

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.
"Trump's attack on offshore wind is really an attack on our economy," said Sen. Jack Reed. "He's jacking up energy bills, firing thousands of union workers, and leaving our nation behind."
Developers behind two of the five offshore wind projects recently targeted by the Trump administration took action in federal court this week, seeking preliminary injunctions that would enable construction to continue while the legal battles play out.
Empire Offshore Wind LLC filed a civil lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday, challenging the Department of the Interior's (DOI) December 22 stop-work order, which the company argued is "unlawful and threatens the progress of ongoing work with significant implications for the project" off the coast of New York.
"Empire Wind is more than 60% complete and represents a significant investment in U.S. energy infrastructure, jobs, and supply chains," the company highlighted. "The project's construction phase alone has put nearly 4,000 people to work, both within the lease area and through the revitalization of the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal."
The filing came just a day after a similar one in the same court on Thursday from the joint venture between Skyborn Renewables and the Danish company Ørsted, which is developing Revolution Wind off Rhode Island and Connecticut. That project is approximately 87% complete and was expected to begin generating power as soon as this month.
"Sunrise Wind LLC, a separate project and wholly owned subsidiary of Ørsted that also received a lease suspension order on December 22, continues to evaluate all options to resolve the matter, including engagement with relevant agencies and stakeholders and considering legal proceedings," the Danish firm said. That project is also off New York.
As the New York Times noted Friday: "At stake overall is about $25 billion of investment in the five wind farms. The projects were expected to create 10,000 jobs and to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses."
Trump’s attack on offshore wind is really an attack on our economy. He’s jacking up energy bills, firing thousands of union workers, & leaving our nation behind. We need more energy in order to bring down costs. Trump is leading us in the wrong direction.
[image or embed]
— U.S. Senator Jack Reed (@reed.senate.gov) January 2, 2026 at 4:37 PM
The other two projects targeted by the Trump administration over alleged national security concerns are Vineyard Wind 1 off Massachusetts and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind. The developer of the latter, Dominion Energy, launched a legal challenge in federal court in Virginia the day after the DOI's lease suspension order, and a hearing is scheduled for this month.
"Delaying the project will lead to increased costs for customers and threaten long-term grid reliability," Dominion spokesperson Jeremy Slayton told NC Newsline on Tuesday. "Given the project's critical importance, we have a responsibility to pursue every available avenue to deliver the project as quickly and at the lowest cost possible on behalf of our customers and the stability of the overall grid."
President Donald Trump's public opposition to offshore wind energy dates back to before his first term as president, when he unsuccessfully fought against the Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm near his golf course in Scotland. Since entering US politics, the Republican has taken money from and served the interests of fossil fuel giants while waging war on renewable power projects and lying about the climate emergency.
As the Times detailed:
Mr. Trump has falsely claimed that wind farms kill whales (scientists have said there is no evidence to support that) and that turbines "litter" the country and are like "garbage in a field"...
This week President Trump posted on social media a photo of a bird beneath a windmill and suggested it was a bald eagle killed in the United States by a wind turbine. "Windmills are killing all of our beautiful Bald Eagles," the president wrote. It was also posted by the White House and the Department of Energy.
The post turned out to be a 2017 image from Israel, and the animal was likely a kestrel. On Friday Mr. Trump posted on Truth Social again, this time an image of birds flying around a wind turbine, that read, "Killing birds by the millions!"
While the DOI did not respond to the newspaper's request for comment, and the department referred the Hill to its December statement citing radar interference concerns, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told NC Newsline earlier this week that Trump has made clear that he believes wind energy is "the scam of the century."
"For years, Americans have been forced to pay billions more for the least reliable source of energy," Rogers said. "The Trump administration has paused the construction of all large-scale offshore wind projects because our number one priority is to put America First and protect the national security of the American people."
Meanwhile, climate campaigners and elected Democrats have blasted the Trump administration's attacks on the five offshore projects, warning of the economic and planetary consequences. Democratic senators have also halted permitting reform talks over the president's "reckless and vindictive assault" on wind power.
Additionally, as Common Dreams reported Monday, the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility warned congressional committees that the DOI orders are "not legally defensible" and raise "significant" questions about conflicts of interest involving a top department official's investments in fossil gas.
A former FEMA official said that the agency "can't do disaster response and recovery without" the employees being terminated by the Trump administration.
The Trump administration this week made abrupt cuts to the top federal disaster response agency, even as US communities face increased threats from natural disasters caused by the global climate crisis.
Independent journalist Marisa Kabas reported on Wednesday that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "has begun issuing termination notices" to staff at the agency's Cadre of On-Call Response and Recovery (CORE) that are effective as of January 2.
A FEMA staffer who spoke with Kabas described the terminations as "The New Year's Eve Massacre," and explained that "the driving force behind all CORE employees is supporting and enacting the mission of preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters."
A Thursday report from CNN added some additional details to Kabas' reporting, including that the decision to issue the layoffs was made by Acting Administrator Karen Evans, who was appointed to the role after former Acting Administrator David Richardson resigned in November.
