
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in a Hong Kong hotel room during his first recorded interview after revealing himself as the source of a trove of top secret U.S. surveillance programs. (Photo: Laura Poirtras)
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in a Hong Kong hotel room during his first recorded interview after revealing himself as the source of a trove of top secret U.S. surveillance programs. (Photo: Laura Poirtras)
Edward Snowden.
Get used to hearing the name of the twenty-nine-year-old systems administrator for the private defense company Booz Allen Hamilton who came forward Sunday as the source behind an explosive series of news stories detailing some of the US government's most far-reaching surveillance programs run by its National Security Agency.
In a video interview conducted by Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald and released by the British newspaper on Sunday, Snowden confesses to his role as a NSA whistleblower and explains why he decided to risk his livelihood--and possibly his freedom and his life--to reveal to the American public the extent of the programs he once administered.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things," Snowden explained to Greenwald and his colleague Ewan MacAskill in an extensive question and answer session. "I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."
Watch Part I of the interview:
Part II:
As the Guardian team reported:
Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.
The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things." - Ed Snowden
The Washington Post, at his request, also revealed Snowden's identity on Sunday and reported that his motivations stemmed from a desire to expose the growing 'surveillance state' in the US. Along with the Guardian, the Post published an explosive report about the existence of a program called PRISM on Thursday, which was based on documents provided by Snowden and showed that the spy agency has the ability to access the online data from the world's largest private internet systems.
"As I advanced and learned the dangerous truth behind the U.S. policies that seek to develop secret, irresistible powers and concentrate them in the hands of an unaccountable few, human weakness haunted me," Snowden wrote in a note that accompanied the first documents he leaked to the Post. "As I worked in secret to resist them, selfish fear questioned if the stone thrown by a single man could justify the loss of everything he loves."
From the Post:
Snowden said he admires other accused leakers of government secrets, such as Pfc. Bradley E. Manning -- who is accused of leaking classified documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks -- but considers himself different.
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest" he told the Guardian. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
Greenwald and MacAskill both were active on Twitter following the disclosure of Snowden's identity:
Tweets about "from:ewenmacaskill OR from:ggreenwald"
There will be much written about Snowden's confession and his decision in the coming days, but for the moment--and given his ability to do it well--perhaps it's most important to let him speak for himself.
The Q&A between Snowden, Greenwald and MacAskill follows:
Q: Why did you decide to become a whistleblower?
A: "The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things ... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."
Q: But isn't there a need for surveillance to try to reduce the chances of terrorist attacks such as Boston?
A: "We have to decide why terrorism is a new threat. There has always been terrorism. Boston was a criminal act. It was not about surveillance but good, old-fashioned police work. The police are very good at what they do."
Q: Do you see yourself as another Bradley Manning?
A: "Manning was a classic whistleblower. He was inspired by the public good."
Q: Do you think what you have done is a crime?
A: "We have seen enough criminality on the part of government. It is hypocritical to make this allegation against me. They have narrowed the public sphere of influence."
Q: What do you think is going to happen to you?
A: "Nothing good."
Q: Why Hong Kong?
A: "I think it is really tragic that an American has to move to a place that has a reputation for less freedom. Still, Hong Kong has a reputation for freedom in spite of the People's Republic of China. It has a strong tradition of free speech."
Q: What do the leaked documents reveal?
A: "That the NSA routinely lies in response to congressional inquiries about the scope of surveillance in America. I believe that when [senator Ron] Wyden and [senator Mark] Udall asked about the scale of this, they [the NSA] said it did not have the tools to provide an answer. We do have the tools and I have maps showing where people have been scrutinised most. We collect more digital communications from America than we do from the Russians."
Q: What about the Obama administration's protests about hacking by China?
A: "We hack everyone everywhere. We like to make a distinction between us and the others. But we are in almost every country in the world. We are not at war with these countries."
Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance?
A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place."
Q: Does your family know you are planning this?
A: "No. My family does not know what is happening ... My primary fear is that they will come after my family, my friends, my partner. Anyone I have a relationship with ...
