
[chapter 1.5.] Government Procurement
This chapter deals with purchases by government entities within the EU and US.
[chapter 1.6.] Annex Government Procurement
The annex of the previous chapter, with additional information about a US-proposed chapter on anti-corruption.
[chapter 1.7.] Customs and Trade and Facilitation
This chapter addresses differences among various customs regulations.
[chapter 1.8.] EU - US revised tariff offers
These are the respective positions regarding tariffs.
[chapter 2.1.] Regulatory Cooperation
In this controversial chapter EU and US aim for joint regulations on products and services, for example for food and cosmetics safety.
[chapter 2.2.] Technical Barriers to Trade
This chapter addresses differences between EU-US regulations and the ways in which they affect trade.
[chapter 2.3.] Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
This chapter deals with the protection of plant and animal health.
[chapter 3.1.] Competition
This chapter deals with competition between parties.
[chapter 3.2.] Small and Medium-sized Enterprise
This chapter addresses enterprises smaller than multi-national corporations.
[chapter 3.3.] State-owned Enterprise
This chapter addresses nationalised enterprises.
[chapter 4.] Dispute Settlement
This chapter deals with resolving disagreements between the EU and the US.
[chapter 5.] Tactical State of Play
Not intended for public viewing, this document describes EU-US disagreements and shows how much private industry influences the TTIP negotiations.
[2] Most of the WTO's agreements were the outcome of the 1986-94 Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. Some, including GATT 1994, were revisions of texts that previously existed.
[3] Nothing in the relevant Articles 10 (Import and Export Restrictions) and 12 (Import and Export Licensing) of the Chapter on National Treatment and Market Access for Goods shows that necessary trade related measures to protect the climate would be allowed as a trade restriction under GATT Article XX (see footnote 1).
[4] "The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al32042
[5] e.g. "While the US showed an interest, it hastened to point out that it would need to consult with its industry regarding some of the products" - Chapter 'Tactical State of Play', paragraph 1.1, Agriculture.
[6] 'The Twelfth Round of Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)' https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154391.pdf
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000"This contemptible assault on American education must be condemned by everyone who strives towards a prosperous future for our country and our children," said one opponent of the new partnerships.
Teachers union leaders, Democratic lawmakers, and other critics of President Donald Trump's efforts to dismantle the US Department of Education on Tuesday forcefully denounced what the administration is calling "new agency partnerships to break up federal bureaucracy."
Although the Education Department cannot be fully shuttered without approval from Congress, Trump has signed an executive order aimed at starting the process "to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law" and laid off over 1,300 workers.
Shortly after journalists began reporting on the new plans Tuesday, citing unnamed sources, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon confirmed the agreements with the departments of Health and Human Services, the Interior, Labor, and State.
One federal official told Politico that the partnerships are a "proof of concept strategy to show Congress how this can be done," and said that the Education Department will work with lawmakers "on making these agreements permanent."
A succinct description of so much that this administration does: if they don’t like longstanding, duly enacted laws and Congress isn’t prepared to amend them, they’ll just hack them to bits illegally.wapo.st/4i6ZRr5
[image or embed]
— Heidi Kitrosser (@heidikitrosser.bsky.social) November 18, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union representing nearly 3 million employees, noted in a statement that "Donald Trump and his administration chose American Education Week, a time when our nation is celebrating students, public schools, and educators, to announce their illegal plan to further abandon students by dismantling the Department of Education."
"Not only do they want to starve and steal from our students—they want to rob them of their futures," Pringle said. "Ensuring a brighter future for our children should be a top priority for any administration, but this administration is taking every chance it can to hack away at the very protections and services our students need."
"Just last week, they went to the Supreme Court to avoid feeding families. And they're still pushing to gut healthcare programs," she continued. "Now, they're neglecting the basic responsibility to educate our children. It's cruel. It's shameful. And our students deserve so much better."
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, whose union represents 1.8 million people, declared that "this move is neither streamlining nor reform—it's an abdication and abandonment of America's future."
"Spreading services across multiple departments will create more confusion, more mistakes, and more barriers for people who are just trying to access the support they need."
"What's happening now isn't about slashing red tape. If that were the goal, teachers could help them do it, and we invite Donald Trump and Linda McMahon to sit down with educators and hear from the people who actually do this work every day," she emphasized. "Teachers know how to make the federal role more effective, efficient, and supportive of real learning—if only the administration would listen."
"Instead, spreading services across multiple departments will create more confusion, more mistakes, and more barriers for people who are just trying to access the support they need," she warned.
