

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.
Paul Paz y Miño: +1 510.281.9020 x302 or paz@amazonwatch.org
Chevron's unprecedented $11 billion pollution liability in Ecuador and its refusal to address climate change are set to dominate the company's annual meeting as CEO John Watson faces increasing pressure from his own shareholders, court rulings, and environmental groups who are accusing the company of trying to intimidate critics and evade its legacy contamination problems.
A renowned indigenous leader, Humberto Piaguaje of the Secoya nationality, is traveling from his jungle home in the Ecuadorian Amazon to confront Watson over Chevron's refusal to pay the historic court judgment requiring that the company remediate billions of gallons of toxic waste dumped into the rainforest. The court judgment is considered one of the greatest triumphs in the corporate accountability movement in history and prompted a U.S. congresswoman to demand an SEC investigation of company management for hiding the risk from shareholders.
(Here is a summary of the evidence against Chevron. Here is a 60 Minutes segment documenting the company's toxic dumping in Ecuador. Here is a recent podcast interview about the case conducted by Alec Baldwin.)
"John Watson and Chevron's Board are facing a perfect storm of burgeoning problems stemming from the company's poor environmental record and primitive governance structure," said Paul Paz y Mino, Associate Director at Amazon Watch, an Oakland-based environmental group that works with Chevron's victims. "Watson's refusal to clean up his toxic waste in Ecuador and his evasive approach to climate change might explain why the company is now seen as the poster child for corporate greed.
"These issues will come to the fore in a big way both inside and outside the shareholder meeting, where protestors will gather to urge responsible action from Chevron's narrow-minded management team," Paz y Mino said.
Chevron operated in Ecuador under the Texaco brand from 1964 to 1992, leaving behind an environmental and public health catastrophe called the "Amazon Chernobyl" by locals. The pollution has devastated dozens of indigenous and farmer communities, driven up cancer rates, and cost Chevron an estimated $2 billion in legal and other fees while the company's reputation has been pounded by journalists and good government groups.
A top Chevron official has said the company would fight the indigenous groups "until hell freezes over" and "then fight it out on the ice." Although Chevron insisted for years that the environmental claims be heard in Ecuador and had accepted jurisdiction there, the company later sold all of its assets in the country and now refuses to pay the judgment.
The indigenous groups last year won a resounding victory before Canada's Supreme Court in their effort to force Watson to comply with the judgment by seizing the company's assets. In Canada, Chevron has an estimated $15 billion worth of oil fields, bank accounts, and refineries - or more than enough to pay the entirety of the Ecuador judgment. Watson and his chief lawyer, R. Hewitt Pate, have tried to argue that company assets in Canada should be off limits to the Ecuadorians because they are held by a wholly-owned subsidiary.
Chevron also faces mounting pressure from a growing international movement of communities from Europe and Latin America who have banded together to oppose the company's sub-standard environmental practices. This year's action, called the "Anti-Chevron Day", will take place from May 20-21 and will include online and live activities in several countries that will denounce Chevron's environmental and human rights violations. (See here for background.)
Apart from pressure from the Amazonian communities, some of Chevron's own shareholders are also demanding that Watson - who in 2015 personally earned $22 million despite a 75% drop in company revenue - comply immediately with the Ecuador court judgment and clean up the estimated 1,000 toxic waste pits and other pollution it left behind when it departed the South American nation in 1992.
Seattle-based Newground Social Investment this year filed a shareholder resolution (see p. 80 of Chevron's 2016 proxy) that sharply rebukes Watson for his mishandling of the Ecuador litigation. Chevron has used dozens of law firms and up to 2,000 lawyers to fight the indigenous groups, but it continues to suffer courtroom setbacks.
Eighteen consecutive appellate judges in Ecuador and Canada have now ruled against Chevron in a case that is fast becoming a potential "litigation catastrophe" for the company. The Supreme Courts of both Ecuador and Canada have unanimously ruled against Chevron; another U.S. appellate court unanimously ruled against the company when it tried to use a U.S. trial judge to block enforcement of the Ecuador judgment anywhere in the world.
The Newground resolution calls for Chevron to make it easier to hold special meetings given that Watson's management team "has mishandled a number of issues in ways that significantly increase both risks and costs to shareholders. The most pressing of these issues is the ongoing legal effort by communities in Ecuador to enforce a $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment for oil pollution." (The judgment is now roughly $11 billion because of statutory interest.)
