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.
Frontline community members and environmental groups marched in Ottawa, Canada on Sunday, April 21, 2024 to demand an ambitious Global Plastics Treaty.
A meaningful global plastics treaty must cap production, stabilize market imbalances, align efforts with climate goals, address inequities, and curb the widespread devastation of plastic pollution.
The stakes couldn’t be higher as we enter the final scheduled round of plastics treaty negotiations.
From November 25 to December 1, United Nations Member States will convene in Busan, Republic of Korea for the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution—will they deliver a treaty that matches the urgency of the plastics crisis?
The global plastics crisis poses an escalating threat to the environment, public health, and the economy. Currently, 99% of plastics are derived from fossil fuels—the main driver of climate change—and production is on track to triple by 2050, accounting for 20% of global oil demand within the next two decades. This surge in plastic production could use up a staggering one-third of the Earth’s remaining carbon budget, seriously jeopardizing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Meanwhile, petrochemical and plastic markets face mounting economic challenges as overcapacity worsens, sustainable investments gain momentum, and regulatory pressures tighten. Despite stagnant demand and an oversaturated market, more than 1,400 new plastic production projects are planned by 2027. With historically low profit margins and warnings from credit rating agencies, economists have cautioned that expanding fossil fuel-based plastic production is both reckless and economically shortsighted. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) urges a production cap to address market imbalances and mitigate risks to the environment and the economy.
A meaningful global plastics treaty must cap production, stabilize market imbalances, align efforts with climate goals, address inequities, and curb the widespread devastation of plastic pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Negotiators will arrive in Busan with nearly 70 dizzying pages of draft text and more than 3,700 unresolved brackets—a signal that there is much divergence on what the treaty should or should not include. While INC Chair Luis Vayas has proposed a “non-paper” to streamline discussions, critics, including CIEL, warn that as it stands, it leaves key treaty provisions without suggested text and sets the stage for a weak and ineffective treaty. CIEL and Break Free From Plastic have put together a streamlined comparison of the non-paper and draft treaty text to inform and guide the negotiations.
As negotiations unfold, here are the key components a successful treaty must include:
Plastic’s toxic impacts permeate every stage of its life cycle. With plastic recycling rates below 10%, downstream measures are wholly inadequate to address this crisis. The solution must begin at the source: We need a treaty that caps plastic production. To align with global climate goals, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) recommends a minimum 70% reduction in plastic production by 2050, using 2019 as a baseline.
A treaty that fails to limit plastic production at its source will not only fall short of its mandate to end plastic pollution—it will fail humanity at a critical juncture. To meaningfully address this crisis, a global reduction target must be paired with ambitious, binding national commitments.
A treaty with a global production target but no binding national obligations risks becoming another “Paris-style” agreement—offering promises while delaying real action. Postponing decisions on national obligations is a dangerous gamble, with no guarantee of success. The first and most critical step toward meaningful reductions is preventing exponential plastic production growth. That’s why the treaty must mandate national measures to halt the expansion of production capacity, particularly for high-volume plastics driving the crisis.
Of the 16,000 chemicals used in plastics, more than 4,200 are known to pose serious health and environmental hazards and risks and have been linked to miscarriage, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and more. Nearly 10,000 of them lack adequate data, posing unknown dangers. Following the advice of leading scientists, the treaty must adopt the precautionary principle, globally banning entire classes of hazardous chemicals, mandating transparency, and prioritizing human and environmental safety.
Plastics are a transboundary issue. Feedstocks, products, and waste flow across global markets, often circumventing regulations. The treaty must establish enforceable measures for tracking and managing trade, including rules for non-party countries that do not ratify, to prevent loopholes and maintain treaty efficacy.
After the treaty text is finalized and entered into force, a Conference of the Parties (COP) will convene to ensure the treaty’s implementation, monitor progress, and address emerging issues. Future decision-making must avoid the pitfalls of consensus voting, which risks stalling progress. A dynamic treaty must empower regular COPs to swiftly address emerging issues and ensure long-term success by establishing the possibility for qualified majority voting when consensus cannot be reached.
