Young Americans Sue Trump Administration Over Climate Policies
Rabat – A group of 22 young people from across the United States have filed a federal lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating their constitutional rights by issuing executive orders that expand fossil fuel production, worsening climate change.
The lawsuit – 'Youth v. Trump'— was filed last week in the US District Court in Montana. It claims Trump's executive orders knowingly promote policies that increase greenhouse gas pollution, pushing the global climate toward dangerous instability.
The case targets three executive orders issued by Trump titled: 'Unleashing American Energy,' 'Declaring a National Energy Emergency,' and 'Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.'
The plaintiffs, aged 7 to 25 and living from Montana to Florida, say they've been directly harmed by wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and extreme heat. Some have been displaced from their homes, while a 7-year-old boy identified as J.K., has suffered serious health problems due to respiratory infections worsened by wildfire smoke, leading to multiple hospitalizations.
The lawsuit argues that these impacts violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to life and liberty, and also break laws meant to protect public health and the environment. The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the executive orders unconstitutional, stop their enforcement, and reaffirm legal limits on presidential power.
'From day one of the current administration, President Trump has issued directives to increase fossil fuel use and block the transition to clean energy like wind, solar, batteries, and electric vehicles,' the lawsuit states. It adds that Trump's claim of an energy emergency is false, and that the real emergency is the damage caused by fossil fuel pollution.
The young plaintiffs are represented by Our Children's Trust, an Oregon-based legal group known for the 2015 Juliana v. United States case, which argued that the government has long known fossil fuels drive climate change but failed to act.
Alongside President Trump, the lawsuit casts a wide net targeting powerful federal agencies and top officials as defendants. Among them are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Transportation, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Also listed are two of the country's leading science institutions — NASA and NOAA — agencies that have long sounded the alarm on climate change but are now accused of contributing to the climate crisis by complying with the harmful executive orders.
In a statement for Inside Climate News, the White House dismissed the case as part of 'the left's radical climate agenda,' and said Americans are more focused on economic and national security, which it argues are supported by Trump's efforts to restore US energy dominance.
The United States experienced 28 weather and climate disasters in 2024, ranging from severe storms, tropical cyclones, winter storms, floods, drought, heat-waves and wildfires. The 2023 Fifth National Climate Assessment estimated the costs of 'severe weather' at roughly $150 billion each year — a conservative estimate that excludes loss of life, healthcare-related costs and damages to the ecosystem.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Morocco World
5 hours ago
- Morocco World
Global Opinion Turns Against Israel, New Poll
Rabat – The new Pew Research Center survey conducted across 24 countries reveals that global perceptions of Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are overwhelmingly negative – even in countries that once held positive views of Israel. In 20 of the 24 countries surveyed, roughly half or more of adults reported an unfavorable opinion of Israel. This sentiment was especially strong in nations such as Australia, Greece, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Turkiye, where around or more than 75% of people held negative views. The United States also saw a significant shift, with the share of Americans expressing a negative view of Israel increased from 42% in March 2022 to 53% in March 2025, marking an 11% rise over three years. Expectedly, Political ideology helped shape public opinion. Across many countries, those on the left were far more likely to view Israel unfavorably compared to those on the right. In Australia, 90% of left-leaning respondents had an unfavorable view of Israel, compared to just 46% on the right. The ideological divide in the US was similarly stark: 74% of liberals viewed Israel negatively, versus 30% of conservatives. The data also shows a stark generational divide. Younger respondents in several high-income countries—including Australia, Canada, France, Poland, South Korea, and the US— were significantly more likely than older generations to hold negative views of Israel. This age gap was particularly pronounced in the US. War criminal in charge While Israel's system of apartheid and ethnic cleansing and apartheid surpass and pre-date Netanyahu — warranted for war crimes at the International Criminal Court (ICC) — confidence in the Israeli prime minister was also low across most surveyed