Newground asserts that under Watson's leadership, Chevron "has yet to properly report these risks in either public filings or statements to shareholders. As a result, investors requested on several occasions that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigate whether Chevron had violated securities laws by misrepresenting or materially omitting information" relevant to the Ecuador liability.
Chevron also faces several other shareholder resolutions - one sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists - that suggest the company has fallen well behind its industry peers in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the challenges of climate change. One such resolution calls on the company to produce reports establishing company-wide goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Another asks for a change in dividend policy given that the global shift away from fossil fuels will likely lead to billions of dollars of stranded assets in the form of oil reserves. Watson and Chevron's Board oppose all of the climate change resolutions.
Piaguaje's trip, being made on behalf of dozens of indigenous and farmer communities devastated by Chevron's pollution, will culminate in an expected face-to-face showdown with Watson on May 25 at company headquarters near San Francisco. Piaguaje will confront Watson with the extensive evidence of the company's toxic dumping relied on by Ecuador's Supreme Court to unanimously affirm the judgment.
Chevron continues to get hit hard on the Ecuador issue. Several months ago, Chevron's star witness admitted lying under oath after being paid more than $2 million by the company, moved to the United States, and coached for 53 consecutive days by Chevron lawyers before being allowed to testify. Separately, Amazon Watch recently disclosed a Chevron whistleblower video showing company scientists trying to fraudulently hide extensive evidence of oil pollution from the Ecuador court. The video has been seen millions of times on the internet.
Piaguaje and other Ecuadorian rainforest leaders - including Goldman Environmental Prize winners Luis Yanza and Pablo Fajardo - have been pressuring Watson for years to pay the pollution liability so their ancestral lands can be remediated. Disease rates have skyrocketed in the affected area, groundwater has been contaminated, and there is virtually no clean water for tens of thousands of people. Piaguaje's Secoya community has seen its culture decimated because of a lack of fresh water and clean food, according to evidence in the case.
"Our leaders plan to confront Mr. Watson with judgments from multiple courts mandating the company pay its pollution bill to the people of Ecuador," said Piaguaje. "Mr. Watson needs to accept responsibility for Chevron's environmental crimes in Ecuador, apologize to the company's victims, and abide by court orders that compensation be paid.
"Until he abides by the rule of law, Mr. Watson and Chevron's Board members will be considered by us to be fugitives from justice subject to arrest for crimes against humanity under principles of universal jurisdiction," he added.
In previous shareholder meetings, Chevron's management has suffered a series of sharp rebukes over its Ecuador liability. One resolution calling on Watson to separate the positions of Chairman and CEO - widely considered a corporate governance anachronism - received a whopping 38% support from all company shareholders. Normally, any shareholder resolution that receives more than 10% support is considered successful.
In addition, in 2011 several of Chevron's institutional shareholders with more than $580 billion in assets under management sent Watson a letter urging the company to settle the Ecuador case. Amazon Watch also organized a letter signed by 43 non-profit human rights and corporate accountability groups blasting the company for trying to silence its critics over the Ecuador issue.
"In failing to negotiate a reasonable settlement prior to the Ecuadorian court's ruling against the company, we believe that Chevron's Board of Directors and management displayed poor judgment that has exposed the Corporation to a substantial financial liability and risk to its operations," said the investor letter.
U.S. Congressman James McGovern (D-MA), who visited the affected area in 2008, also sent a letter to President-elect Obama describing the horrid living conditions caused by Chevron's dumping practices. The company has also been criticized for trying to silence an anti-Chevron activist in Canada, for trying to intimidate lawyers and scientists for the villagers by suing them privately under racketeering laws, and for trying to shut down dissent by issuing subpoenas to more than 100 journalists, bloggers, and even some of its own shareholders who have questioned management. In 2010, his first year as CEO, Watson lost his cool at the shareholder meeting and had five people arrested who had challenged him over Ecuador.
Deepak Gupta, a prominent U.S. appellate lawyer who represents U.S. attorney Steven Donziger (the main target of Chevron's retaliation campaign), recent called Chevron's litigation strategy an "intimidation model" in an interview with Rolling Stone.
Chevron faces a critical court hearing in Canada in September that could knock out most of the company's case that it plans to use to evade enforcement of the judgment.
"The damage is so extensive that it is unclear whether the full amount of the judgment would be sufficient for a comprehensive clean-up," Piaguaje said. "The humanitarian crisis in our communities due to Chevron's pollution is dire and getting worse."
Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
"Trump, Putin, and Xi can and must put the world on a safer path by taking commonsense actions to build down the nuclear danger," said one campaigner.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday implicitly confirmed that New START—a key arms control treaty between the United States and Russia—will expire Thursday, prompting renewed demands for what one group called "a more coherent approach from the Trump administration" toward nuclear nonproliferation.
Asked about the impending expiration of New START during a Wednesday press conference, Rubio said he didn't "have any announcement" on the matter, and that President Donald Trump "will opine on it later."
"Obviously, the president’s been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile," Rubio said.
🇺🇸🇷🇺🇨🇳 Secretary of State Marco Rubio:
I don't have any announcement on New START right now. I think the President will opine on it later.
The President has been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it's impossible to do something that… pic.twitter.com/8pxi3bfdsy
— Visioner (@visionergeo) February 4, 2026
New START, signed in 2010, committed the United States and Russia to halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers in their arsenals. While the treaty did not limit the size of the countries' actual nuclear arsenals, proponents pointed to its robust verification regime and other transparency features as mutually beneficial highlights of the agreement.
“We have known that New START would end for 15 years, but no one has shown the necessary leadership to be prepared for its expiration,” said John Erath, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and former longtime State Department official.
“The treaty limited the number of nuclear weapons the United States and Russia could have, but perhaps more importantly, New START also provided each country with unprecedented insights into the other’s arsenal so that Washington and Moscow could make decisions based on real information rather than speculation," Erath added.
The last remaining major treaty limiting the world's two largest nuclear arsenals expires Feb. 5. Does this mean the end of nuclear arms control? Not necessarily. Read our statement.armscontrolcenter.org/statement-on...
[image or embed]
— Nukes of Hazard (@nukesofhazard.bsky.social) February 4, 2026 at 2:04 PM
Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said Wednesday that "the end of New START requires a more coherent approach from the Trump administration."
"If President Trump and Secretary Rubio are serious, they should make a serious proposal for bilateral (not trilateral) talks with Beijing," he asserted. "Despite Trump’s talk about involving China in nuclear negotiations, there is no indication that Trump or his team have taken the time to propose risk reduction or arms control talks with China since returning to office in 2025."
Kimball continued:
Furthermore, there is no reason why the United States and Russia should not and cannot continue, as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin suggested on September 22, to respect the central limits of New START and begin the hard work of negotiating a new framework agreement involving verifiable limits on strategic, intermediate-range, and short-range nuclear weapons, as well as strategic missile defenses.
At the same time, if he is serious about involving China in “denuclearization” talks, he could and should invite [Chinese President Xi Jinping] when they meet later this year, to agree to regular bilateral talks on risk reduction and arms control involving senior Chinese and US officials.
"With the end of New START, Trump, Putin, and Xi can and must put the world on a safer path by taking commonsense actions to build down the nuclear danger," Kimball added.
Erath lamented that "with New START’s expiration, we have not only lost unprecedented verification measures that our military and decision-makers depended on, but we have ended more than five decades of painstaking diplomacy that successfully avoided nuclear catastrophe."
"Agreements preceding New START helped reduce the global nuclear arsenal by more than 80% since the height of the Cold War,"
he noted. "Now, both Russia and the United States have no legal obstacle to building their arsenals back up, and we could find ourselves reliving the Cold War."
Last week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board advanced its symbolic Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to global thermonuclear annihilation, citing developments including failure to extend New START, China's growing arsenal, and Russian weapons tests—to which Trump has vowed to respond in kind.
"The good news is," said Erath, is that "the end of New START does not have to mean the end of nuclear arms control."
"While New START can’t be extended beyond today, Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could decide to respect the numerical limits the treaty set on nuclear arsenals," he explained. "They could also resume the treaty’s data exchanges and on-site inspections, in addition to implementing verification measures from other previous arms control treaties."
"Further, they could instruct their administrations to begin immediate talks on a new treaty to cover existing and novel systems and potentially bring in other nuclear powers, like China," Erath continued. "Meanwhile, Congress could—and should—fund nonproliferation and global monitoring efforts while refusing to fund dangerous new nuclear weapons systems."
Last December, US Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) reintroduced the bicameral Hastening Arms Limitation Talks (HALT) Act, "legislation outlining a vision for a 21st century freeze on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons."