The treaty must establish a dedicated financial mechanism to support the achievement of its objectives, with a particular focus on assisting low- and middle-income countries. Member States should embrace innovative funding solutions, such as implementing a globally coordinated fee on primary polymer production.
As the INCs have already shown, Member States may attempt to dilute ambition and derail progress. These tactics can include a flood of procedural questions, denial of scientific consensus, claims of knowledge gaps, reopening agreed-upon text, and requesting additional information to delay decision-making.
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have infiltrated previous negotiations. According to an analysis by CIEL, the number of lobbyists at INC-4 outnumbered European Union delegates. Strict conflict of interest policies and transparency measures are necessary to ensure that the treaty’s implementation is protected from the vested interests of these industries.
As negotiators feel the pressure of a ticking clock, they may be tempted to scale back ambition, sideline critical topics, or adopt a weak, non-binding framework. Negotiators must balance urgency with ambition to ensure a treaty that meets its mandate.
INC-5 negotiations come just weeks after Donald Trump’s reelection, raising concerns about how this may shape the U.S. delegation’s stance in Busan. Trump has made clear his alignment with an industry that not only undermines climate imperatives but is facing economic decline.
Despite this, most nations have shown a strong commitment to moving away from toxic, polluting plastics. The U.S. negotiating team remains under the Biden-Harris administration’s directive, and global negotiators must not let the recent election derail global progress. If the U.S. fails to advocate for an ambitious treaty, they risk being left behind as other countries forge the way.
The final plastics treaty must deliver more than lofty goals. We call on negotiators to deliver real, enforceable solutions that:
The world cannot afford a weak or voluntary treaty that prioritizes industry interests over human and planetary health. Leaders in Busan must rise to the occasion and deliver the bold, binding agreement we need to tackle the plastics crisis.
Without a robust treaty, we risk locking in decades of escalating plastic production, worsening climate impacts, and irreparable harm to ecosystems and communities worldwide. The time for incremental steps is over. It’s now or never.
The world is watching. Will INC-5 deliver the treaty we deserve?
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. |
The stakes couldn’t be higher as we enter the final scheduled round of plastics treaty negotiations.
From November 25 to December 1, United Nations Member States will convene in Busan, Republic of Korea for the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution—will they deliver a treaty that matches the urgency of the plastics crisis?
The global plastics crisis poses an escalating threat to the environment, public health, and the economy. Currently, 99% of plastics are derived from fossil fuels—the main driver of climate change—and production is on track to triple by 2050, accounting for 20% of global oil demand within the next two decades. This surge in plastic production could use up a staggering one-third of the Earth’s remaining carbon budget, seriously jeopardizing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Meanwhile, petrochemical and plastic markets face mounting economic challenges as overcapacity worsens, sustainable investments gain momentum, and regulatory pressures tighten. Despite stagnant demand and an oversaturated market, more than 1,400 new plastic production projects are planned by 2027. With historically low profit margins and warnings from credit rating agencies, economists have cautioned that expanding fossil fuel-based plastic production is both reckless and economically shortsighted. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) urges a production cap to address market imbalances and mitigate risks to the environment and the economy.
A meaningful global plastics treaty must cap production, stabilize market imbalances, align efforts with climate goals, address inequities, and curb the widespread devastation of plastic pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Negotiators will arrive in Busan with nearly 70 dizzying pages of draft text and more than 3,700 unresolved brackets—a signal that there is much divergence on what the treaty should or should not include. While INC Chair Luis Vayas has proposed a “non-paper” to streamline discussions, critics, including CIEL, warn that as it stands, it leaves key treaty provisions without suggested text and sets the stage for a weak and ineffective treaty. CIEL and Break Free From Plastic have put together a streamlined comparison of the non-paper and draft treaty text to inform and guide the negotiations.