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for nonprofit Protect Borrowers, similarly said that "shuffling certain functions of the US Department of Education across four different agencies is a political stunt that will only lead to more chaos and confusion for working families who just want their kids to get a quality education, to be able to pay for college, and to pay off their student loans."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, also slammed the announcement, saying that "in his ongoing rampage against everything that makes our country what it is, President Trump is now acting on the plan to destroy the Department of Education."
"Short of toppling the Statue of Liberty, there is perhaps nothing that could capture the agenda of this administration more than what they are in fact doing right now: Making an enemy out of education itself," she suggested. "This contemptible assault on American education must be condemned by everyone who strives towards a prosperous future for our country and our children."
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.)—a former preschool teacher and local school board member—also piled on, saying that "Donald Trump and Linda McMahon are lawlessly trying to fulfill Project 2025's goal to abolish the Department of Education and pull the rug out from students in every part of the country."
"But instead of seeking congressional approval of their reckless actions to weaken our education system—which McMahon has acknowledged is necessary—Trump and McMahon are now pretending that our laws and the constitutional separation of powers are a mere suggestion," said Murray, who used to lead and remains a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
"This is an outright illegal effort to continue dismantling the Department of Education," she argued, "and it is students and families who will suffer the consequences as key programs that help students learn to read or that strengthen ties between schools and families are spun off to agencies with little to no relevant expertise and are gravely weakened—or even completely broken—in the process."
The senator stressed that she is "always ready and willing to talk about reforms to our education laws to improve educational outcomes for students," and urged her Republican colleagues to join Democrats in standing up against the administration's attacks.
The GOP controls both chambers of Congress. According to Murray, "The fact that Trump and McMahon are choosing to break the law to do this on their own—despite having unified Republican control of Washington—tells us they know just how unpopular their plans are and can't win the approval of members of their own party."
"Billionaire companies are bankrolling Trump’s ballroom and it stinks of bribery," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Amid concerns over President Donald Trump's White House ballroom, a pair of Democratic US lawmakers on Tuesday introduced legislation "to root out apparent bribery and corruption" involving the $300 million project.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) introduced the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act, described by Warren's office as "the first piece of legislation addressing the ballroom that would impose donation restrictions."
“Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom—and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line," Warren said in a statement. "Americans shouldn’t have to wonder whether President Trump is building a ballroom to facilitate a pay-to-play scheme for political favors. My new bill will put an end to what looks like bribery in plain sight."
Billionaire companies are bankrolling Trump’s ballroom and it stinks of bribery.That’s why @robertgarcia.house.gov and I introduced a bill to crack down on this potential corruption.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) November 18, 2025 at 11:16 AM
Garcia said: "Donald Trump is raising hundreds of millions of dollars to build himself a White House ballroom at a time when millions of American families can barely make ends meet. It's outrageous that the White House won’t reveal who’s bankrolling Trump’s pet project, and that the people’s house could be funded by shady figures, corrupt money, and bad actors."
"This bill will ban contributions from anyone with a conflict of interest, prevent bribery, and ensure we can hold any administration accountable for blatant corruption," he added.
Noting that many of the "wealthy individuals, corporations, and organizations" funding the ballroom "need something from the Trump administration," Warren's office flagged "serious concerns of quid-pro-quo arrangements and possible bribery."
"Ethics experts have argued that the apparent pay-to-play relationship between Trump and business leaders oversteps the norms of presidential behavior and could erode Americans’ trust in government," the senator's office added.
As Warren's office noted:
Key ballroom donors currently have business interests in front of the Trump administration. For example, Google, which recently donated $22 million to settle President Trump’s censorship lawsuit against YouTube, will benefit if Trump’s [Department of Justice] decides not to appeal a recent judicial ruling in a relevant antitrust case. Meanwhile, Union Pacific Railroad is seeking federal approval of a lucrative merger and Palantir is working to get more federal contracts.
The White House has refused to be fully transparent, publishing only a noncomprehensive donor list missing multiple key donors and offering donors anonymity. Donations for projects like the ballroom are often channeled through the National Park Service and philanthropic partners; nonprofits with formal ties to property used by the president and [Vice President JD Vance] raise unique conflict-of-interest risks when fundraising from individuals and corporations with interests in front of the federal government.
The Stop Ballroom Bribery Act would:
Virginia Canter, chief counsel and director for ethics and anticorruption at Democracy Defenders Action—another backer of the bill—said that "over the past year, President Trump has raised millions of dollars for vanity projects at the White House—like paving over the Rose Garden and demolishing the beloved East Wing."
"These funds have come from private donors without meaningful transparency or accountability,” Canter added. “The highest office in the land should never be for sale, nor should it ever appear to be."
“The Trump-Abbott maps are clearly illegal, and I’m glad these judges have blocked them,” said Rep. Greg Casar.