"The Doomsday Clock is at 85 seconds to midnight," Markey—who co-chairs the congressional Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group—said Wednesday ahead of a press conference with HALT Act co-sponsors. "We need to replace New START now."
"Every single ICE and CBP agent should be out of Minnesota," the congresswoman said. "The terror campaign must stop."
President Donald Trump's "border czar," Tom Homan, announced Wednesday that 700 immigration agents are leaving Minnesota, but with around 2,000 expected to remain there, Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, whose district includes Minneapolis, declared that the drawdown is "not enough."
As part of Trump's "Operation Metro Surge," agents with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have invaded multiple Minnesota cities, including Minneapolis and Saint Paul, and committed various acts of violence, such as fatally shooting Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
In a pair of social media posts about Homan's announcement, Omar argued that "every single ICE and CBP agent should be out of Minnesota. The terror campaign must stop."
"This occupation has to end!" she added, also renewing her call to abolish ICE—a position adopted by growing shares of federal lawmakers and the public as Trump's mass deportation agenda has hit Minnesota's Twin Cities, the Chicago and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, multiple cities in Maine, and other communities across the United States.
In Congress, where a fight over funding for CBP and ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, is playing out, Omar has stood with other progressives in recent votes. The bill signed by Trump on Tuesday only funds DHS through the middle of the month, though Republicans gave ICE an extra $75 billion in last year's budget package.
During an on-camera interview with NBC News' Tom Llamas, Trump said that the reduction of agents came from him. After the president's factually dubious rant about crime rates, Llamas asked what he had learned from the operation in Minnesota. Trump responded: "I learned that maybe we can use a little bit of a softer touch. But you still have to be tough."
"We're really dealing with really hard criminals," Trump added. Despite claims from him and others in the administration that recent operations have targeted "the worst of the worst," data have repeatedly shown that most immigrants detained by federal officials over the past year don't have any criminal convictions.
Operation Metro Surge has been met with persistent protests in Minnesota and solidarity actions across the United States. Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Wednesday that "the limited drawdown of ICE agents from Minnesota is not a concession. It is a direct response to Minnesotans standing up to unconstitutional federal overreach."
"Minnesotans are winning against this attack on all our communities by organizing, resisting, and defending our constitutional rights. But this moment should not be a victory lap," Hussein continued. "It must instead be a call to continue pushing for justice. The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal immigration agents remain uninvestigated, and communities and prosecutors alike have raised grave concerns about violations of their oaths and the Constitution. This is not the time to pull back, it is the time to deepen our resilience, increase our support for one another, and keep fighting for our democracy and accountability until justice is served."
The Not Above the Law coalition's co-chairs—Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Kelsey Herbert of MoveOn, Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen, and Brett Edkins, of Stand Up America—similarly said that "Tom Homan's announcement that 700 federal immigration agents will be withdrawn from Minnesota is more a minor concession than a meaningful policy shift."
"The vast majority—approximately 2,000 federal agents—remain deployed in the state, and enforcement operations continue unabated," the co-chairs stressed. "This token gesture does nothing to address the ongoing terror families face or the constitutional crisis this administration's actions have created."
“The killings of Minnesotans demand real accountability," they added. "Families torn apart by raids and alleged constitutional violations deserve justice. Real change means the complete withdrawal of all federal forces conducting these operations in Minnesota, full accountability for the deaths and violations that have occurred, and congressional action to restore the rule of law. The American people deserve better than political theater when constitutional rights hang in the balance."
On Tuesday, the state and national ACLU asked the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to "use its early warning and urgent action procedure in response to the human rights crisis following the Trump administration's deployment of federal forces" in the Twin Cities.
"The Trump administration's ongoing immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota are being carried out by thousands of masked federal agents in military gear who are ignoring basic constitutional and human rights of Minnesotans," said Teresa Nelson, legal director of the ACLU of Minnesota. "Their targeting of our Somali and Latino communities threatens Minnesotans’ most fundamental rights, and it has spread fear among immigrant communities and neighborhoods."
"When Big Pharma gets richer off the back of a grandmother struggling to pay for cancer medication, the system is broken."
Led by Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, four Democratic senators on Wednesday outlined plans to reduce the costs of prescription drugs after President Donald Trump claimed he would do so—only to allow Big Pharma companies to delay negotiating lower prices and secure "zero commitments" from top executives on making lifesaving medications more affordable for millions of Americans.