As negotiations unfold, here are the key components a successful treaty must include:
Plastic’s toxic impacts permeate every stage of its life cycle. With plastic recycling rates below 10%, downstream measures are wholly inadequate to address this crisis. The solution must begin at the source: We need a treaty that caps plastic production. To align with global climate goals, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) recommends a minimum 70% reduction in plastic production by 2050, using 2019 as a baseline.
A treaty that fails to limit plastic production at its source will not only fall short of its mandate to end plastic pollution—it will fail humanity at a critical juncture. To meaningfully address this crisis, a global reduction target must be paired with ambitious, binding national commitments.
A treaty with a global production target but no binding national obligations risks becoming another “Paris-style” agreement—offering promises while delaying real action. Postponing decisions on national obligations is a dangerous gamble, with no guarantee of success. The first and most critical step toward meaningful reductions is preventing exponential plastic production growth. That’s why the treaty must mandate national measures to halt the expansion of production capacity, particularly for high-volume plastics driving the crisis.
Of the 16,000 chemicals used in plastics, more than 4,200 are known to pose serious health and environmental hazards and risks and have been linked to miscarriage, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and more. Nearly 10,000 of them lack adequate data, posing unknown dangers. Following the advice of leading scientists, the treaty must adopt the precautionary principle, globally banning entire classes of hazardous chemicals, mandating transparency, and prioritizing human and environmental safety.
Plastics are a transboundary issue. Feedstocks, products, and waste flow across global markets, often circumventing regulations. The treaty must establish enforceable measures for tracking and managing trade, including rules for non-party countries that do not ratify, to prevent loopholes and maintain treaty efficacy.
After the treaty text is finalized and entered into force, a Conference of the Parties (COP) will convene to ensure the treaty’s implementation, monitor progress, and address emerging issues. Future decision-making must avoid the pitfalls of consensus voting, which risks stalling progress. A dynamic treaty must empower regular COPs to swiftly address emerging issues and ensure long-term success by establishing the possibility for qualified majority voting when consensus cannot be reached.
The treaty must establish a dedicated financial mechanism to support the achievement of its objectives, with a particular focus on assisting low- and middle-income countries. Member States should embrace innovative funding solutions, such as implementing a globally coordinated fee on primary polymer production.
As the INCs have already shown, Member States may attempt to dilute ambition and derail progress. These tactics can include a flood of procedural questions, denial of scientific consensus, claims of knowledge gaps, reopening agreed-upon text, and requesting additional information to delay decision-making.
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have infiltrated previous negotiations. According to an analysis by CIEL, the number of lobbyists at INC-4 outnumbered European Union delegates. Strict conflict of interest policies and transparency measures are necessary to ensure that the treaty’s implementation is protected from the vested interests of these industries.
As negotiators feel the pressure of a ticking clock, they may be tempted to scale back ambition, sideline critical topics, or adopt a weak, non-binding framework. Negotiators must balance urgency with ambition to ensure a treaty that meets its mandate.
INC-5 negotiations come just weeks after Donald Trump’s reelection, raising concerns about how this may shape the U.S. delegation’s stance in Busan. Trump has made clear his alignment with an industry that not only undermines climate imperatives but is facing economic decline.
Despite this, most nations have shown a strong commitment to moving away from toxic, polluting plastics. The U.S. negotiating team remains under the Biden-Harris administration’s directive, and global negotiators must not let the recent election derail global progress. If the U.S. fails to advocate for an ambitious treaty, they risk being left behind as other countries forge the way.
The final plastics treaty must deliver more than lofty goals. We call on negotiators to deliver real, enforceable solutions that:
The world cannot afford a weak or voluntary treaty that prioritizes industry interests over human and planetary health. Leaders in Busan must rise to the occasion and deliver the bold, binding agreement we need to tackle the plastics crisis.
Without a robust treaty, we risk locking in decades of escalating plastic production, worsening climate impacts, and irreparable harm to ecosystems and communities worldwide. The time for incremental steps is over. It’s now or never.