In a direct rebuke to President Donald Trump's hopes that mid-decade redistricting in key states could help Republicans retain control of Congress in next year's midterm elections, a federal court Tuesday ordered Texas to halt the use of its new congressional maps, redrawn earlier this year as part of a GOP effort to maximize its advantage in the Lone Star State.
The unprecedented mid-decade power grab was expected to net Republicans an extra five seats in the House, which, in tandem with other redistricting efforts in Missouri and North Carolina, may have proven critical in their efforts to blunt a blue wave by Democrats in next year's midterms.
But those efforts ran into an unexpected obstacle when Tuesday's 2-1 ruling by a panel of three federal judges in Texas determined the maps were "racially gerrymandered," disempowering nonwhite voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). With a preliminary injunction, the court ordered the state to instead rely on the boundaries it drew in 2021.
In the majority opinion, District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote that while "politics played a role" in Trump's request for Texas to redraw its maps, the White House explicitly "reframed its request as a demand to redistrict congressional seats based on their racial makeup."
Specifically, Brown's decision cited a claim made in a letter to Texas officials from Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, that the existence of four "coalition districts," where no racial group had a 50% majority, in the 2021 map, was "unconstitutional." The DOJ threatened legal action against Texas if it did not immediately move to redraw these districts, which it promptly did at the direction of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
This is despite the fact that, as Brown points out, "attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General—who professes to be a political ally of the Trump Administration—describe the DOJ letter as 'legally unsound,' 'baseless,' 'erroneous,' 'ham-fisted,' and 'a mess.'"
"The governor explicitly directed the legislature to draw a new US House map to resolve DOJ’s concerns," Brown wrote. "In other words, the governor explicitly directed the legislature to redistrict based on race. In press appearances, the governor plainly and expressly disavowed any partisan objective and instead repeatedly stated that his goal was to eliminate coalition districts and create new majority-Hispanic districts."
"The legislature adopted those racial objectives," he continued. "The redistricting bill’s sponsors made numerous statements suggesting that they had intentionally manipulated the districts’ lines to create more majority-Hispanic and majority-Black districts. The bill’s sponsors’ statements suggest they adopted those changes because such a map would be an easier sell than a purely partisan one."
Republicans will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court. But as the Texas Tribune points out, "time is short," as "candidates only have until December 8 to file for the upcoming election," which means that the district lines must be determined before then.
Chad Dunn, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said: "It seems they’d have a limited chance of success at the Supreme Court because the evidence is so overwhelming. Everyone involved said they were drawing the lines on the basis of race. I don’t see how the Supreme Court sets that aside.”
The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority has signaled that it intends to strike down Section 2 of the VRA entirely. But that case is currently scheduled for early next year and could not be brought onto the shadow docket in time to override the ruling blocking the Texas map for 2026.
While it could have major implications for future elections, likely allowing the GOP to net over a dozen additional seats, in the near term, Trump's gambit for aggressive racial gerrymandering may blow up in his and his party's face---at least temporarily.
Texas' maps kicked off a retaliatory gerrymandering push by Democrats to redraw maps to their advantage in blue states. That effort culminated in California voters' overwhelming passage earlier this month of Proposition 50, which overrode the state's independent redistricting commission and allowed the state legislature to draw maps that handed Democrats an additional five seats. Similar efforts may soon be underway in New York and Virginia.
With the cushion provided by Texas suddenly yanked away, Democrats now appear to be the clear winners of the gerrymandering war if things stand as they are. Instead of gaining the GOP five extra seats, Trump's gambit could end up costing it five.
"Today’s ruling is a rebuke of Texas Republicans who caved to Donald Trump and trampled the voting rights of their constituents," said Adrian Shelley, the Texas director of Public Citizen. "Gov. Abbott and his allies in the Legislature have forgotten their independent streak as Texans. Perhaps they can find the courage that Republicans in a few other states have to tell the president no.”
Meanwhile, Texas Democrats previously at risk of being gerrymandered out of their seats, rejoiced in the wake of Tuesday's ruling.
This includes Austin Reps. Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett, who, in anticipation of seeing their districts smushed into one, have spent the past several months engaged in a sort of shadow primary, which resulted in Doggett saying he'd retire if the maps were upheld. If Tuesday's ruling holds, both of their districts would remain intact.
"The Trump Abbott maps are clearly illegal, and I’m glad these judges have blocked them," Casar said after Tuesday's ruling. "If this decision stands, I look forward to running for reelection in my current district."
While he celebrated the ruling, he said, "no matter what, we must fight to pass a federal ban on gerrymandering once and for all."