September, 07 2016, 12:00am EDT

As White House Spotlights Conflict With Democratic Presidential and Congressional Candidates by Escalating Toward TPP Lame-Duck Vote, Sen. Warren and Hundreds of Academics Urge Rejection
Economic and Legal Scholars Cite Multinational Corporate Rights to Unlimited Taxpayer Funds Via ISDS Tribunal System Named by VP Candidate Kaine as Basis for His Opposition
WASHINGTON
The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime at the heart of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that would newly empower thousands of multinational corporations to challenge U.S. policies before panels of three private lawyersto demand taxpayer compensation is the target of a letter sent to Congress today by leading pro-free trade U.S. economics and law professors calling on Congress to reject the TPP.
The White House has escalated its efforts to pass the TPP in the lame-duck session, with Cabinet secretaries who are promoting the TPP crossing paths with Democratic presidential and congressional candidates campaigning against the TPP.
Last year, several dozen legal scholars joined congressional Democrats in raising concerns about the ISDS regime and demanding that a final TPP deal exclude the parallel legal system for multinational corporations. President Barack Obama scorned the critics, declaring they were "making this stuff up." Today's letter, signed by more than 200 prominent academics, including Obama's Harvard Law School mentor Professor Larry Tribe, warns that the ISDS regime threatens the rule of law and undermines our nation's democratic institutions. The academics call on Congress to reject the pact because the final deal would greatly expand the ISDS regime.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) praised the letter: "Today's letter from top legal experts makes clear: ISDS undermines the American judicial system and tilts the playing field further in favor of big multinational corporations," Warren said. "This provision empowers companies to challenge laws and regulations they don't like, with friendly corporate lawyers instead of judges deciding their disputes. Congress should not approve a TPP agreement that includes ISDS."
Tribe, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, and Columbia University Professor and UN Senior Adviser Jeffrey Sachs are among the signers, many of whom have supported past U.S. trade agreements. The letter spotlights the danger of the ISDS provisions, which was the same reason Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine cited for opposing the final TPP deal.
The U.S. has dodged ISDS liability to date because past treaties have covered only a limited number offoreign investors operating here. Research conducted by Public Citizen shows that the TPP, which includes Japan, Australia and other nations with more than 9,000 corporate subsidiaries in the United States, would double U.S. ISDS exposure. Nearly $3 billion in ISDS awards has been paid to corporations under U.S. treaties alone and claims worth more than $70 billion are pending.
Recent investigative reports by a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist and a new Columbia Global Reports book reveal how critics have understated the threats posed by the ISDS regime, which - if the TPP is approved - would empower thousands more multinational corporations to challenge U.S. federal, state and local laws, court decisions and government actions before panels of three private lawyers. Under ISDS, the panel of lawyers can award the companies unlimited taxpayer money, including for loss of expected future profits. The decisions cannot be appealed.
"In recent years, corporations have challenged a wide range of environmental, health and safety regulations, fiscal policies, bans on toxins, denials of permits including for toxic waste dumps, moratoria on extraction of natural resources, measures taken in response to financial crises, court decisions on issues ranging from the scope of intellectual property rights to the resolution of bankruptcy claims, policy decisions on privatizations of prisons and health care, and efforts to combat tax evasion, among others," the letter notes.
The experts lament that despite the Obama administration's claims to have addressed growing concerns about the ISDS system, "the final TPP text simply replicates nearly word-for-word many of the problematic provisions from past agreements, and indeed would vastly expand the U.S. government's potential liability under the ISDS system." They fear that the expansion of ISDS in the TPP and in ongoing negotiations with Europe "threatens to dilute constitutional protections, weaken the judicial branch and outsource our domestic legal system to a system of private arbitration that is isolated from essential checks and balances."
This letter adds to a rising chorus of opposition to ISDS from prominent members of Congress such as Warren; the National Conference of State Legislatures; pro-free trade think tanks such as the Cato Institute; and hundreds of labor, environmental, consumer and faith organizations.
View the letter and list of signers.
What the signers are saying:
Jeffrey Sachs, professor of economics, Columbia University:
"We need trade agreements that protect worker rights and the environment. ISDS gravely threatens environmental protection and worker rights, and the rule of law more generally, as evidenced by the current lawsuit by TransCanada suing the U.S. government for $15 billion over the cancellation of the climate-wrecking Keystone XL Pipeline."
Cruz Reynoso, former California Supreme Court Justice andprofessor of law emeritus, University of California, Davis:
"The right of foreign corporations and investors to challenge U.S. policies which allegedly violate investor rights is a frontal attack on our judicial system."
Alan Morrison, associate dean, George Washington Law School:
"The United States Constitution simply does not allow Congress to assign the duty to assess the legality under the TPP of federal and state laws to the unreviewable discretion of three private individuals, instead of to our federal court system with full-time and unconflicted judges."
Lisa Sachs, professor of law, director of Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment:
"A multilateral agreement presents an opportunity to promote the rule of law, strengthen domestic judicial systems and ensure the rights of all, including the most vulnerable, are equally advanced. ISDS in its current form undermines each of those objectives. The whole system needs a rethink to better balance all stakeholders' interests and rights."
Kevin Gallagher, professor of economics, Boston University:
"ISDS accentuates the regulatory risks that characterize the latest trade and investment pacts by granting foreign investors far greater rights over national democratic decision-making. Putting governments and their citizens back in charge of settling disputes is the first step toward the comprehensive reform that is needed."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
In 'Most Serious Test Yet' of Ceasefire Deal, Trump Bombs Iran After Strike on Cargo Ship in Strait
The US attack came as Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a trilateral agreement with Israel and Lebanon, which Israeli forces have bombed and occupied throughout the Iran War.
Jun 26, 2026
US President Donald Trump resumed bombing Iran on Friday, a day after an Iranian attack on a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz, elevating concerns about the future of a ceasefire agreement just as Israel and Lebanon signed a related deal.
The Trump administration—which partnered with Israel to launch an illegal war on Iran in late February—and the Iranian government agreed on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) earlier this month. On Thursday, Iran attacked the Singapore-flagged commercial vessel, the Ever Lovely, in the strait, a key trade waterway.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran shot at least four One Way Attack Drones at Ships transversing the Strait of Hormuz," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform Friday morning. "One of the Drones solidly hit the upper deck of a large and very expensive Cargo Carrying Ship. Damage was done, but the Ship was able to proceed on its way. We knocked down three other Drones. Obviously, this is a foolish violation of our Ceasefire Agreement."
Responding on the social media network X, Ebrahim Azizi, who heads the Iranian Parliament's Commission on National Security and Foreign Policy, said: "The reality in the Persian Gulf has changed. The Strait of Hormuz is governed by Iran, so: Respect the rules. Use secure routes. Do not mistake control for escalation. If you do not learn the rules, the Iranian armed forces will teach them to you. This is not a violation of the ceasefire; it is ceasefire management."
Later Friday, US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that "as a powerful response to yesterday's attack on a commercial ship that was transiting the Strait of Hormuz," American aircraft "struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites."
"The unwarranted aggression against commercial shipping by Iranian forces clearly violated the ceasefire," CENTCOM said. "Furthermore, Iran's dangerous behavior undermined freedom of navigation as commerce increasingly flows through the vital international trade corridor."
"CENTCOM forces continue to provide safe passage coordination and support to commercial vessels transiting the strait," Central Command added. "The US military remains present and vigilant to ensure all aspects of the agreement with Iran are adhered to, obeyed, and in full force and effect."
Flagging CENTCOM's announcement, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) pointed out that "this marks the first publicly acknowledged US military action against Iran since the recent ceasefire agreement, potentially representing the most serious test yet of the fragile understanding between Tehran and Washington."
"Notably, the alleged violation of the MOU resulted in military retaliation," NIAC added, "contra coordination via the executive mechanism that was supposed to be established to monitor implementation of the deal."
Al Jazeera reported late Friday that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) released a statement saying it has responded with fire:
The IRGC said its Navy targeted locations in the region where US forces are deployed, without specifying where or providing additional details.
It condemned the US strikes on Iran, saying Washington, "as always, violated its commitments and launched an airstrike” on the Iranian coast.
"According to Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding, Islamabad has arrangements for controlling traffic in the Strait of Hormuz with the Islamic Republic of Iran," the IRGC said.
"However, the US, by inciting various parties, sought to violate this commitment, which was met with the necessary response," the statement continued. "If the aggression is repeated, our response will be more extensive."
As for the administration's supposedly diplomatic efforts, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the United States, Israel, and Lebanon—which Israeli forces have been bombing throughout the Iran War—had signed a trilateral framework that he claimed "builds a realistic path out of endless conflict."
"This agreement establishes a clear and structured process to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty, disarm Hezbollah, and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure, and enable Israel to return to its borders once that threat to its citizens is removed," Rubio said. "It also creates a trilateral Military Coordination Group for Lebanon (MCG4L), facilitated by the United States, allowing the two sides to implement this framework. For Lebanon, this framework provides a genuine pathway out of a long crisis. For Israel, it creates a verifiable path to removing the persistent threat on its northern border."
The framework was met with protests in the Lebanese capital. Lebanon's National News Agency reported that Hezbollah supporters gathered on motorcycles in Beirut to oppose the deal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good News for Clean Air' as Court Rejects Trump EPA Bid to Ditch Coal Plant Soot Rule
"The court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country," said one advocate.
Jun 26, 2026
A federal appeals court on Friday rejected the US Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to scrap a Biden-era rule tightening limits on harmful soot pollution spewed from coal-fired power plants and other sources.
In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dealt a blow to President Donald Trump's deregulatory agenda by leaving intact a national soot standard enacted in 2024 that lowers the amount of fine particulate matter from power plants, factories, and vehicles from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter.
"Soot, made up of tiny toxic particles that lodge deep in the lungs, results in severe health harms, including premature death, and comes from sources like vehicle exhaust pipes, power plants, and factories," the legal advocacy group Earthjustice explained.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin last year asked the appellate court to invalidate the soot rule, claiming that the Biden administration exceeded its authority and failed to take into account the economic cost of implementing the policy.
“Clean air is not a luxury. We are thrilled these vital air quality standards have been upheld by a federal court,” said Patrice Simms, vice president of Healthy Communities at Earthjustice. “The 2024 soot standard is a critical advancement for public health, projected to save thousands of lives every year. Lee Zeldin’s EPA must stop catering to polluters and must instead fulfill its mission to protect public health. The time for implementing the 2024 soot standard is now.”
Clean Air Task Force senior director of legal advocacy Shaun Goho also welcomed the ruling, saying: "Fine particulate matter standards provide critical public health protections. The court correctly rejected EPA’s about-face on the need for a stronger standard."
Katie Huffing, executive director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, called Friday's decision "a win for public health."
“Every day in practice, nurses witness and treat conditions made worse by soot pollution," she said. "From asthma exacerbations and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to heart disease and preterm birth, nurses see the real-world health implications of toxic air pollution."
"The science shows stronger limits to reduce dangerous soot pollution provide significant health benefits for Americans, especially for those most vulnerable and those exposed to higher levels of particulate matter pollution," Huffing added. "We now urge EPA to fully implement the strengthened standard to ensure those health benefits are realized.”
Noha Haggag, senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, said that “today’s federal court decision is good news for clean air in America and for the millions of people harmed by deadly soot."
“Soot can cause asthma attacks, lung cancer, and premature deaths," Haggag added. "The court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Unhinged Trump Calls US Progressives Communist 'Animals' Who Will 'Close Your Churches' and 'Kill Your People'
The president complained about primary victories of progressives backed by New York City's democratic socialist mayor, who this week secured a rent freeze for a million units and put $15 million toward gender-affirming care.
Jun 26, 2026
After a series of electoral victories for democratic socialists and legal blows to President Donald Trump's authoritarian agenda this week, the Republican on Friday ranted to a Christian conference that progressives—whom he called "hardcore, godless communists"—are "the most serious threat to our country since its existence, in my opinion, 250 years ago."
Trump previewed his nearly 50-minute speech to the Faith and Freedom Coalition's policy conference with a lengthy post on his Truth Social platform in which he wrote: "I'd be the Greatest Communist in History. I'd give free rent, free houses, free food, everything is free. Unfortunately, after two or three years, the Country where this is taking place would fail. It always does, and then you'll start living in squalor. There will be no food, there will be no housing, there will be no Military, there will be no nothing."
In a signal that he was specifically targeting the left flank of the Democratic Party, Trump said: "They're animals! In many cases, not smart but, in some cases, they are. It's easy for them to get followers because they make promises that they know they can't keep, and the Dumocrats aren't fighting back. In many ways, they're allowing them to go their own way. They’re afraid they will lose their Election, they're afraid of conflict. They’re not smart enough or tough enough to fight this plague."
"These are not social Dumocrats, these are hardcore, godless Communists," the president continued. "Isn't it ironic, we're celebrating a very important Birthday, and instead of speaking about Christ, Freedom, and Victories of all different kinds, we're speaking about yet another threat to the Foundations of America. These ruthless Communists will attack all Religions but, in particular, Christianity—They always do. All Communist Countries attack Religions violently."
"As you know, we recently struck Nigeria, and largely ended the slaughter of their Great Christian population," he added. "They know that if they go further, the attack will be far greater and, in that, they don't want to get involved. I am saving Christians throughout the World, even though we are not in those various Countries, by hitting these Terrorists violently and hard. They will close your Churches, they will kill your people. This is what they're about."
During the actual speech, Trump specifically took aim at "the communists elected in New York City recently," who he claimed "want to completely destroy the traditional American way of life," an apparent jab at a slate of candidates who won their Democratic primaries earlier this week: Claire Valdez in New York’s 7th Congressional District, Brad Lander in the 10th District, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in the 13th District.
By contrast, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a democratic socialist who ran for president in 2016 and 2020, called the trio's victories proof that Americans "are sick and tired of status quo politics" and "want to end the corrupt campaign finance system, which enables billionaires to spend huge amounts of money to elect candidates who will represent their interests and go to war against working-class people."
All three campaigned on progressive policies including more affordable housing, Medicare for All, stronger union protections, and an end to US military support for Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestinians—and they were backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who continued delivering on his campaign promises on Thursday, when the NYC Rent Guidelines Board approved a two-year rent freeze affecting roughly a million apartments.
While Trump complained about that NYC development in his Friday speech, others have celebrated it. Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, which advocates for universal single-payer healthcare, said that "the real threat Zohran Mamdani poses is to the career politicians who've spent decades making promises, then making excuses, then telling people to vote harder next time. He's showing people that elected officials can actually do things that help them in their everyday lives."
Shortly before Trump's swipe at the New York progressives running for Congress, he claimed that left-leaning Democrats "want to resume the transgender 'mutilization' of our children." In addition to attacking lifesaving gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth, the president has restricted abortion access and signed legislation that's already led to millions losing insurance coverage.
Meanwhile, Mamdani on Friday announced a $15 million plan to expand access to gender-affirming care for youth and adults across the city, which includes a direct care access fund, a call and text line, and funding for research. He said that "as the federal government attacks transgender people and attempts to intimidate patients, families, and providers, New York City is stepping up."
Despite Trump's claim that the Democratic Party establishment isn't fighting back against ascendant progressives and democratic socialists, Axios reporting from Thursday suggests centrist Democrats are, in fact, gearing up to do so—and over a dozen have endorsed the "Promise to America" manifesto, emphasizing their support for capitalism, "fiscal discipline," and law enforcement.
Ripping the manifesto, D'Arrigo said: "'Centrism' is just performative compromise devoid of critical thinking, policy, or ideology. It’s a political vehicle that gives permission to do nothing in service of protecting a status quo that benefits large corporate donors and special interest groups who fund both parties."
In addition to serving the corporate interests that bankrolled his return to power, Trump has also served himself during his second term, growing the wealth of his family by billions of dollars and even accepting a luxury plane from Qatar.
Trump has also made a range of other moves that demonstrate his contempt for US law—from pardoning donors and other supporters, including insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol, to weaponizing the Department of Justice against his enemies, to carrying out multiple illegal military actions, such as his invasion of Venezuela and abduction of its president, the ongoing war on Iran, and deadly bombings of boats his administration claims were trafficking drugs.
The president's violent and authoritarian agenda has faced some setbacks in court this week: Federal judges ruled against the administration's policy pushing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests at courthouses, as well as a pair of Trump executive orders that attacked voting rights.
However, those cases are ongoing, plus another federal judge issued lengthy prison sentences for a group of activists who protested outside an ICE detention center and were falsely accused by the administration of being members of a nonexistent "North Texas Antifa Cell." Trump has also continued his assault on voting rights this week, scrapping plans to sign a bipartisan housing bill in a bid to pressure Congress to pass the so-called Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.
With the November elections just over four months away, Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, also took Trump's Friday Truth Social comments as a threat, saying, "This sounds a lot to me like Trump laying the groundwork to steal the midterms."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