The world is watching. Will INC-5 deliver the treaty we deserve?
The stakes couldn’t be higher as we enter the final scheduled round of plastics treaty negotiations.
From November 25 to December 1, United Nations Member States will convene in Busan, Republic of Korea for the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution—will they deliver a treaty that matches the urgency of the plastics crisis?
The global plastics crisis poses an escalating threat to the environment, public health, and the economy. Currently, 99% of plastics are derived from fossil fuels—the main driver of climate change—and production is on track to triple by 2050, accounting for 20% of global oil demand within the next two decades. This surge in plastic production could use up a staggering one-third of the Earth’s remaining carbon budget, seriously jeopardizing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Meanwhile, petrochemical and plastic markets face mounting economic challenges as overcapacity worsens, sustainable investments gain momentum, and regulatory pressures tighten. Despite stagnant demand and an oversaturated market, more than 1,400 new plastic production projects are planned by 2027. With historically low profit margins and warnings from credit rating agencies, economists have cautioned that expanding fossil fuel-based plastic production is both reckless and economically shortsighted. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) urges a production cap to address market imbalances and mitigate risks to the environment and the economy.
A meaningful global plastics treaty must cap production, stabilize market imbalances, align efforts with climate goals, address inequities, and curb the widespread devastation of plastic pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Negotiators will arrive in Busan with nearly 70 dizzying pages of draft text and more than 3,700 unresolved brackets—a signal that there is much divergence on what the treaty should or should not include. While INC Chair Luis Vayas has proposed a “non-paper” to streamline discussions, critics, including CIEL, warn that as it stands, it leaves key treaty provisions without suggested text and sets the stage for a weak and ineffective treaty. CIEL and Break Free From Plastic have put together a streamlined comparison of the non-paper and draft treaty text to inform and guide the negotiations.
As negotiations unfold, here are the key components a successful treaty must include:
Plastic’s toxic impacts permeate every stage of its life cycle. With plastic recycling rates below 10%, downstream measures are wholly inadequate to address this crisis. The solution must begin at the source: We need a treaty that caps plastic production. To align with global climate goals, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) recommends a minimum 70% reduction in plastic production by 2050, using 2019 as a baseline.
A treaty that fails to limit plastic production at its source will not only fall short of its mandate to end plastic pollution—it will fail humanity at a critical juncture. To meaningfully address this crisis, a global reduction target must be paired with ambitious, binding national commitments.
A treaty with a global production target but no binding national obligations risks becoming another “Paris-style” agreement—offering promises while delaying real action. Postponing decisions on national obligations is a dangerous gamble, with no guarantee of success. The first and most critical step toward meaningful reductions is preventing exponential plastic production growth. That’s why the treaty must mandate national measures to halt the expansion of production capacity, particularly for high-volume plastics driving the crisis.
Of the 16,000 chemicals used in plastics, more than 4,200 are known to pose serious health and environmental hazards and risks and have been linked to miscarriage, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and more. Nearly 10,000 of them lack adequate data, posing unknown dangers. Following the advice of leading scientists, the treaty must adopt the precautionary principle, globally banning entire classes of hazardous chemicals, mandating transparency, and prioritizing human and environmental safety.
Plastics are a transboundary issue. Feedstocks, products, and waste flow across global markets, often circumventing regulations. The treaty must establish enforceable measures for tracking and managing trade, including rules for non-party countries that do not ratify, to prevent loopholes and maintain treaty efficacy.
After the treaty text is finalized and entered into force, a Conference of the Parties (COP) will convene to ensure the treaty’s implementation, monitor progress, and address emerging issues. Future decision-making must avoid the pitfalls of consensus voting, which risks stalling progress. A dynamic treaty must empower regular COPs to swiftly address emerging issues and ensure long-term success by establishing the possibility for qualified majority voting when consensus cannot be reached.
The treaty must establish a dedicated financial mechanism to support the achievement of its objectives, with a particular focus on assisting low- and middle-income countries. Member States should embrace innovative funding solutions, such as implementing a globally coordinated fee on primary polymer production.
As the INCs have already shown, Member States may attempt to dilute ambition and derail progress. These tactics can include a flood of procedural questions, denial of scientific consensus, claims of knowledge gaps, reopening agreed-upon text, and requesting additional information to delay decision-making.
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have infiltrated previous negotiations. According to an analysis by CIEL, the number of lobbyists at INC-4 outnumbered European Union delegates. Strict conflict of interest policies and transparency measures are necessary to ensure that the treaty’s implementation is protected from the vested interests of these industries.
As negotiators feel the pressure of a ticking clock, they may be tempted to scale back ambition, sideline critical topics, or adopt a weak, non-binding framework. Negotiators must balance urgency with ambition to ensure a treaty that meets its mandate.
INC-5 negotiations come just weeks after Donald Trump’s reelection, raising concerns about how this may shape the U.S. delegation’s stance in Busan. Trump has made clear his alignment with an industry that not only undermines climate imperatives but is facing economic decline.
Despite this, most nations have shown a strong commitment to moving away from toxic, polluting plastics. The U.S. negotiating team remains under the Biden-Harris administration’s directive, and global negotiators must not let the recent election derail global progress. If the U.S. fails to advocate for an ambitious treaty, they risk being left behind as other countries forge the way.
The final plastics treaty must deliver more than lofty goals. We call on negotiators to deliver real, enforceable solutions that:
The world cannot afford a weak or voluntary treaty that prioritizes industry interests over human and planetary health. Leaders in Busan must rise to the occasion and deliver the bold, binding agreement we need to tackle the plastics crisis.
Without a robust treaty, we risk locking in decades of escalating plastic production, worsening climate impacts, and irreparable harm to ecosystems and communities worldwide. The time for incremental steps is over. It’s now or never.
The world is watching. Will INC-5 deliver the treaty we deserve?
"While working people keep waiting for a single specific policy from the president to deal with exploding costs, his administration instead hatched an official crypto policy scheme that could conveniently enrich many top Trump officials," said one watchdog.
Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order creating both a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" and a "Digital Asset Stockpile" —his latest move to elevate and industry that he has a personal stake in. But the president is not the only person in the Trump administration who has ties to crypto, and a new analysis from the watchdog group Accountable.US details how some in Trump's orbit may have benefited or could benefit from this new crypto rollout.
"While working people keep waiting for a single specific policy from the president to deal with exploding costs, his administration instead hatched an official crypto policy scheme that could conveniently enrich many top Trump officials," wrote Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk in a statement published Thursday.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who has been involved in Trump's crypto efforts, has links to the firm Strategy, the biggest corporate holder of Bitcoin, through the financial firm he led for four decades, according to Accountable.US
After being confirmed as Secretary of Commerce, Lutnick handed over the reins of his firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, to his two sons, but Bloomberg reporting from November cast Lutnick as an "executive whose grip on his various businesses is bolted tight."
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings retrieved by Accountable.US show that Cantor Fitzgerald recently invested $1.58 billion in Strategy (formerly known as MicroStrategy). It's not clear whether Lutnick personally holds crypto assets, according to CNN, and Lutnick has agreed to divest his business interests.
Market analysts say that because of its Bitcoin holdings, Strategy is poised to be a major beneficiary of Trump's crypto reserve plan.
Also, Cantor Fitzgerald will be expanding its "Bitcoin financing services in the wake of Trump administration changes," according to Bitcoin Magazine.
Lutnick's involvement with Trump's crypto policy and ties to Cantor Fitzgerald might raise eyebrows, but so may other crypto holdings by cabinet secretaries detailed by Accountable.US's analysis.
Treasury Secretary Sean Duffy, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Trump's nominee to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—Mehmet Oz—have collectively disclosed up to $7.7 million in holdings in Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana, according to Accountable.US.
Ether and Solana, in addition to Bitcoin, are coins that Trump has said would be in his "digital asset stockpile."
These four officials did not say they would divest these assets in ethics agreements they filed with the federal government, per Accountable.US, and may have benefited from the bump that crypto received following Trump's crypto reserve announcement.
The rise in value those currencies experienced after Trump posted about his crypto reserve on Truth Social on March 2 possibly helped their investments grow from a maximum of $7.7 million to over $8.5 million, according to Accountable.US.
Additionally, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Deputy Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche—who have said they will divest up to $1 million in crypto investments, but have yet to file certifications proving those divestments, according to the watchdog—could have seen their investments in "related cryptocurrencies" swell by a maximum of roughly $125,000 after Trump's post on Truth Social.
"Instead of standing with young and everyday people, Schumer is compromising on our lives and futures," said an 18-year-old who was arrested at the protest.
Protesters were arrested at U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's Washington, D.C. office Friday morning while opposing the New York Democrat's plan to help congressional Republicans prevent a government shutdown with a stopgap funding measure that critics warn will further empower President Donald Trump and his billionaire allies, including Elon Musk.
The Sunrise Movement, a youth-led campaign to fight the climate emergency and create green jobs, said 11 protesters were arrested while urging the Schumer not to help the GOP advance the House-approved continuing resolution (CR). Although Republicans have a Senate majority, it is too slim to force final votes on most legislation without Democratic support.
"If Schumer prioritizes deal-making with Trump and Musk over standing up for the people, he is unfit to lead."
"Schumer must stand with working people and young people, not billionaires. This budget is a corrupt giveaway that sells out everyday Americans and our planet to Trump and Musk's greed. If Schumer prioritizes deal-making with Trump and Musk over standing up for the people, he is unfit to lead," Sunrise executive director Aru Shiney-Ajay said in a statement.
"We demand courage, not cowardice," she added. "This is bigger than politics. It's about protecting our communities, our democracy, and our planet from corruption and corporate greed. Schumer must fight back—now."
The protesters carried banners and signs with messages that included, "Schumer: Step Up or Step Aside," "Schumer: Don't Be a Coward," and "Our Future Is on Fire, Act Like It Is." The protesters echoed those messages.
"Instead of standing with young and everyday people, Schumer is compromising on our lives and futures," said 18-year-old Carly Bryant, who was arrested outside his office. "This bill guts services that working people like me need, just to make the rich richer. If Schumer won't step up and fight for us, he needs to step aside."
D.C. resident Ayesha Nagaria also accused Schumer of siding with Trump and "his billionaire agenda instead of communities across the country and in this city." The 22-year-old stressed that "the people of D.C. cannot afford to have our education and healthcare systems shut down, and Schumer is turning his back on us. If he won't have a backbone and stand up for us, we need to stand up for ourselves."
The GOP push to pass the CR before a shutdown begins at midnight comes as Trump and his billionaires—from Cabinet leaders to Musk, head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—are gutting the federal government. Although they are running into some roadblocks in court, the administration is also showing its willingness to ignore judges' orders. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are aiming to give the rich tax cuts by slashing programs for the working class.
Protesters who gathered at Schumer's home in New York City Friday morning shared similar messages, holding signs that said, "People Over Billionaires," "Schumer, Vote No or Go," and "Schumer: Do Not Comply in Advance, Say No to Cloture."
"I Wish AOC Was My Senator," read one sign, a reference to growing calls for Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to launch a primary challenge against Schumer. She has been a leading critic of his plan to vote for cloture, or to end debate.
While Ocasio-Cortez is a leading progressive, intense criticism of Schumer's position—that preventing a shutdown with this CR is the best of various bad options—is coming from across the "big tent" of the Democratic Party, including its House leaders.
The demonstration at Schumer's Brooklyn residence was organized by a local arm of the progressive group Indivisible.
The protest was "a testament to how many people are upset," Indivisible Brooklyn organizer Lisa Raymond-Tolan told Salon, noting that hundreds of people "came out at 8 o'clock in the morning on a weekday to let the senator know that he is off course and capitulating to fascism—and we won't stand for it."
