SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
September, 23 2019, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Mara Dolan, Women’s Environment and Development Organization, mara@wedo.org, 217-550-8433
Women's Rights, Climate Activists Launch Feminist Agenda for Green New Deal
Feminist climate justice activists introduce collective feminist demands for Green New Deal policies, programs the day after UN Climate Summit
WASHINGTON
WHAT: In response to the UN Climate Summit, climate justice and women's rights activists will introduce collective feminist demands to guide and advance the Green New Deal.
WHEN: Tuesday September 24th 6:45-8:00 pm EST.
WHERE: 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 1001, United Nations Church Center in New York City. RSVP here.
WHO: The coalition represents a wide range of organizations working on climate, environmental, immigrant, racial, economic, and gender justice, including the Sierra Club, the Women's Environment and Development Organization, the NAACP, MADRE, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, and the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network, among others.
WHY: As New York's Climate Week brings attention to the climate crisis and interest in the U.S. Green New Deal Resolution grows all over the country, the coalition's campaign aims to ensure that gender and global justice, climate justice, and human rights are at the core of climate programs and policies. The coalition's Feminist Green New Deal campaign will continue through the fall, with Congressional office visits later this week and a policy agenda scheduled for a Fall release.
The Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International is a solutions-based organization established to engage women worldwide in policy advocacy, on-the-ground projects, direct action, trainings, and movement building for global climate justice.
LATEST NEWS
'Logical Conclusion' of Citizens United as Delaware Judge Lets Corporations Vote in Local Elections
Delaware is home to more corporations than people. Human people, that is, as under longstanding state law and the US Supreme Court's infamous 2010 ruling, corporations are people, too.
May 27, 2026
A judge in Delaware—a state with more registered business entities than people—ruled Monday in favor of a small town that allows corporations to vote in local elections.
Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz ruled that the town of Fenwick Island, population 400, did not violate the state Constitution by permitting business entities—which make up 12% of the town's "population"—to vote in municipal elections, as case plaintiff the ACLU of Delaware had claimed.
"What is a 'person?' When one cuts to the heart of this case, that is the question," Karsnitz wrote to open his 20-page ruling.
‼️‼️Delaware Superior Court upholds a municipal ordinance allowing individuals to cast votes on behalf of LLCs, trusts, and corporations in local elections against a challenge that the ordinance constitutes unlawful vote dilution for real persons under the state constitution. aboutblaw.com/blQg
[image or embed]
— Anthony Michael Kreis (@anthonymkreis.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 1:46 PM
"According to the law, a person is anyone or anything that can initiate and be subject to legal proceedings. By this conception, any adult, corporation, or institution is a person, but a minor is not a person, a fetus is not a person, and a humanoid robot... is not a person," the ruling continues. "This highlights that legal personhood is dependent solely on legal recognition."
The judge noted that in 2008, the Delaware General Assembly amended Fenwick Island's charter "to expand its voter registration rolls to allow individuals to cast votes on behalf of trusts, limited liability companies, partnerships, and corporations that own property in Fenwick."
"Today, the overwhelming majority of legal entity property owners in Fenwick registered to vote, and on whose behalf votes are cast, are trusts," Karsnitz added.
"I appreciate that Plaintiff may disagree with Delaware’s policy of authorizing certain municipalities to allow voting on behalf of entity property owners," the judge wrote.
"Visions of faceless large corporations, or even HAL, controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction," he continued," referring to the malevolent artificial intelligence-powered computer in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film version of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey. "However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this policy violates the principle of one person/entity/one vote."
"Plaintiff points to no other persuasive independent authority than the Elections Clause of the Delaware Constitution itself," Karsnitz concluded. "And matters of policy are appropriately left to legislative bodies, not the courts."
Fenwick Island Mayor Natalie Magdeburger told Reuters earlier this year that "a property owner who pays taxes and is subject to our ordinances should have a say in who represents them on our Town Council."