countries. Outside of Kenya and Nigeria, no more than 33% of adults expressed confidence in his ability to handle world affairs. In countries such as Australia, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Turkiye, around 74% or more said they had little or no confidence in Netanyahu, with many expressing no confidence at all. Younger respondents again expressed less confidence in Netanyahu than older ones. In Hungary, for example, only 20% of adults aged 18–34 said they trusted Netanyahu, compared to 40% of those 50 and older. Ideologically, the pattern mirrored views of Israel: right-leaning individuals were more likely to express confidence in Netanyahu. In France, 25% of right-leaning respondents had confidence in him, compared to just 8% on the left. A few outliers By contrast, views were more favorable in Kenya and Nigeria, where around half or more of respondents viewed Israel positively. This relatively favorable perception is likely rooted in the influence of Christian Zionism among the growing evangelical and Pentecostal communities in both countries, which Israel actively supports. These groups tend to view Israel through a biblical lens — as a fulfillment of a sacred prophecy — which shapes public opinion through sermons and teachings that cultivates unwavering support for Israel while shielding its human rights crimes. In India, the public opinion was relatively divided, with 34% holding a favorable view and 29% an unfavorable one. This can be in part linked to the rise of Hindu-Nationalism and anti-Muslim sentiment in India, especially under prime minister Narendra Modi. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (PJB) has increasingly aligned itself with Israel both diplomatically and ideologically, centering Israel's policies as a model for its own approach towards Muslims and occupied Kashmir. When it comes to views within Israel, the center focused its research on whether nationals feel that Israel is 'respected' globally without offering subsequent questions on what that respect entails in their view. The research shows that 58% of Israelis believe their country is not respected internationally, compared to 39% who believe it is. The centre notes that this shift marks a growing pessimism from the previous year, with a notable increase in the share who feel Israel is 'not at all' respected — from 15% to 24%. The research also found that Israelis on the right are more likely than those on the left to believe that the entity is respected internationally. However, it found that Arab citizens of Israel and Jewish citizens expressed similar views on this question. Notably, in this case the research only includes Arabs living within Israel's 1948 border following the Nakba, and does not reflect the views of Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza — those who borne the brunt of Israeli apartheid and genocide.
Morocco World
10 hours ago
- Morocco World
Trump Bans Travel to US From 12 Countries, Citing National Security
Rabat – US President Donald Trump has signed a new order banning citizens from 12 countries from entering the United States, presenting the decision as needed to protect national security. These countries include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The ban will take effect on June 9, 2025, at 12:01 a.m. (EDT). In a video posted on X, Trump said, 'We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm.' He added that the list of countries could change in the future. Travel from seven other countries will also be restricted, but not completely banned. These include Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Trump said these countries were chosen because they have a 'large-scale presence of terrorists,' poor security cooperation, problems verifying traveler identities, and high numbers of people who overstay their visas. Visas that were already issued before June 9 will remain valid, according to the order. Somalia quickly responded, with its ambassador to the US, Dahir Hassan Abdi, saying his country wants to work with Washington to fix security issues. 'Somalia values its relationship with the United States and stands ready to engage in dialogue,' he said. Meanwhile, Venezuela's government criticized the move. Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello called the US fascist and said being in the country is now risky for Venezuelans. 'They persecute our people for no reason,' he added. Trump's latest move is part of a bigger immigration crackdown launched during his second term. His administration also deported this year hundreds of Venezuelans suspected of gang ties and placed limits on foreign students. In 2017, during his first term, Trump announced a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries. That policy faced legal challenges but was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 2018. President Joe Biden later removed that ban in 2021, calling it 'a stain on our national conscience.' Trump is now bringing back tough restrictions, arguing they are necessary to protect the US. He pointed to a recent incident in Boulder, Colorado, where a man attacked a crowd marching in support of Israeli hostages in Gaza.