"He is not the leader for this moment," Raymond-Tolan told the crowd, according to Salon. "We need him to fight back or get the fuck out."
So far, in the Senate Democratic Caucus, only Schumer and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) had publicly made clear that they intend to vote "yes" on cloture, though Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is also widely expected to, after she was overheard "speaking quite loudly" against a shutdown during a Thursday lunch with colleagues.
Whatever happens with the CR and looming shutdown, there is now a movement to oust Schumer from Democratic Party leadership—and as of Friday it includes the "Pass the Torch" campaign that pressured former President Joe Biden to drop out of the 2024 contest.
"Chuck Schumer is unwilling and unable to meet the moment. His sole job is to fight MAGA's fascist takeover of our democracy—instead, he's directly enabling it," said Pass the Torch. "Americans desperately need a real opposition party to stand up to Trump. It's clear that will not happen as long as Schumer remains in charge of Senate Democrats. It's time to 'chuck' Schumer out. Chuck Schumer must resign as minority leader and make way for leaders who will actually fight for the American people."
"Schumer should step down from Democratic leadership—or be forced out—and let someone actually willing to fight Trump and Musk take his place."
The Democratic Party erupted in anger late Thursday after its longtime Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, capitulated to Republicans on a government funding package that would slash critical programs and bolster the Trump administration's lawless assault on federal agencies.
The fury wasn't limited to the party's progressive wing, which was predictably incensed by Schumer's (D-N.Y.) announcement that he and a sufficient number of other Democrats would vote in favor of advancing the GOP bill to avert a government shutdown.
According to Axios, even centrist Democrats were among those "voicing support for a primary challenge" against Schumer, with members floating Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) as possible 2028 candidates against the minority leader.
"One lawmaker even vowed at the House Democratic retreat to 'write a check tonight' supporting Ocasio-Cortez," the outlet noted, citing an unnamed senior House Democrat.
CNN similarly reported that House Democrats—who, with the exception of Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, unified against the Republican funding package—"are so infuriated with Schumer's decision that some have begun encouraging [Ocasio-Cortez] to run against Schumer."
"Multiple Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others directly encouraged Ocasio-Cortez to run on Thursday night after Schumer's announcement," said one unnamed lawmaker, who told CNN that party members were "so mad" at the Senate leader that even centrists were "ready to write checks for AOC for Senate."
Ocasio-Cortez, who called Schumer's reversal on the Republican funding bill "a huge slap in the face," said amid the mounting primary calls that she's focused on mobilizing against the GOP measure in a last-ditch attempt to sink it.
"We still have an opportunity to correct course here, and that is my number one priority," the New York progressive told CNN. "I think there is a wide sense of betrayal if things proceed as currently planned."
A vote on the Republican bill is expected later Friday ahead of a looming government shutdown.
With Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) expected to break ranks, the Senate GOP needs at least eight Democratic supporters to advance the legislation to a final vote.
Opponents of the GOP measure, including the largest union of federal workers in the country, argued that President Donald Trump and unelected billionaire Elon Musk are already effectively shutting the government down by eviscerating entire departments.
"Instead of forcing Republicans to own their extremism, Schumer gave away one of the only pieces of leverage Democrats had before 2026," wrote Democratic strategist Waleed Shahid. "This wasn't about whether a shutdown was risk-free—no fight ever is. It was about whether Democrats were willing to impose a cost on their opponents for governing through blackmail. Instead, Schumer made the kind of move that tells Republicans they can keep pushing."
Justice Democrats, a progressive group that helped Ocasio-Cortez upset a top House Democrat in a 2018 primary, said Thursday that the "corporate Democratic leadership is all talk and no fight."
"Gutless, spineless, and utterly unqualified to lead," the group added. "Schumer should step down from Democratic leadership—or be forced out—and let someone actually willing to fight Trump and Musk take his place."