“There is no greater fraud than Donald J. Trump when it comes to lower drug prices,” Wyden (D-Ore.) said. “Our doors are wide open to anybody who wants to take the bold next step forward on lowering drug costs for Americans."
Along with a "flash report" on Trump's "broken promises" regarding his pledge to bring drug prices down “to levels nobody ever thought was possible," Wyden sent a Dear Colleague letter to Democratic senators regarding his committee's plans to follow through with lowering costs.
"Finance Committee minority staff will dedicate substantial time and effort this year to developing the next generation of healthcare solutions that lower costs for American families," Wyden wrote. "These solutions will rein in Big Pharma’s outrageous price increases, lower costs for consumers, guarantee predictability for patients, and reduce wasteful government spending that pads the profits of big corporations. Alongside the co-signers of this letter, I invite you to be a part of this bold vision."
The letter, co-signed by Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), notes that "the only concrete drug pricing policy Trump enacted within the past year was a price hike for the biggest blockbuster cancer drugs on Earth, giving an $8.8 billion windfall to the pharmaceutical industry."
In contrast, the senators wrote, the Senate Finance Committee will develop policies to incorporate international pricing models into the Medicare drug price negotiation framework, including by allowing Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to consider international prices as a factor or penalize drugmakers when pricing for US customers exceeds international benchmarks.
“Democrats are determined to bring prices down, and we’re willing to work with anyone to find concrete ways to do it."
The committee will also work to end Republican "blockbuster drug bailouts from negotiation," like the ones included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that shielded several high-priced drugs—including the cancer drug Keytruda—from Medicare price negotiations.
"The Republican budget bill contained a nearly $9 billion sweetheart deal that benefits the biggest drug companies by delaying or exempting some lifesaving medications from negotiation," reads the Democrats' flash report.
Gallego said that "when Big Pharma gets richer off the back of a grandmother struggling to pay for cancer medication, the system is broken."
"That’s what this is all about: Big Pharma execs sitting in their fancy corner offices profiting off of sick, working-class Americans,” the senator said. “We are not going to accept an America where millions of families live in fear of getting sick and needing to fill a prescription. We are going to fight and fight hard for a healthcare system that does what Donald Trump never did: actually lower costs for working families.”
The lawmakers emphasized that even if manufacturers are forced to lower drug prices, patients are not currently guaranteed to directly benefit, because as much as 45% of the $5.4 trillion the US spends on healthcare annually is "absorbed by middlemen such as insurers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and drug distributors."
"Healthcare middlemen profit when drug costs are high because they make money off of drug margin or payments that are linked to the price of a drug, ripping off patients who pay more than they should. Medicare Part D and the patients it serves should stop footing the bill for inflated drug prices and instead pay for drugs in a more transparent manner that reduces middleman margin," wrote the senators.
The Finance Committee will develop policies to eliminate abuses in the prescription drug supply chain including "egregious drug price markups," and to ensure that patient cost-sharing on drugs more closely aligns with the costs to plans and PBMs.
Finally, the Democrats said they would work to fix the "unmitigated disaster" that Trump and Kennedy have been "for innovation and drug development," as the administration has proposed slashing the National Institutes of Health budget by 40% and has cut off access to treatment for an estimated 74,000 patients who were enrolled in NIH clinical trials.
The Finance Committee, they said, plans to create new incentives for innovation and drug development, including through the tax code.
In their flash report, the Democrats wrote that while failing to force Big Pharma to the negotiating table to save money for Americans, Trump "has been parading Big Pharma executives through the White House, claiming to be cutting cost-saving deals with these corporations."
"One look under the hood reveals the truth: Trump is giving them a pass on tariffs, while receiving zero commitments about how they will lower costs for taxpayers and patients," they wrote. "Donald Trump is getting fleeced by Big Pharma CEOs, and Americans are going to foot the bill."
Welch said that the president "loves to talk a big game and make promises to working families about lowering prescription drug prices. But in reality, his administration is handling this like a PR problem: They’ve got to keep moving and talking about it, but then do nothing to really address the crisis."
“Democrats are determined to bring prices down, and we’re willing to work with anyone to find concrete ways to do it," said Welch. "We’re going to lower healthcare costs and ensure everyone can access affordable, lifesaving, and pain-relieving medication.”