Morocco World
a day ago
- Morocco World
Diplomacy: A New Bargaining Power Style
Rabat – It happens that viewers are mesmerized watching an epic scene that makes them whisper, smile, or feel outraged. A heated exchange between American President Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on May 22, 2025, on the occasion of the latter's visit to Washington, can be included in this perspective. The visit of the South African head of state is highly anticipated as Pretoria is caught in the crossfire of the White House. Out of the blue, the American president gives the order to turn off the lights to broadcast images showing alleged persecutions of white farmers in South Africa. The American narrative about what is happening in South Africa is perceived in different ways by observers and experts in African affairs. Explanations are flying around. I'm going to mention a few of them for the purpose of getting the record straight. Some experts believe that the American president's behavior is an explicit response from the United States to the land expropriation law that the South African government adopted on January 23, 2025. This law directly targets white South African farmers who own 80% of the fertile lands. Elon Musk, of South African origin, would have pushed the new American administration to be merciless towards Pretoria. Other experts interpret the American president's behavior as a stigmatization of Pretoria's position towards Israel. Peoria initiated proceedings before the International Court of Justice, accusing Tel Aviv of genocide in the Gaza Strip in 2023. Moreover, a small handful of observers perceive the American president's attitude as a barely concealed grievance regarding South Africa's double-standard position within the BRICS and other international forums. Open-Air Diplomatic Bargaining Paradigm However, this paper aims at a different objective. It will assess what might be called the entrenchment of a new diplomatic style that President Donald Trump has been performing so far. This started during his first term in 2017-2021. A style that comes with a new diplomatic bargaining power that disregards the old diplomatic niceties. This style aims (and succeeds) to achieve the prospective results by playing on the nerves of the guest to the White House. Several heads of state and government have experienced the magnitude and electric atmosphere in the Oval Office. In the realm of smart diplomacy, the appropriate key is to achieve the desired objectives and to do so in a commendable manner. It is in this perspective that one should observe another style, more sober, more straightforward, and without any doublespeak. It is not given enough spotlight, but it achieves the targeted objectives: The style of King Mohammed VI of Morocco . This assumption is not about comparing between the two leaders in the academic sense of the term, but about reflecting on diplomatic styles that evolve according to the changes in the international system. In this case, these styles embody both adaptation and firmness, flexibility and determination. 'The style is the man,' This statement is particularly relevant in this case. Let's recall the main arguments to help understand the matter dealt with. It is worth reminding that, as mentioned earlier, what the South African President has endured is not the first in its kind. Observers recall the scene in whereby President Donald Trump presents to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, on March 20, 2018, in front of cameras, large posters of the weapons sold to Saudi Arabia in 2017. He tries to persuade him to acquire more weapons. Far from the subtleties of a business deal for which the American President is known, the message is rather diplomatic and strategic. President Trump puts the conditions of the American security umbrella in favor of Saudi Arabia back on the table. This mechanism has been operational since the secret agreement in February 1945 between American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud aboard the USS Quincy cruiser in the Suez Canal. According to unconfirmed reports, the United States would guarantee the military security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in exchange for the latter's commitment to ensure the energy security of the United States and its Western allies. The impeccably staged performance by President Donald Trump in 2018 relied on two vectors of state interdependence paradigm: vulnerability and sensitivity. At the time, the internal situation in Saudi Arabia is hectic, and the reforms introduced by the Saudi Crown Prince are shaking up the regional political, security, and diplomatic landscape. It goes without saying that the purpose of Donald Trump's diplomatic exercise is to place his interlocutors in an uncomfortable position, pushing them either to rise to the challenge or to let the storm pass. The psychological dimension is crucial, as the American President enjoys making unpredictability his Trojan horse. The same scenario is implemented during the visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in February 2025 to Washington. President Trump draws his guest's attention that he no longer has any cards to play for the sake of negotiating a better solution in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia ( H. Hami, L'Europe daltonienne et la phobie d'un Yalta 2, MEDIAS24, March 14, 2025) . The Ukrainian President tries to argue by challenging the American Vice President James Davis Vance who intervenes to support his President's argument during the meeting. In vain. What interpretation can we make of this new style of open-air negotiation? One: Setting the rules of the game and initiating a new timetable for the conduct of future negotiations. This is a technique aimed at turning the page on candid previous relationships to shake up the status quo and express the need to find different alternatives. Two: Prioritizing issues in asymmetrical relationships where the minor actor is summoned to reconsider his priorities and adapt them to those of the major actor. Otherwise, he is urged to look elsewhere while bearing the consequences of his choice. Three: Clarifying positions by bringing in the media, the involved parties, and the public as witnesses. The exercise is an eloquent demonstration of manipulation in broad daylight. It is indirectly accompanied by the demystification of the alleged charismatic image of certain leaders in the eyes of their own people. Four: Challenging media outlets known for their sensational scoops. They are caught off guard and, through unyielding reporters, seek to avoid being sidelined. The scene of the reporter asking President Trump a tricky question about the story of the Boeing 747-8i (an impressive version of the jumbo-jet) offered by Qatar, to defuse the chaotic situation in which the South African President finds himself, tells more about biased (and dichotomous) relationships between media and politicians. Sword of Damocles Hoovering President Trump doesn't back down and calls the reporter incompetent for trying to divert the audience's and the public's attention from the ordeal he is subjecting his South African guest to. He confirms that he has no problem accepting such an offer. For the record, two Boeing 747-200Bs have been in service for the American presidency since 1990. President Trump intends to replace them. Five: Delineating the scope of visits by foreign heads of state and government to the White House. Unless they prepare well and come with a clear agenda negotiated in advance and in the finest details, they are advised to stay at home. For those who want to see the American President pay visit to them in order to polish their image, they are requested to prepare their checks and pay up. No free rides and no closed eyes without consequences either. Six: Repeating protocol premediated mistakes. Here's a weapon that never misses its target. It destabilizes the guests and puts them at odds with their narratives about the excellence of bilateral relations and their promising prospects. The mistake is being corrected, but the sword of Damocles remains in the backdrop. One of the premeditated mistakes is the one involving flags or pennants. Displaying an old flag or mistaking it for that of another country with which the visiting head of state has a conflict is one of the diplomatic tricks that hits the mark. Besides the required destabilization of guests, it somehow poisons the atmosphere of official meetings and downsizes expected results. Similarly, the error on the geographical and political map is a strong signal regarding the host country's position in relation to a regional conflict in which the country of the head of state visiting is involved. Seven: Justifying a political and diplomatic decision that does not seem to have been well understood. This stance is aimed at the so-called traditional allied countries that are reluctant to admit that their privileged status is being challenged. A new breeze is in the air, favoring realism and pragmatism, and they have to get it or leave the stage. Most of the criteria mentioned above can be witnessed, to some extent, in the style of Mohammed VI, King of Morocco. One: The use of the media to convey messages is done through appropriate media. King Mohammed VI very seldom speaks directly to the media. He seems to prefer not to engage in the question-and-answer game, which can lead to misunderstandings and unnecessary subtleties. Two: Clarity in ideas and mastery in responding to urgent questions. The King uses a top-notch instrument, rational, clear, and straightforward: speeches. They are concise and get straight to the point. In terms of foreign policy, the speeches are clear, and the targeted actors are identified. Three: The deep care given to timing and context. The King makes it a cornerstone of the message he intends to deliver. This is a coherent approach in line with the outlined priorities. Four: The delineation of the scope of future negotiations with partners and other countries interested in serious relationships with Morocco. National interest comes first. No concessions regarding sovereignty in its political, diplomatic, economic, and security dimensions are accepted or imposed. Five: The accuracy and relevance of the political and strategic vision. In this respect, two speeches and messages are worth mentioning. Diplomacy: Transparency Means Business First, the speech delivered on April 20, 2016, on the occasion of the Morocco-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Summit. King Mohammed VI draws attention to the dangers facing the Arab world, particularly the attempts to change regimes and fragment Arab states. He warns against the new alliances aimed at creating conditions of disorder that threaten stability in the region and the viability of sovereign states. A year later, a coalition of five countries (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Yemen, and Egypt) rises against Qatar. Once again, King Mohammed VI stands out with his mastery and vision, breaking the economic blockade imposed on this country by sending emergency food and medical aid in June 2017, as a sign of solidarity with the Qatari people. Morocco nonetheless maintains friendly relations with the members of the coalition, despite a brief cooling period that was quickly overtaken. Morocco hardly pays attention to the statements from certain circles in Doha who claim, ignoring the symbolism of the King's gesture, that their country receives no aid from anyone and that it would have paid for what it has received accordingly. Secondly, the speech in which King Mohammed VI draws the red lines beyond which Morocco cannot accept to promote its relations with both partners and adversaries. The royal speech of August 20, 2022, on the prism through which Morocco views its international environment, is a striking illustration of the King's diplomatic perception. This prism is assessed based on the position of friendly countries and other countries regarding the issue of the Moroccan Sahara. Six: The promotion of the peaceful approach to resolving bilateral inter-state conflicts. King Mohammed VI emphasizes at least five dialogue techniques along with the rejection of belligerent means that Morocco's adversaries are fond of. One: The outstretched hand aimed at identifying the actors who have a grudge against Morocco. These are sovereign state actors, members of the United Nations Organization, eager for double talk and fervent adepts of bureaucratic jargon. Two: The invitation addressed to the international community to appreciate Morocco's goodwill in contrast to the bad faith of its adversaries, state actors in the Euro-Mediterranean and Arab-African spaces. Three: The distinction and complementarity between domestic and foreign policy choices. The link between the two (Linkage politics) is fluid. It is expressed in accordance with the current political and diplomatic swings without deviating from the fundamental principles governing the two arenas. Four: Pragmatism and adaptation. Both are part of the framework designed to neutralize opponents and maintain a line of contact through international bodies. Two striking examples. On one hand, the proposal of the Autonomy Plan in 2007 to resolve the issue of the regional conflict over the Moroccan Sahara. On the other hand, the return of Morocco to the African Union in 2017. Five: The junction between national and international priorities in the same speech subtly conveys the same message. It is up to the intranational and international actors to grasp it at its true value and interpret it appropriately. President Donald Trump's style, through the slogan 'America First,' which grates on the United States' rival nerves, allows him to break the iceberg of doubt among his allies and adversaries. During his recent tour of the Gulf region, he returned to Washington with promises of investments amounting to trillions of dollars. Enough to leave political and economic planners and military strategists disoriented, most of whom are still navigating the uncertainties of the Cold War or Third World literature. The style of King Mohammed VI is equally productive of positive results. Since the speech on August 20, 2022, the list of countries that publicly recognize Moroccan sovereignty over its southern provinces or endorse the autonomy plan proposed since 2007 has expanded. The latest endorsement to date is from the United Kingdom, on June 1, 2025. One could quibble over the terminology used or the choice of syntax, however, one thing is certain: now, three permanent member countries of the United Nations Security Council support Morocco. They are on the list of 117 countries around the world that adopt the same position: the resolution of the regional conflict over the Sahara cannot but within (and only in) the framework of Moroccan sovereignty. The various scenes reviewed above normally take place behind closed doors. They lead to legendary quarrels, some of which are recounted in the memoirs of heads of state or foreign ministers. They describe threats, intimidation, and diplomatic harsh cacophonic language. In short, diplomacy evolves at the pace of the changes in the structure of the international system and the processes that unfold within it. It goes without saying that all means intended for the implementation of foreign policy choices are equal as long as they are creative, preemptive, and reactive in serenity and calm. By the same token, it is worth noting that post-COVID diplomacy will be more surrealistic for some and more realistic for others. Nevertheless, as long as diplomacy works to clarify perceptions instead of stifling them, it will have achieved its objective. Negotiation between sovereign states is now in the spotlight, with styles that sometimes confuse observers. However, these styles do not resemble the classical model of l'État spectacle . Similarly, diplomacy no longer fits into the all-encompassing manipulation scheme. Although diplomacy still keeps the classic channels open for less urgent matters, it is more direct. It is now dealt with in the open, performing some sort of new bargaining power style . Tags: Africa diplomacyDonald Trump