I will have to live with that for the rest of my life. I am not going to be able to communicate with them. They [the authorities] will act aggressively against anyone who has known me. That keeps me up at night."
Q: When did you decide to leak the documents?
A: "You see things that may be disturbing. When you see everything you realise that some of these things are abusive. The awareness of wrong-doing builds up. There was not one morning when I woke up [and decided this is it]. It was a natural process.
"A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party. But I believed in Obama's promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor."
Q: What is your reaction to Obama denouncing the leaks on Friday while welcoming a debate on the balance between security and openness?
A: "My immediate reaction was he was having difficulty in defending it himself. He was trying to defend the unjustifiable and he knew it."
Q: What about the response in general to the disclosures?
A: "I have been surprised and pleased to see the public has reacted so strongly in defence of these rights that are being suppressed in the name of security. It is not like Occupy Wall Street but there is a grassroots movement to take to the streets on July 4 in defence of the Fourth Amendment called Restore The Fourth Amendment and it grew out of Reddit. The response over the internet has been huge and supportive."
Q: Washington-based foreign affairs analyst Steve Clemons said he overheard at the capital's Dulles airport four men discussing an intelligence conference they had just attended. Speaking about the leaks, one of them said, according to Clemons, that both the reporter and leaker should be "disappeared". How do you feel about that?
\u201cIn Dulles UAL lounge listening to 4 US intel officials saying loudly leaker & reporter on #NSA stuff should be disappeared recorded a bit\u201d— Steve Clemons (@Steve Clemons) 1370706133
A: "Someone responding to the story said 'real spies do not speak like that'. Well, I am a spy and that is how they talk. Whenever we had a debate in the office on how to handle crimes, they do not defend due process - they defend decisive action. They say it is better to kick someone out of a plane than let these people have a day in court. It is an authoritarian mindset in general."
Q: Do you have a plan in place?
A: "The only thing I can do is sit here and hope the Hong Kong government does not deport me ... My predisposition is to seek asylum in a country with shared values. The nation that most encompasses this is Iceland. They stood up for people over internet freedom. I have no idea what my future is going to be.
"They could put out an Interpol note. But I don't think I have committed a crime outside the domain of the US. I think it will be clearly shown to be political in nature."
Q: Do you think you are probably going to end up in prison?
A: "I could not do this without accepting the risk of prison. You can't come up against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and not accept the risk. If they want to get you, over time they will."
Q: How to you feel now, almost a week after the first leak?
A: "I think the sense of outrage that has been expressed is justified. It has given me hope that, no matter what happens to me, the outcome will be positive for America. I do not expect to see home again, though that is what I want."
_____________________________________________________
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Edward Snowden.
Get used to hearing the name of the twenty-nine-year-old systems administrator for the private defense company Booz Allen Hamilton who came forward Sunday as the source behind an explosive series of news stories detailing some of the US government's most far-reaching surveillance programs run by its National Security Agency.
In a video interview conducted by Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald and released by the British newspaper on Sunday, Snowden confesses to his role as a NSA whistleblower and explains why he decided to risk his livelihood--and possibly his freedom and his life--to reveal to the American public the extent of the programs he once administered.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things," Snowden explained to Greenwald and his colleague Ewan MacAskill in an extensive question and answer session. "I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."
Watch Part I of the interview:
Part II:
As the Guardian team reported:
Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.
The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things." - Ed Snowden
The Washington Post, at his request, also revealed Snowden's identity on Sunday and reported that his motivations stemmed from a desire to expose the growing 'surveillance state' in the US. Along with the Guardian, the Post published an explosive report about the existence of a program called PRISM on Thursday, which was based on documents provided by Snowden and showed that the spy agency has the ability to access the online data from the world's largest private internet systems.
"As I advanced and learned the dangerous truth behind the U.S. policies that seek to develop secret, irresistible powers and concentrate them in the hands of an unaccountable few, human weakness haunted me," Snowden wrote in a note that accompanied the first documents he leaked to the Post. "As I worked in secret to resist them, selfish fear questioned if the stone thrown by a single man could justify the loss of everything he loves."
From the Post:
Snowden said he admires other accused leakers of government secrets, such as Pfc. Bradley E. Manning -- who is accused of leaking classified documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks -- but considers himself different.
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest" he told the Guardian. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
Greenwald and MacAskill both were active on Twitter following the disclosure of Snowden's identity:
Tweets about "from:ewenmacaskill OR from:ggreenwald"
There will be much written about Snowden's confession and his decision in the coming days, but for the moment--and given his ability to do it well--perhaps it's most important to let him speak for himself.
The Q&A between Snowden, Greenwald and MacAskill follows:
Q: Why did you decide to become a whistleblower?
A: "The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things ... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."
Q: But isn't there a need for surveillance to try to reduce the chances of terrorist attacks such as Boston?
A: "We have to decide why terrorism is a new threat. There has always been terrorism. Boston was a criminal act. It was not about surveillance but good, old-fashioned police work. The police are very good at what they do."
Q: Do you see yourself as another Bradley Manning?
A: "Manning was a classic whistleblower. He was inspired by the public good."
Q: Do you think what you have done is a crime?
A: "We have seen enough criminality on the part of government. It is hypocritical to make this allegation against me. They have narrowed the public sphere of influence."
Q: What do you think is going to happen to you?
A: "Nothing good."
Q: Why Hong Kong?
A: "I think it is really tragic that an American has to move to a place that has a reputation for less freedom. Still, Hong Kong has a reputation for freedom in spite of the People's Republic of China. It has a strong tradition of free speech."
Q: What do the leaked documents reveal?
A: "That the NSA routinely lies in response to congressional inquiries about the scope of surveillance in America. I believe that when [senator Ron] Wyden and [senator Mark] Udall asked about the scale of this, they [the NSA] said it did not have the tools to provide an answer. We do have the tools and I have maps showing where people have been scrutinised most. We collect more digital communications from America than we do from the Russians."
Q: What about the Obama administration's protests about hacking by China?
A: "We hack everyone everywhere. We like to make a distinction between us and the others. But we are in almost every country in the world. We are not at war with these countries."
Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance?
A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place."
Q: Does your family know you are planning this?
A: "No. My family does not know what is happening ... My primary fear is that they will come after my family, my friends, my partner. Anyone I have a relationship with ...
I will have to live with that for the rest of my life. I am not going to be able to communicate with them. They [the authorities] will act aggressively against anyone who has known me. That keeps me up at night."
Q: When did you decide to leak the documents?
A: "You see things that may be disturbing. When you see everything you realise that some of these things are abusive. The awareness of wrong-doing builds up. There was not one morning when I woke up [and decided this is it]. It was a natural process.
"A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party. But I believed in Obama's promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor."
Q: What is your reaction to Obama denouncing the leaks on Friday while welcoming a debate on the balance between security and openness?
A: "My immediate reaction was he was having difficulty in defending it himself. He was trying to defend the unjustifiable and he knew it."
Q: What about the response in general to the disclosures?
A: "I have been surprised and pleased to see the public has reacted so strongly in defence of these rights that are being suppressed in the name of security. It is not like Occupy Wall Street but there is a grassroots movement to take to the streets on July 4 in defence of the Fourth Amendment called Restore The Fourth Amendment and it grew out of Reddit. The response over the internet has been huge and supportive."
Q: Washington-based foreign affairs analyst Steve Clemons said he overheard at the capital's Dulles airport four men discussing an intelligence conference they had just attended. Speaking about the leaks, one of them said, according to Clemons, that both the reporter and leaker should be "disappeared". How do you feel about that?
\u201cIn Dulles UAL lounge listening to 4 US intel officials saying loudly leaker & reporter on #NSA stuff should be disappeared recorded a bit\u201d— Steve Clemons (@Steve Clemons) 1370706133
A: "Someone responding to the story said 'real spies do not speak like that'. Well, I am a spy and that is how they talk. Whenever we had a debate in the office on how to handle crimes, they do not defend due process - they defend decisive action. They say it is better to kick someone out of a plane than let these people have a day in court. It is an authoritarian mindset in general."
Q: Do you have a plan in place?
A: "The only thing I can do is sit here and hope the Hong Kong government does not deport me ... My predisposition is to seek asylum in a country with shared values. The nation that most encompasses this is Iceland. They stood up for people over internet freedom. I have no idea what my future is going to be.
"They could put out an Interpol note. But I don't think I have committed a crime outside the domain of the US. I think it will be clearly shown to be political in nature."
Q: Do you think you are probably going to end up in prison?
A: "I could not do this without accepting the risk of prison. You can't come up against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and not accept the risk. If they want to get you, over time they will."
Q: How to you feel now, almost a week after the first leak?
A: "I think the sense of outrage that has been expressed is justified. It has given me hope that, no matter what happens to me, the outcome will be positive for America. I do not expect to see home again, though that is what I want."
_____________________________________________________
Edward Snowden.
Get used to hearing the name of the twenty-nine-year-old systems administrator for the private defense company Booz Allen Hamilton who came forward Sunday as the source behind an explosive series of news stories detailing some of the US government's most far-reaching surveillance programs run by its National Security Agency.
In a video interview conducted by Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald and released by the British newspaper on Sunday, Snowden confesses to his role as a NSA whistleblower and explains why he decided to risk his livelihood--and possibly his freedom and his life--to reveal to the American public the extent of the programs he once administered.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things," Snowden explained to Greenwald and his colleague Ewan MacAskill in an extensive question and answer session. "I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."
Watch Part I of the interview:
Part II:
As the Guardian team reported:
Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.
The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things." - Ed Snowden
The Washington Post, at his request, also revealed Snowden's identity on Sunday and reported that his motivations stemmed from a desire to expose the growing 'surveillance state' in the US. Along with the Guardian, the Post published an explosive report about the existence of a program called PRISM on Thursday, which was based on documents provided by Snowden and showed that the spy agency has the ability to access the online data from the world's largest private internet systems.
"As I advanced and learned the dangerous truth behind the U.S. policies that seek to develop secret, irresistible powers and concentrate them in the hands of an unaccountable few, human weakness haunted me," Snowden wrote in a note that accompanied the first documents he leaked to the Post. "As I worked in secret to resist them, selfish fear questioned if the stone thrown by a single man could justify the loss of everything he loves."
From the Post:
Snowden said he admires other accused leakers of government secrets, such as Pfc. Bradley E. Manning -- who is accused of leaking classified documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks -- but considers himself different.
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest" he told the Guardian. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
Greenwald and MacAskill both were active on Twitter following the disclosure of Snowden's identity:
Tweets about "from:ewenmacaskill OR from:ggreenwald"
There will be much written about Snowden's confession and his decision in the coming days, but for the moment--and given his ability to do it well--perhaps it's most important to let him speak for himself.
The Q&A between Snowden, Greenwald and MacAskill follows:
Q: Why did you decide to become a whistleblower?
A: "The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.
"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things ... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."
Q: But isn't there a need for surveillance to try to reduce the chances of terrorist attacks such as Boston?
A: "We have to decide why terrorism is a new threat. There has always been terrorism. Boston was a criminal act. It was not about surveillance but good, old-fashioned police work. The police are very good at what they do."
Q: Do you see yourself as another Bradley Manning?
A: "Manning was a classic whistleblower. He was inspired by the public good."
Q: Do you think what you have done is a crime?
A: "We have seen enough criminality on the part of government. It is hypocritical to make this allegation against me. They have narrowed the public sphere of influence."
Q: What do you think is going to happen to you?
A: "Nothing good."
Q: Why Hong Kong?
A: "I think it is really tragic that an American has to move to a place that has a reputation for less freedom. Still, Hong Kong has a reputation for freedom in spite of the People's Republic of China. It has a strong tradition of free speech."
Q: What do the leaked documents reveal?
A: "That the NSA routinely lies in response to congressional inquiries about the scope of surveillance in America. I believe that when [senator Ron] Wyden and [senator Mark] Udall asked about the scale of this, they [the NSA] said it did not have the tools to provide an answer. We do have the tools and I have maps showing where people have been scrutinised most. We collect more digital communications from America than we do from the Russians."
Q: What about the Obama administration's protests about hacking by China?
A: "We hack everyone everywhere. We like to make a distinction between us and the others. But we are in almost every country in the world. We are not at war with these countries."
Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance?
A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place."
Q: Does your family know you are planning this?
A: "No. My family does not know what is happening ... My primary fear is that they will come after my family, my friends, my partner. Anyone I have a relationship with ...
I will have to live with that for the rest of my life. I am not going to be able to communicate with them. They [the authorities] will act aggressively against anyone who has known me. That keeps me up at night."
Q: When did you decide to leak the documents?
A: "You see things that may be disturbing. When you see everything you realise that some of these things are abusive. The awareness of wrong-doing builds up. There was not one morning when I woke up [and decided this is it]. It was a natural process.
"A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party. But I believed in Obama's promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor."
Q: What is your reaction to Obama denouncing the leaks on Friday while welcoming a debate on the balance between security and openness?
A: "My immediate reaction was he was having difficulty in defending it himself. He was trying to defend the unjustifiable and he knew it."
Q: What about the response in general to the disclosures?
A: "I have been surprised and pleased to see the public has reacted so strongly in defence of these rights that are being suppressed in the name of security. It is not like Occupy Wall Street but there is a grassroots movement to take to the streets on July 4 in defence of the Fourth Amendment called Restore The Fourth Amendment and it grew out of Reddit. The response over the internet has been huge and supportive."
Q: Washington-based foreign affairs analyst Steve Clemons said he overheard at the capital's Dulles airport four men discussing an intelligence conference they had just attended. Speaking about the leaks, one of them said, according to Clemons, that both the reporter and leaker should be "disappeared". How do you feel about that?
\u201cIn Dulles UAL lounge listening to 4 US intel officials saying loudly leaker & reporter on #NSA stuff should be disappeared recorded a bit\u201d— Steve Clemons (@Steve Clemons) 1370706133
A: "Someone responding to the story said 'real spies do not speak like that'. Well, I am a spy and that is how they talk. Whenever we had a debate in the office on how to handle crimes, they do not defend due process - they defend decisive action. They say it is better to kick someone out of a plane than let these people have a day in court. It is an authoritarian mindset in general."
Q: Do you have a plan in place?
A: "The only thing I can do is sit here and hope the Hong Kong government does not deport me ... My predisposition is to seek asylum in a country with shared values. The nation that most encompasses this is Iceland. They stood up for people over internet freedom. I have no idea what my future is going to be.
"They could put out an Interpol note. But I don't think I have committed a crime outside the domain of the US. I think it will be clearly shown to be political in nature."
Q: Do you think you are probably going to end up in prison?
A: "I could not do this without accepting the risk of prison. You can't come up against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and not accept the risk. If they want to get you, over time they will."
Q: How to you feel now, almost a week after the first leak?
A: "I think the sense of outrage that has been expressed is justified. It has given me hope that, no matter what happens to me, the outcome will be positive for America. I do not expect to see home again, though that is what I want."
_____________________________________________________
One observer warned that top Democrats are "trying to fool their own supporters" about their position on the Republican Party's government funding legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech Wednesday that Republicans don't have enough support from his caucus to advance their partisan six-month government funding legislation, which would inflict large cuts to non-military spending and bolster the Trump administration's assault on federal agencies.
But Schumer's claim of Democratic unity following tense private caucus meetings was soon called into question as some members suggested the minority party could still cut a deal with Republicans to invoke cloture on the legislation—a move that would pave the way for passage of the bill with a simple-majority vote.
"Everybody in the caucus wants an opportunity to vote for a clean 30-day [continuing resolution] that puts us on a pathway to regular, legit appropriations," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), referring to an alternative government funding bill offered by Democratic appropriators ahead of the looming Friday shutdown.
"It's not an unreasonable ask to say, if you want cloture, you'd better give us a vote," Whitehouse added.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) similarly indicated that Democrats could be willing to help Republicans invoke cloture—which requires 60 votes—in exchange for votes on Democratic amendments.
If cloture is invoked, the GOP would no longer need Democratic support to push the bill through the Senate.
"Democrats had nothing to do with this bill," Kaine told reporters following a closed-door caucus meeting on Wednesday. "And we want an opportunity to get an amendment vote or two. So that's what we are insisting on to vote for cloture."
"Any Senate Dem who thinks their left flank, or anyone else in their base who is determined to stop Trump, would accept this strategy is deeply deluded."
Such remarks from Democrats led Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo to describe Schumer's floor speech as "a head fake."
"This is the Senate D caucus trying to fool their own supporters," Marshall argued. "Sorry to say that but that's what's happening."
In a blog post, Marshall wrote that "this was a deal between Schumer and [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune to allow a brief performative episode to throw Democratic voters off the scent while the Democratic caucus allowed the bill to pass."
"The deal is this: Democrats agree to give up the 60-vote threshold in exchange for being allowed to offer amendments to the House bill. The 'amendment' or 'amendments' will likely be some version of Sen. [Patty] Murray's 30-day CR. It doesn't even matter what they are. But this is all for show," he explained. "Once you give up the 60-vote threshold, the whole thing is over."
Progressive strategist Robert Cruickshank wrote late Wednesday that "any Senate Dem who thinks their left flank, or anyone else in their base who is determined to stop Trump, would accept this strategy is deeply deluded."
"This isn't even about left or right or center," Cruickshank wrote. "The divide within the Democratic Party is 'fight' versus 'surrender.'"
The new comments from Schumer and members of his caucus came amid a pressure campaign from House Democrats, grassroots organizers, advocacy groups, and the nation's largest union of federal workers urging senators to oppose the Republican funding bill, even if it means risking a government shutdown at the end of the week.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which is engaged in legal fights against the Trump administration's large-scale attack on federal agencies,
wrote to senators on Wednesday that "a widespread government shutdown has been underway since January 20 and will continue to spread whether senators vote yes or no" on the Republican funding package.
"If H.R. 1968 becomes law—a measure that ignores the administration's brazen refusal to carry out duly enacted laws of Congress and further erodes Congress' power of the purse—AFGE knows that DOGE will dramatically expand its terminations of federal workers and double down on its campaign to make federal agencies fail because there will be nothing left to stop the administration for the balance of fiscal year 2025, if ever," the union wrote.
At least one Senate Democrat who was seen earlier Wednesday as a possible vote for the GOP, Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, vowed later in the day to oppose both cloture and the Republican bill itself, a sign that public outrage could be having an impact.
"Keep calling. Keep up the pressure," Democratic strategist Matt McDermott wrote in response to the Colorado senator's opposition.
Senate Democrats are waking up: Hickenlooper said this morning he was leaning towards backing the CR. But at a town hall tonight he publicly commits to voting No — including on cloture. Keep calling. Keep up the pressure.
[image or embed]
— Matt McDermott ( @mattmfm.bsky.social) March 12, 2025 at 10:18 PM
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has been urging Democratic senators to oppose the Republican bill, wrote Wednesday night that "House Democrats have stayed in D.C. to pass a 30-day clean government funding extension."
"We are here to avert a shutdown and give Republicans the time they need to negotiate a bipartisan agreement," Ocasio-Cortez added. "I'm here in D.C. ready to vote on a clean CR, and so is everyone else. Let's do it."
"The Trump administration is trying to roll back decades of critical health and safety regulations that have saved millions of lives and are all that's standing between us and runaway climate change," said one campaigner.
While U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin boasted Wednesday of canceling billions of dollars worth of green grants, considering the rollback of dozens of regulations, and shutting down every environmental justice office nationwide, critics warned the moves will have dire consequences for people and the planet.
Zeldin—a former Republican congressman from New York with an abysmal 14% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters—said in a statement that the EPA "will undertake 31 historic actions in the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history."
"We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S., and more," Zeldin said. "Alongside President [Donald] Trump, we are living up to our promises to unleash American energy, lower costs for Americans, revitalize the American auto industry, and work hand-in-hand with our state partners to advance our shared mission."
In one of the biggest moves of the day, the EPA will reconsider its endangerment finding, which the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) described as "the landmark scientific finding that forms the core basis of federal climate action."
"Removing the endangerment finding even as climate chaos accelerates is like spraying gasoline on a burning house," said Jason Rylander, legal director of the CBD's Climate Law Institute. "We had 27 separate climate disasters costing over a billion dollars last year. Now more than ever the United States needs to step up efforts to cut pollution and protect people from climate change. But instead Trump wants to yank us backward, creating enormous risks for people, wildlife, and our economy."
Zeldin said the EPA is "eliminating all diversity, equity, and inclusion and environmental justice offices and positions immediately," a move that will result in the closure of 10 regional facilities. The EPA chief explained the move complies with Trump's executive order on "ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferences" and other presidential directives.
The agency also moved to cancel a $2 billion grant program to help communities suffering from pollution.
"This is a fuck you to anyone who wants to breathe clean air, drink clean water, or live past 2030," Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement, said in a statement accusing the Trump administration of choosing "billionaires over life on Earth."
"The Trump administration is trying to roll back decades of critical health and safety regulations that have saved millions of lives and are all that's standing between us and runaway climate change," Shiney-Ajay continued. "Trump doesn't care about working people, all he cares about is pleasing the oil and gas billionaires who bankrolled his campaign. They know their industry is dying. Wind and solar are cheaper and safer than fossil fuels."
"So, they are trying to buy their way to profitability by rigging the rules in their favor," she added. "If they get their way, they will wreck our air, our water, burn down our homes, and hand future generations an unlivable climate."
TRANSLATION: Fuck you and fuck your future. Corporate polluters can dump sewage in your water, spew toxic gas into your air, and double down on burning the fossil fuels driving us into climate apocalypse. Billionaires can do whatever they want, and everyday people can eat shit.
[image or embed]
— Sunrise Movement ( @sunrisemvmt.bsky.social) March 12, 2025 at 1:03 PM
Matthew Tejada, a former deputy assistant administrator at the Office of Environmental Justice for over a decade before leaving the EPA in December 2023, now serves as senior vice president for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). He told CBS News Wednesday that "generations of progress are being erased from our federal government."
"Trump's EPA is taking us back to a time of unfettered pollution across the nation, leaving every American exposed to toxic chemicals, dirty air, and contaminated water," Tejada said in a separate NRDC statement Wednesday.
Tejada continued:
The grants that EPA moved to cancel are some of the most important to help make communities across the nation safer, healthier, and more prosperous. They are helping rural Virginia coal communities prepare for extreme flooding, installing sewage systems on rural Alabama homes, and turning an abandoned, polluted site in Tampa, Florida into a campus for healthcare, job training, and a small business development.
Those who have paid the highest price for pollution, with their health, are now the first to be sacrificed by Trump's EPA. But they will not be the last. Every American should be worried about what this portends. We are witnessing the first step of removing environmental protections from everyone, as the chemical industry and fossil fuel producers get their way—and the rest of us will pay with our health and lost legal rights.
On Tuesday, the EPA also canceled grant agreements worth $20 billion issued during former President Joe Biden's administration as part of a so-called green bank meant to fund clean energy and climate mitigation projects. The move prompted a lawsuit by Climate United Fund, a nonprofit green investment fund.
In another alarming development, The New Republic reported Wednesday that the FBI under Director Kash Patel is "moving to criminalize groups like Habitat for Humanity for receiving grants from the Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration."
Responding to Zeldin's sweeping actions Wednesday, the environmental group Sierra Club said the EPA is "attacking safeguards to limit pollution from power plants and vehicles, methane and other deadly emissions from oil and gas sources, mercury and air toxics standards, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, wastewater regulations at coal plants, and many other critical protections for the environment and public health."
"The standards that the EPA seeks to undermine are based on a strong scientific record and serve a number of public interests, including lowering the amount of deadly toxins fossil fuel-fired plants are allowed to release into the air and water; reducing pollution at steel and aluminum mills; and requiring fossil fuel companies to control pollution like soot, ozone, and toxic and hazardous air pollutants at power plants," the group continued.
"If these rules are withdrawn, the American public will see devastating health impacts," Sierra Club warned. "EPA estimated that just one of the rules would prevent 4,500 premature deaths and save $46 billion in health costs by 2032. The health toll and cost of rescinding all the rules listed in the EPA's announcement would be vastly higher."
"Donald Trump's actions will cause thousands of Americans to die each year."
Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said: "Donald Trump's actions will cause thousands of Americans to die each year. It will send thousands of children to the hospital and force even more to miss school. It will pollute the air and water in communities across the country. And it will cause our energy bills to go up even more than they already are because of his disastrous policies. But as they put all of us at risk, Trump and his administration are celebrating because it will help corporate polluters pad their profit margin."
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's Climate Program, said that "no matter how the EPA disguises the decision to roll back pollution rules, today's moves will make our air and water dirtier and make Americans sicker."
"Zeldin is granting the wishes of Trump's billionaire corporate cronies, plain and simple, at a massive cost to our health and wallets," he added. "The announcement flies in the face of the EPA's core mission to protect human health and safeguard our environment."
Green groups vowed to fight the Trump administration's attacks on environmental protections and justice.
"Come hell and high water, raging fires and deadly heatwaves, Trump and his cronies are bent on putting polluter profits ahead of people's lives," said CBD's Rylander. "This move won't stand up in court. We're going to fight it every step of the way."
Jealous of the Sierra Club said, "Make no mistake about it: We will fight these outrageous rollbacks tooth and nail, and we will use all resources at our disposal to continue protecting the health and safety of all Americans."
"He, like all presidents, must abide by the rule of law—and because he has not, Congress must adhere to its own obligations to carry out an impeachment investigation."
The pro-democracy group behind a campaign to impeach U.S. President Donald Trump a historic third time argued Wednesday that his administration's "blatant disregard for the judiciary branch" provides new grounds for Congress to launch an investigation.
Trump—who was impeached twice during his first term—returned to the White House in January, and since then has partnered with Elon Musk and various other billionaires to dismantle the federal government, provoking numerous ongoing legal battles.
As Free Speech for People detailed in a Wednesday statement, the new administration's recent "oversteps of the judiciary branch include: refusing to release $2 billion in foreign aid in defiance of multiple court orders; refusing to adhere to court orders that prohibit the Office of Management and Budget from implementing a freeze on all federal assistance; and refusing to adhere to a court order requiring U.S. Office of Personnel Management [acting Director] Charles Ezell to testify in person on March 13, 2025, in a lawsuit challenging Ezell and OPM's termination of thousands of employees."
Courtney Hostetler, legal director of the nonprofit, said that "the checks and balances of our three-branch government is a cornerstone of our democracy, created by our country's founders because they were rightfully afraid of how quickly, in the absence of a balanced system, our democracy might become a tyranny."
"Trump has usurped the powers of the legislature and now tramples on the authority of the judiciary," Hostetler continued. "In just one month, he has repeatedly ignored court rulings that have and must restrain his unlawful abuses of power. He, like all presidents, must abide by the rule of law—and because he has not, Congress must adhere to its own obligations to carry out an impeachment investigation."
Although the Free Speech for People's Impeach Trump Again campaign has collected over 250,000 petition signatures and Congressman Al Green (D-Texas) recently said he would bring articles of impeachment against the president, such an effort is unlikely to go anywhere given that both chambers are narrowly controlled by Republicans.
Even if Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in the midterms and pursued impeachment, they would also need sufficient support in the Senate to convict him. In both of Trump's previous Senate trials, he was not convicted.
Still, Free Speech for People argues that the House should launch an impeachment investigation into Trump for not only refusing to adhere to court orders, but also: planning the forced removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip; seeking retribution against perceived adversaries; dismantling independent government oversight; unconstitutionally usurping local, state, and congressional authority; receiving foreign and domestic emoluments; attempting to deprive Americans of birthright citizenship; dismissing criminal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams; abusing pardon and emergency powers; blocking efforts to secure U.S. elections; and engaging in unlawful, corrupt practices during the 2024 presidential campaign.