One former FEMA official bluntly told CNN that the agency "can't do disaster response and recovery without CORE employees" that are being laid off by the administration.
The former FEMA official added that regional agency offices throughout the US "are almost entirely CORE staff, so the first FEMA people who are usually onsite won’t be there," which will mean that "states are on their own" when it comes to disaster response.
CNN also reported that there is anxiety among remaining FEMA staffers that these cuts could just be the start "of a larger effort" by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem "to shrink FEMA, potentially axing thousands of workers in the coming months who deploy during hurricanes, wildfires and other national emergencies."
President Donald Trump has been targeting FEMA for potential termination for nearly a year now, and he said shortly after being inaugurated last January that a goal in his second term would be "fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA," while emphasizing that individual states should bear the cost of responding to natural disasters.
“I think, frankly, FEMA’s not good,” the president said. “I think when you have a problem like this, I think you want to go, and whether it’s a Democrat or Republican governor, you want to use your state to fix it and not waste time calling FEMA.”
The Trump administration's deep cuts to FEMA come as the intensity of natural disasters is only projected to increase thanks to climate change.
According to a report published on Tuesday by the Yale School of the Environment, 2025 was the second hottest on record and was only surpassed by the previous year.
"The last three years have been, by a wide margin, the hottest ever recorded," stressed the report. "Each of the last three years has measured more than 1.5°C warmer than preindustrial times, putting the world at least temporarily in breach of an international goal to limit warming below that level."
Want an easy New Years' resolution? Buy 100% recycled or alternative fiber toilet paper instead of rolls made from virgin forest pulp.
North America’s boreal forests are crucial for wildlife and the climate, but we’re literally trashing them to make pulp for toilet paper and other disposable paper products.
Companies are clear-cutting a million acres a year, according to a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The northern boreal forests are Earth’s largest terrestrial biome. They’re the breeding grounds for 3-5 billion migrating birds that populate our backyards. And they’re a key carbon sink, storing 20% of global forest carbon and 50% of global soil carbon.
Studies show these forests have been overharvested and degraded to such a degree that the ecological damage will be difficult to reverse. They’re increasingly beset by global warming, melting permafrost, fires (including multi-year, spontaneously reigniting “zombie fires”), and pests, which threaten to destroy them and release their carbon back into the atmosphere.
If every American bought just one roll of toilet paper made from recycled paper rather than a conventional forest-fiber roll, it would save 1.6 million trees, 1 billion gallons of water, and 800 million pounds of greenhouse gases.
The United Nations recently warned of an approaching tipping point that could turn them from carbon sinks to carbon sources. That would be catastrophic. The recent COP30 climate summit, held in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest, was billed as “the forest COP.” But its outcomes were dubious for tropical forests—and nonexistent for boreal forests.
But if climate delegates don’t protect them, consumers can—by buying 100% recycled or alternative fiber products instead of toilet paper made from virgin forest pulp.
A market for these alternatives is emerging. The US toilet paper industry is worth $42 billion, but a whopping 68% of US consumers surveyed want eco-friendly toilet paper made from recycled pulp, bamboo, or cornstalks.
If every American bought just one roll of toilet paper made from recycled paper rather than a conventional forest-fiber roll, it would save 1.6 million trees, 1 billion gallons of water, and 800 million pounds of greenhouse gases—the equivalent of taking 72,000 cars off the road for a year, NRDC found.
Eco-friendly toilet paper start-ups have a $1 billion toehold on the overall market so far—little more than 2%. But they’re growing fast. Imagine how many trees, how much water, and how many emissions we’d save if they gained a 68% share.
The big paper companies are imagining it, too. Procter & Gamble (P&G) makes Charmin, the top US toilet paper brand. This year it launched a bamboo version. That gives the company a green-sounding talk point, and a theoretical way into the growing alternative market. But it isn’t really available in stores and doesn’t do anything to change P&G’s bad practices.
It’s well documented that P&G makes regular Charmin by clear-cutting Canadian boreal forests for pulp, cutting down old-growth groves that have stood for a century or more. Only about 20% of these old-growth trees are left.
Any remnant wood left (called “slash”) after logging gets burned, and the land gets plowed and sprayed with glyphosate (RoundUp), eradicating formerly diverse ecosystems that caribou and birds depend on. They’re replaced with monoculture plantations of softwood trees planted in tight rows, worsening vulnerability to wildfires.
Yet P&G has the chutzpah to claim its slash-and-burn practices “absolutely prohibit deforestation” and “incorporate sustainability.” No wonder the company is being sued for greenwashing, with plaintiffs demanding it be held accountable for “egregious environmental destruction of the largest intact forest in the world” and making “false and misleading claims of environmental stewardship.”
Ultimately though, the power to change practices resides with consumers, not courts. Some 90 million Americans buy regular Charmin—and another 5 billion consumers worldwide buy P&G products. Collectively they have enormous power, provided they’re alerted to the problem and aren’t fooled by greenwashing tactics.
But if those conditions are met, consumers can save the boreal forests, one roll at a time.