Meanwhile, the ACLU of Delaware contends that "with over 2 million business entities incorporated in Delaware–roughly double the amount of actual people living in the state–the people of Delaware risk having their voices drowned out when towns like Fenwick Island allow corporate voting."
Karsnitz's ruling does not mention Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 US Supreme Court decision affirming that political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment that government cannot restrict. The decision ushered in the era of super PACs—which can raise unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns—and secret spending on elections with so-called “dark money.”
While Delaware's corporate personhood laws long predate Citizens United, numerous critics of Monday's ruling referred to the case, including the progressive legal advocacy group Demand Justice.
"Corporations aren't people," the group asserted on X. "They don't have kids in local schools, they don't drink the water, they can’t be jailed for crimes, and they shouldn't get a vote."
Some compared Hawaii, where Democratic Gov. Josh Green recently signed legislation clarifying that corporations are not people, with Delaware.
"Hawaii made a move to rein in Citizens United," writer Van Dennis posted on X, "and Delaware responded, "The fuck you are."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Threatens Ally Oman Over Strait of Hormuz: 'Behave... Or We'll Blow 'Em Up'
"The 'no more foreign wars' president just threatened to attack yet another country," said one critic.
May 27, 2026
President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to "blow up" Oman if the US ally works with Iran to reopen and jointly manage the Strait of Hormuz.
Responding to reporting by Iranian state media that Iran and Oman were negotiating an agreement to jointly manage the Strait of Hormuz—through which around 20% of the world's oil was shipped before the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran—Trump said that "nobody's gonna control" the vital waterway.
"We're gonna watch over it, but nobody's gonna control it," the president continued. "That's part of the negotiation that we have."
Donald Trump: "Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we'll have to blow them up."The "no more foreign wars" president just threatened to attack yet another country.
[image or embed]
— Home of the Brave (@ofthebraveusa.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 10:15 AM
"It's international waters, and Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we'll have to blow them up," Trump added. "They understand that; they'll be fine."
The US State Department posted a captioned video of Trump's remarks, removing all doubt about whether he indeed threatened an ally with which the United States has had a strategically important partnership for generations.
A defense cooperation agreement signed in 1980 allows US forces to use Omani military bases, including facilities used for logistics, surveillance, and regional operations. The two countries periodically hold joint military exercises and cooperate on counterterrorism and maritime security—especially regarding threats to Gulf shipping lanes.
The countries have also had a free trade agreement in effect since 2009, and the president's business organization is currently building Trump International Oman, a controversial $500 million luxury hotel, golf course, villa, and resort development near the capital, Muscat.
In which Biff forgets about the Trump golf course and hotel grift he is running in Oman
[image or embed]
— Tom Hearden (@followtheh.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 10:20 AM
Oman has also been a trusted mediator between the US and countries including Iran. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi publicly said that a deal to avert the Iran War was "within our reach" as Trump ordered bombing to commence.
Trump's remarks suggested that US and Iranian negotiators are not as close to a deal to end the 88-day war—in which US and Israeli forces have killed thousands of Iranians and global energy prices have soared—as the president has claimed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ro Khanna Urges Fellow Democrats to Stop Trying to Out Hawk Trump on Iran War
"We should be the party that says 'Donald Trump, end this war, we're going to support the negotiation'—and then we're not going to get into these wars in the future."
May 27, 2026
Congressman Ro Khanna on Tuesday suggested Democratic voters who believe the party lacks "principles," as a number of respondents said in a new poll, have understandable questions about what Democrats stands for, as he denounced recent comments from several lawmakers who have attacked President Donald Trump for not being hawkish enough when it comes to the war he started in Iran.
"People want a Democratic Party that's going to stand for things, that stands as the party that's anti-war," Khanna told Chris Hayes on MS NOW.
“And we should be the party that says, ‘Donald Trump, end this war, we’re going to support the negotiation’—and then we’re going to not get into these wars in the future,” he added.
Khanna accused his colleagues of sending the message: “Donald Trump, go blow up more things! Why aren’t you destroying more of Iran?”
“I’m not one of those Democrats,” said the congressman, who introduced a war powers resolution with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to stop Trump from launching unauthorized strikes against Iran. “I’m one of the people saying, ‘Yes, let’s get a negotiated settlement. Let’s work toward ending this war.’”
“The Democrats should be for ending this war and be against more of these foreign interventions,” said Khanna. “The last thing we want is to goad Donald Trump into getting us into more conflict there.”
"We should be the party that says 'Donald Trump, end this war, we're going to support the negotiation' — and then we're not going to get into these wars in the future"
@RoKhanna to @ChrisLHayes on some Dems attacking Trump from the right over Iran dealpic.twitter.com/Rxbd7e1iJ6
— Just Foreign Policy (@justfp) May 27, 2026
As examples of what Khanna is talking about, influential Democrats including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) have spent the last several days provoking the president over Iran, and by complaining that the deal to end the war isn't tough enough on the country, which the US and Israel began preemptively attacking in February in violation of international law.
More than 3,400 people have been killed in Iran since the war started, while Israel has expanded hostilities to Lebanon, killing more than 3,000 people. The casualties in Iran have included about 150 people, mostly children, who were killed in an attack on a girls' school when the war started; Amnesty International has called for the US to be held to account for the bombing. A number of other schools have also been attacked, as well as medical facilities.
Despite the carnage—as well as the economic impact of war, which Iran swiftly responded to by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping route, and sending oil prices skyrocketing—Booker on Sunday debuted what Just Foreign Policy executive director Erik Sperling called "Democrat neocon talking points" regarding reports of an impending peace deal.
The senator said reports of the deal—including the reopening of the strait, a lift of US sanctions allowing Iran to sell oil freely, and an apparent agreement to hold formal talks on Iran's nuclear program later—had him "outraged."
"The president said he went into this to deal with the nuclear program. This does not deal with that," said Booker, adding that the easing of sanctions of Iran would allow them to get "billions more" dollars.
"Giving Iran more money, as he has said, will allow them to do things like fuel their terrorist proxies," the senator added.
His comments were followed by Wasserman Schultz's interview on the same network Tuesday, when she said she was "concerned and frustrated over, again, another potential deal, a negotiation for a negotiation, where we're going to unfreeze Iranian assets" and allowing Iran to "rebuild their ballistic missile program."
Another Democrat comes out to the right of Trump, criticizing US-Iran negotiated deal to end the war:
"We're going to unfreeze Iranian assets and give them billions of dollars to be able to control proxies again?"
Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, former DNC chair https://t.co/D7plRDK0Nk pic.twitter.com/gq50DoaDqp
— Erik Sperling (@ErikSperling) May 26, 2026
Booker has taken more than $800,000 from pro-Israel groups including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, while Wasserman Schultz has taken more than $1.4 million.
Murphy also condemned the reported deal on social media Sunday, saying that Trump "hasn’t accomplished ANY of his constantly shifting goals."
"Iran still has its ballistic missile and drone program," he said. "They still have a navy that can close the strait. A hardline regime is still in charge."
Jeet Heer of The Nation said that because the war on Iran "is immensely unpopular... prominent Democrats want to outflank Trump by being more hawkish."
Historian and analyst Stephen Wertheim credited Khanna with articulating "what the vast majority of Democrats believe, but too few of their leaders say and mean."
A March poll by Pew Research Center found that nearly 90% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said the Trump administration had made the wrong decision going to war against Iran.
Khanna also spoke to Fox News over the weekend, saying he would support all efforts by Trump to negotiate a peace deal with Iran and expressing approval of the president's apparent rejection of the "Lindsay Graham wing of the party," referring to the South Carolina Republican, an outspoken advocate for military intervention in Iran and elsewhere.
Khanna's comments, said Sperling, represented "what decent, pro-diplomacy messaging looks like."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular