Bernie Sanders Called for a Halt to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Why Won’t Hillary Clinton?

Trump hasn’t either.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie SandersMatt Rourke/AP


Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump will say whether they support the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, despite increased protests and a letter Thursday from Sen. Bernie Sanders calling on the Obama administration to temporarily halt the project’s construction. Over the past several weeks, Mother Jones has called and emailed both campaigns about the issue; neither campaign has responded to our questions.

“Surely Hillary Clinton can rise to the occasion. Can’t she?”

In an interview with Grist Wednesday, Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta, avoided taking a specific stance on the pipeline: “I think she believes that stakeholders need to get together at this point,” said Podesta. “It’s important that all voices are heard.”

Protests over the 1,172-mile pipeline erupted again this week after Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the project, resumed construction Monday morning. The pipeline, which would run from North Dakota to Illinois and cost $3.78 billion, has drawn criticism over its potential impact on the environment and the damage it could inflict to sacred grounds and water sources of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. In late July, the tribe filed a lawsuit against the US Army Corps of Engineers, alleging that the agency failed to properly consult the tribes before approving the pipeline. On Sunday, a federal appeals court denied the tribe’s request to halt construction on the pipeline. The Obama administration repeated its request for Energy Transfer Partners to voluntarily suspend construction, but the company has disregarded that request.

On Thursday, Sanders and four other senators sent a letter to Obama asking him to direct the US Army Corps of Engineers to “require a full environmental impact statement for the Lake Oahe crossing of the Dakota Access Pipeline that includes meaningful tribal input.” The senators added that “the project’s current permits should be suspended and all construction stopped until a complete environmental and cultural review has been completed for the entire project.”

Following the release of the letter, Mother Jones once again contacted the Clinton and Trump campaigns to ask if the candidates agreed with Sanders’ position. Once again, neither responded.

Environmental groups have repeatedly called on Clinton to take a stance on the pipeline. “The fight at Standing Rock is a big damned thing. It’s a Flint-in-the-making, and it’s also a chance to for once do right by the continent’s oldest inhabitants,” wrote environmentalist Bill McKibben in a September op-ed. “Surely Hillary Clinton can rise to the occasion. Can’t she?”

Others have expressed similar sentiments. “Clinton…is supposed to be a Native ally,” wrote Gyasi Rossi, a lawyer and a citizen of the Blackfeet Nation, in an op-ed this month. “We deserve to know her position.”

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate