SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
elizabeth warren
Warren Decries $1.4 Billion Cost of Trump's National Guard Deployment in DC
"The National Guard are not pawns, and taxpayer dollars are not a piggy bank for Trump’s political stunts."
Aug 04, 2026
Information provided to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's office revealed that the deployment of the National Guard in Washington, DC is projected to cost taxpayers an extra $1.4 billion through the end of President Donald Trump's term.
As The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, Warren (D-Mass.) obtained the cost estimate for the National Guard deployment from Jules Hurst III, who is Trump’s nominee to become the comptroller for the US Department of Defense.
Hurst's estimate assumes there will be roughly 2,500 National Guard personnel deployed in the city through January 2029, when Trump is constitutionally mandated to leave office.
The estimate imagines a drawdown from the current 4,600 National Guard members deployed in the nation's capital, many of whom were sent to the city to oversee security at the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
In a social media post, Warren slammed the Trump administration for continuing to spend money on deploying the National Guard in the capital while ignoring the economic pain being felt across the country.
"While American families are getting flattened by skyrocketing costs, Donald Trump is spending $1.4 billion to keep troops on the streets in Washington for years on end," wrote Warren. "The National Guard are not pawns, and taxpayer dollars are not a piggy bank for Trump’s political stunts."
Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) also pointed to the opportunity cost of the service members' deployment.
"Trump says there's no money for healthcare or childcare," wrote Brown, "but he wants to spend billions to have the National Guard roaming around DC."
The Free DC campaign, which was founded last year to oppose the National Guard deployment in the city, warned that the continued presence of military forces was an ominous sign for Trump's future intentions.
"Trump is entrenching his power," the group wrote. "This is what that looks like in real time. It's tempting to call this money 'a waste,' but Trump has a clear reason he wants to spend this money on the National Guard's presence in DC. When January 6 comes around again, this time he'll have an army on call."
Unite for Veterans, an advocacy organization focused on defending the US Department of Veterans Affairs, also condemned Trump's use of the National Guard as a domestic law enforcement group.
"Spending $1.4 billion on a deployment that shouldn't be is not spending taxpayer money wisely or is it serving the military well," the group wrote. "The National Guard should not be policing the streets of America's cities. That is not their purpose. Let's send them home."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Keep Bribing Him Forever': Critics Appalled at New Details of Trump's Corporate Shakedowns
"I am trying to see how this operation differs from a classic organized crime protection racket. I see little distinction."
Jul 31, 2026
A Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal revealed new details on President Donald Trump's attempts to shake down major corporate donors to fund his assorted vanity projects, including the construction of his luxury White House ballroom and his presidential library.
According to the Journal, Trump employs a fundraiser named Meredith O’Rourke whose job is to hound corporations into sending money to the president's projects.
O'Rourke's work is so important to the president, the Journal added, that he asks her for updates on her progress in raking in corporate cash almost nightly.
"Trump asks O’Rourke which companies and donors have cut checks and which haven’t, and for how much," the Journal reported. "He often asks her to make much larger financial requests than she was planning—for some donors the ask is $5 million, for others it is $50 million. And the president gives her names to call, often including people who have recently met with him, according to people with knowledge of the calls."
The Journal estimated that Trump has raised more than $800 million from corporate donors throughout his second term, and the newspaper found that it appeared to be entirely legal.
"No laws prohibit presidents from raising unlimited sums of money for nonprofits, like the ones used for the ballroom and his presidential library, his super PAC, or political issue committees," the Journal explained. "For most of these types of transactions, public disclosure of donors isn’t required and reporting on spending is infrequent."
Regardless of technical legality, many critics called the president's actions deeply corrupt, especially since many of the companies being shaken down for cash have business before the federal government.
" Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in our nation’s history," wrote Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in reaction to the Journal's report.
Adam Serwer, staff writer at The Atlantic, joked that Trump technically "can’t be bought" because "he is subscription based."
"You have to keep bribing him forever," Serwer quipped.
Eric Rauchway, historian at the University of California, Davis, noted the Journal's reporting that O'Rourke will sometimes try to persuade corporate donors by telling them that "the boss wants this money," which he likened to a mafia extortion scheme.
"Guys, 'the boss wants this money' is not 'fundraising,'" wrote Rauchway, "it's a Piranha Brothers operation."
Scott Horton, contributing editor at Harper's, made a similar analogy.
"I am trying to see how this operation differs from a classic organized crime protection racket," Horton wrote. "I see little distinction."
Amanda Carpenter, writer and editor at Protect Democracy, argued that Trump wasn't the only party meriting criticism here, as the corporations who give in to his demands deserve blame as well.
"If a politician is selling access and favors, CEOs aren’t off the hook," she observed. "They don’t get to just pay to play. It’s not a free pass to bribe and extort and corrupt our economy. There are many legal tools to track that on the private side and hold them account for their end of these dirty deals."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Corruption on Steroids': Republicans Kill Effort to Prevent Trump Tax Audit Immunity
"Trump’s sweetheart audit immunity deal is perhaps the most brazenly corrupt action taken by a president in American history," said one top Senate Democrat.
Jul 31, 2026
Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee voted Thursday to block a Democratic amendment that would have prohibited the Internal Revenue Service from giving sweeping tax audit immunity to President Donald Trump, his family, and their businesses.
If passed, the amendment would have nullified a central element of the deal that the US Justice Department cut with the IRS in May to settle Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the tax agency. Experts have argued that such broad audit immunity is unlawful, and Democrats have warned the agreement could leave the IRS with no recourse if Trump decided to dodge taxes on the billions of dollars he has pocketed during his second stint in the White House.
Democrats on the Finance Committee sought to attach their amendment to bipartisan legislation aimed at streamlining tax administration. The amendment failed in a 13-14 vote along party lines, and the bipartisan bill passed out of committee 26-1—with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) the lone opponent. Warren told Politico that she "cannot support a bill that rubber stamps Donald Trump’s corruption."
"Senate Republicans blocked Democrats' proposal to end Donald Trump's IRS sweetheart deal," Warren wrote on social media following Thursday's vote. "This deal gives him FULL IMMUNITY from audits on tax returns he's filed. It's corruption on steroids."
The vote on the Democratic amendment came as Trump's attorney general nominee, Todd Blanche, remained stalled in the Senate, in large part due to the Justice Department's failure to commit to sufficient limitations on the IRS audit immunity deal, which Blanche signed.
Blanche, who is currently the acting attorney general, testified during a Senate confirmation hearing earlier this month that the IRS audit immunity deal is "not forward-looking," but a key Republican said this week that the Justice Department has not yet provided sufficient written commitments to limit the immunity agreement.
Blanche reportedly met with the two Senate GOP holdouts—John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina—on Thursday in an effort to hash out a deal to advance his nomination. Trump, who has aggressively avoided taxes throughout his career and broke with political tradition by refusing to voluntarily release his federal income tax returns, threatened on Thursday to pull Blanche's nomination until Cornyn and Tillis leave the Senate next year, having lost reelection.
The New York Times summarized the IRS immunity deal, should it survive legal and political scrutiny:
First, the IRS has to drop any inquiries, whether civil audits or criminal investigations, it was pursuing into Mr. Trump, his family members, their companies, or 'affiliated individuals.' Second, the IRS can’t start any new investigations into tax returns that this potentially large pool of people and companies has already filed.
That means that any tax maneuver the Trumps have already used, whether the IRS was already auditing it or not, is now off limits. The agency typically has three years after someone files a tax return to assess more in taxes. So there are potential audits of Mr. Trump and his family that the IRS could have initiated—claims that 'could have been asserted,' in the language of Mr. Blanche’s order—that it is now not supposed to. But the next tax return that Mr. Trump files could, theoretically, still be eligible for an audit.
“Trump’s sweetheart audit immunity deal is perhaps the most brazenly corrupt action taken by a president in American history, and Congress must permanently put a stop to the unchecked greed on display,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said earlier this week. “Elected officials cannot look taxpayers in the eye and ask them to play by a set of rules that the president of the United States is exempt from."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Fighter Michigan Needs': Warren Endorses El-Sayed as AIPAC Spends $30 Million Against Him
Warren praised El-Sayed for "not taking corporate money" and called out the "special interests running millions of dollars in TV ads to buy this seat."
Jul 20, 2026
Just over two weeks out from Michigan's Democratic US Senate primary, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed secured another key endorsement on Monday from Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Warren (D-Mass.) initially backed state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who dropped out of the race earlier this month. Now, as a flood of big money threatens to carry the centrist Democrat US Rep. Haley Stevens across the finish line, Warren has thrown her weight behind the race's progressive anti-corporate crusader as he seeks the chance to battle Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in November.
"The Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Michigan is now a two-way race—and I just officially endorsed Abdul El-Sayed," Warren said in an email to supporters on Monday. "Abdul is THE fighter Michigan needs in the Senate. Michigan families deserve a senator who will fight for them—not special interests running millions in TV ads to buy this seat."
Joining Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Warren is now the third US senator to endorse El-Sayed, who formerly served as Detroit's top public health official and has made Medicare for All a central campaign pitch.
In an endorsement video posted to social media, she emphasized his background as a physician and his longtime union membership.
I’m endorsing @AbdulElSayed today—because he is THE fighter Michigan needs in the Senate. pic.twitter.com/skDxiNnEtw
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) July 20, 2026
Noting his support from the state's largest union, the United Auto Workers, she credited El-Sayed with "growing a movement of working people all across Michigan."
Warren, who has long advocated for legislation to end unchecked corporate spending in elections, praised El-Sayed for "not taking corporate money" and "fighting to get money out of politics altogether."
Without naming Stevens, Warren called out the "special interests running millions of dollars in TV ads to buy this seat."
Last week, reports detailed how outside groups had spent roughly $50 million buying ads to support Stevens and bash El-Sayed over the course of the race, with nearly $30 million coming from American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and affiliated groups, who seek to stop another harsh critic of Israel from entering Congress.
Stevens, who has long trumpeted her pro-Israel bona fides, has appeared cagey about acknowledging that AIPAC, whose influence is increasingly loathed by Democratic voters, is her leading financial backer.
Asked whether she welcomed AIPAC's support, she told The Associated Press over the weekend that "anyone who supported me is supporting me because of my dedication to the people of Michigan, and the things that I have done for Michiganders."
The dark money group A Stronger Michigan—which Sludge has found to be connected to a lobbyist for the American Gas Association, Meta, and the military contractor Northrop Grumman—has also been found to have spent more than $12 million in support of Stevens.
She also has the backing of nearly 100 corporate political action committees (PACs), including those representing the health insurance industry, Wall Street Banks, fossil fuels, and Big Tech companies.
El-Sayed has outraised Stevens among small-dollar donors by more than 5-to-1 in the second quarter of 2026, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who spent the weekend campaigning for El-Sayed in Michigan, said the race was "an opportunity to show that things other than money can win in America.”
“You deserve a government that answers to you,” Ocasia-Cortez says. “You deserve a politics that treats the disease and not just the symptoms of what brought us Donald Trump.” pic.twitter.com/8vQ2FV7skZ
— Sam Robinson (@samueljrob) July 18, 2026
It's unclear whether the flood of spending is actually helping Stevens. Since the Democratic primary became a two-horse race, poll results have been scattered.
A Detroit News/WDIV-TV survey by the Glengariff Group, released July 15, showed that Stevens had surged to a 7-point lead over El-Sayed. But a poll by Data for Progress, sponsored by the group American Priorities, released the same day, showed El-Sayed with a commanding 13-point lead.
Stevens also has the strong support of the Democratic establishment.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who had been quietly putting his thumb on the scale to boost Stevens for months, gave an effective endorsement in June, saying she had the best chance to beat Rogers. She's also gained the support of other centrist stalwarts including Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), and Chris Coons (D-Del.).
Last week, she also grabbed the endorsement of the influential former House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC).
But after a trend of success for progressive and democratic socialist candidates in Democratic primaries across the nation, El-Sayed suggested on Monday that a political outlook closer to his and Warren's is what would win the day.
"Sen. Warren’s vision for our future—one where corporations can’t buy politicians, and people can afford to put food on the table—speaks to Americans everywhere," he said in response to her endorsement.
"She’s been a generational voice for Americans who are tired of the status quo," he said. "Michigan needs unbought, principled leadership, and with Sen. Warren’s support, we can get rid of the chokehold that corporations have on our government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Nauseating’: Critics Hammer Democratic Senators' Tributes to 'Bloodthirsty' Lindsey Graham
"I don't care about any other part of him: his choices caused mass death. That's it," said one critic.
Jul 12, 2026
Hours after Sen. Lindsey Graham unexpectedly died on Saturday, many of his Democratic colleagues in the US Senate posted statements on their social media pages paying tribute to the South Carolina Republican.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that he would most remember Graham (R-SC) for his "his sense of humor and how he deployed it to move his policy positions forward."
"Though we did not often agree," Schiff added, "Senator Graham was never disagreeable."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) similarly said of Graham that "even though we disagreed on much, he was always willing to negotiate, with humor and wit," adding "my heart goes out to his loved ones."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said he was "saddened" to hear of news of Graham's death, which he said came "as a real shock."
"I’m grateful I had the chance to work with Lindsey," said Kim, "including several international trips working on foreign policy."
However, many critics argued that these tributes to Graham overlooked his destructive legacy in public office, including his decades of war mongering and his slavish devotion to the authoritarian President Donald Trump.
"I don't give a fuck that Graham used to be friends with Democratic senators," wrote Thomas Lecaque, associate professor of history at Grand View University. "He was a bloodthirsty bastard who cheered the killing of Muslims and sold his soul to the fascists to be able to push it more effectively. I don't care about any other part of him: his choices caused mass death. That's it."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse, responding directly to Schiff's post, reminded him of Graham's behavior during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings when he "threw an angry tantrum in defense of a SCOTUS nominee credibly accused of rape."
"Did you all have a good collegial chuckle over that?" Kruse asked.
Brandon Friedman, co-founder of the Rakkasan Tea Company and a veteran of the Iraq War, also responded directly to Schiff.
"What I'll remember most about Senator Graham," Friedman wrote, "is how he sent my friends to die in an unnecessary war in Iraq."
Jen Rubin, editor-in-chief of The Contrarian and former columnist for The Washington Post, described the Democrats' tributes to Graham as "nauseating" and "everything that is wrong" with the US Senate.
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, said the Democrats' statements were just one more signal of weakness from the party.
"The Democratic Party's approval rating is in the toilet," Grossman wrote, "and the main reason is voters see Dem leaders and prominent members acting like things are basically okay instead of fighting like there's an emergency. Slot 'my friend Lindsey Graham, so funny, how great to work with him' comments into that."
Cartoonish Eli Valley was apoplectic about Democrats' fawning hagiography of their late Republican colleague.
"That Democrats see mass-murdering fascists dismantling the country as nothing more than 'colleagues they dislike' is why we've been in a non-stop plummet," Valley wrote. "Incredible this is still debatable, by people who ostensibly oppose fascism, ten years into this?!?"
Political consultant Jamison Foser wrote a parody of the Democrats' statements that imagined them paying tribute to none other than Satan.
"Deeply saddened to learn of the loss of my dear friend Satan, the Prince of Lies," wrote Foser. "Though we often disagreed about matters such as the appropriate role of torture in the afterlife, I will most remember how his quick wit and affable nature made our weekly golf outings a ritual. He will be missed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Sign the Damn Bill!' Anger at Trump Grows as US Housing Prices Hit All-Time High
US Sen. Amy Klouchar said that the housing bill has "been sitting on President Trump’s desk long enough."
Jul 09, 2026
With President Donald Trump still refusing to sign bipartisan legislation aimed at lowering the cost of housing, fresh outrage erupted Thursday as new data shows buying a home in the US has never been more expensive.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) on Thursday released its monthly report on home sales showing that the median sales price of existing homes grew to $440,600, a record high.
Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the NAR, said that housing supply remains a major barrier to making owning a home more affordable.
"Progress on long-term housing affordability could be hampered if inventory growth continues to stall," said Yun. "Without consistent gains in inventory, home prices can accelerate. It is critical to introduce more supply to the market to widen the opportunity for homeownership."
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the US Congress last month, was designed specifically to address the housing shortage in the US.
Among other things, the bill prohibits large Wall Street investors from buying up new single-family homes, streamlines environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and creates a $200 million annual competitive grant program to benefit communities that have demonstrated success in expanding their housing supplies.
Trump, however, refused to sign the legislation, insisting that it be paired with the SAVE America Act, a voter suppression bill that will curb ballot access but Republicans in Congress do not currently have enough power to pass.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who co-wrote the housing bill alongside Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), took to social media on Thursday and pointed to a poll showing that the legislation has overwhelming support throughout the country.
"The American people have a message for President Trump," Warren wrote. "Sign the damn bill."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also took a shot at the president for dragging his feet on the legislation.
"Over two weeks ago, Congress passed the ROAD to Housing Act with overwhelming bipartisan support," Klobuchar wrote. "It will pave the way for more housing, make it easier to build, and help more Americans find a place to call home. It’s been sitting on President Trump’s desk long enough. Sign the bill."
Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH), currently a candidate for the US Senate running in New Hampshire, urged Trump to finally take action.
"It's never been more expensive to buy a home," wrote Pappas. "I helped pass a bipartisan housing bill to bring down home prices, and I'm calling on the President to get it over the finish line."
Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran has also not helped the housing affordability crisis, as it has led to an inflation spike that has left the Federal Reserve with little room to lower interest rates without risking further price acceleration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Fume Over Trump's Moms.gov Website Promoting Anti-Abortion Centers
"Moms.gov is not about promoting women’s health. It is an attempt to use HHS resources to further strip women of their rights and privacy.”
Jun 24, 2026
Eleven members of the Senate Democratic Caucus on Wednesday urged US President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to “cease using federal resources to direct people to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers" via a government website.
Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched Moms.gov, which claims to offer "resources, information, and help for new and expecting mothers" by "addressing the needs of mothers and fathers who face difficult or unexpected pregnancies and ensuring the well-being of mothers and the health of American families."
The site has two main options: so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs)—which present themselves as reproductive health clinics but often provide misleading information and counseling aimed at discouraging abortion—and "federally qualified health centers," which, presented alongside anti-abortion services on Moms.gov, can blur the distinction between evidence-based healthcare providers and ideologically driven groups.
"This raises profound concerns about the health, safety, and privacy of people who access this government website at a time when women’s health and reproductive rights face increasing attacks,” the 11 senators said in a letter to Trump and Kennedy and shared with HuffPost. “Instead of offering concrete resources to protect the health and safety of pregnant women and their families, the Trump administration is using this website to highlight anti-abortion CPCs."
The letter—led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and signed by Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden (Ore.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Tina Smith (Minn.), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), Cory Booker (NJ), and Michael Bennett (Colo.)—was sent on the four-year anniversary of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a ruling by the right-wing US Supreme Court that canceled half a century of abortion rights formerly enshrined in Roe v. Wade.
“Since the US Supreme Court took away the fundamental right to abortion care... 21 states have banned or severely restricted access to abortion, decimating access to care for tens of millions of people,” the senators wrote.
The lawmakers said that the direct link to Option Line, an anti-abortion hotline, "on a government website is also troubling from a data privacy perspective," as the site collects and shares user data with "affiliates, partners, vendors, or contract organizations" and has been beset by breaches.
“Moms.gov is not about promoting women’s health—it is an attempt to use HHS resources to further strip women of their rights and privacy," the letter asserts. “In order to protect the health and data privacy of millions of women, HHS should remove the pregnancy center link from Moms.gov and cease using federal resources to direct people to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.”
In a Wednesday interview with HuffPost, Warren said, "It's horrific that the Trump administration is using taxpayer dollars to prop up a website that pushes pregnant women towards nonmedical anti-abortion centers."
"The Republican plan is to sneak through anti-abortion resources and backdoor abortion bans because they know Americans don’t support their extreme agenda," she added. "Democrats are fighting back.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Interrogate Big Oil Over 'Egregiously High Prices at the Pump' During Iran War
"While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran War imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
Jun 15, 2026
As President Donald Trump reached an interim peace deal with the Iranian government and Oxfam International revealed that 41 energy industry tycoons collectively increased their wealth by $23.5 billion since the war was launched in late February, a pair of US senators on Monday released their letters demanding answers from fossil fuel giants about their windfall profits and soaring gasoline prices during the conflict.
Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Committee on Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) last Thursday wrote to BP America chair and president Orlando Alvarez, Chevron chair and CEO Mike Wirth, ConocoPhillips chair and CEO Ryan Lance, Continental Resources president and CEO Robert Lawler, ExxonMobil chair and CEO Darren Woods, Occidental Petroleum president and CEO Richard Jackson, and Shell USA president Colette Hirstius.
"We write to question why American families are paying egregiously high prices at the pump while the fossil fuel industry collects massive windfall profits thanks to the Trump administration's war in Iran," Warren and Whitehouse wrote amid peace talks last week, noting that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for fossil fuels, led to what that the International Energy Agency (IEA) called "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market."
"Gasoline prices rapidly increased by as much as 52%," the pair highlighted. "Before the Iran War, oil cost $71.32 per barrel. Since then, it has cost as much as $138.21 and currently sits at $98.29 per barrel. The Iran War has allowed 27 oil and gas companies to rake in over $40 billion in profit since the Iran War began."
Warren and Whitehouse also emphasized that "the opportunity to profit from high oil prices did not occur in a political vacuum. In April 2024, then-candidate Trump solicited a billion dollars from fossil fuel executives at a private dinner at Mar-a-Lago, promising in exchange to roll back environmental regulations, issue desired permits, and expand drilling opportunities."
Also pointing to Trump's invasion of Venezuela, abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, and takeover of the country's nationalized oil industry, the senators said that "the pattern is consistent: While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran War imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
The pair requested answers to their questions on profits, pricing, federal policy, and communications with the Trump administration about the Iran War by June 25, They explained that the information "will aid our assessment of the appropriate scope, rate structure, and enforcement mechanisms as we actively consider the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act," reintroduced by Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, just weeks in to the war.
The information will also assist with investigations into "the extent to which Trump administration military, regulatory, and policy decisions benefited the oil industry and the extent to which any of these were the product of quid pro quo solicitations," as well as "whether oil and gas companies had advance knowledge of or ability to shape the administration's decision to go to war in Iran."
"Congress has a constitutional duty to investigate each of these matters and to legislate as necessary to protect the American people," the pair added. Both chambers are controlled by the GOP and have refused—largely along party lines—to pass war powers resolutions intended to prevent or end Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's illegal assault on Iran.
In response to Trump's new deal with Iran to extend a ceasefire reached in April and reopen the strait, oil prices dropped and the stock market rallied. Specifically, as The Associated Press detailed, "the S&P 500 rose 1.7%," while "the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 468 points, or 0.9%, to a record, and the Nasdaq composite jumped 3.1%."
Allie Rosenbluth, US program manager at the advocacy group Oil Change International, said Monday that "any agreement that reduces further violence is welcome. But this announcement should not be mistaken as the end to the crisis, given Israel has vowed to remain in occupied areas of southern Lebanon indefinitely, while violence continues in Gaza and the West Bank. As attention turns to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and falling oil prices, we should not lose sight of the devastating human toll this conflict has inflicted across the region, nor the profound economic disruption it continues to cause around the world."
Rosenbluth continued:
The rapid rise and fall of oil prices in response to military escalation and diplomatic announcements is a reminder of how exposed the global economy is to fossil fuel volatility. For millions of people, this crisis has meant loss, displacement, food insecurity, and higher cost of living. For fossil fuel companies, it has meant windfall profits.
Oil Change International estimates that if US oil prices average around $90 per barrel through the end of the year, US oil companies could make an additional $38 billion in windfall revenues from crude oil exports alone as a result of Trump and Netanyahu's war on Iran. While households around the world have been hit by higher fuel, energy, and food costs, oil companies are cashing in billions.
The Strait of Hormuz may be reopening, but this crisis has once again exposed fossil fuels as a source of conflict, chaos, volatility, and disruption. While communities bear the costs, oil companies profit from the instability. Once renewables are installed, sunlight or wind does not become more expensive because of geopolitical conflict. The most durable form of energy security is reducing exposure to fossil fuels altogether, and making a just transition to renewable energy.
As Group of Seven leaders, including Trump, gathered in France on Monday, and Oxfam International released its report about how G7 energy billionaires have pocketed $300 million per day since the start of the Iran War, the organization's executive director, Amitabh Behar, argued that representatives from the other six countries, or G6, "can't plead powerlessness."
"They can cancel debt. They can tax windfall profits and extreme wealth. They can advocate for a new issuance of special drawing rights. They can provide poorer countries with aid," Behar added. "Refusing to act simply because Washington will not join them is not diplomacy, it is cowardice. And it will only accelerate the G6's slide into global irrelevance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Pay-to-Play Loyalty Program': Trump Ballroom Donors Have Been Handed $50 Billion in Federal Contracts
"Corporations wrote big checks to build Trump’s golden ballroom," said Rep. Jason Crow. "Now they’re receiving billions of dollars in kickbacks—paid for by your tax dollars."
Jun 05, 2026
Sen. Elizabeth Warren suggested President Donald Trump is running a "pay-to-play loyalty program for wealthy donors" after a report on Thursday revealed that more than half the companies that contributed to his White House ballroom project have been awarded government contracts over the last six months, totaling over $50 billion.
Examining the 27 publicly known corporate donors to the president’s $400 million gold-plated vanity project, the watchdog group Public Citizen found that 14 of them—more than half—had received either new or expanded contracts over the past six months after donating millions to the ballroom and appearing at a lavish White House banquet in October as Trump prepared to demolish the building's East Wing.
Over two-thirds, 19 of the 27 companies, received government contracts since fiscal year 2021, totaling over $338 billion. At least 16 out of 27 are also either facing federal enforcement actions and/or have had them suspended by the Trump administration.
“These giant corporations aren’t funding the Trump ballroom fiasco out of the goodness of their hearts. They have massive interests before the federal government, and they hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration,” said Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger, an author of the report.
By far the biggest monetary beneficiary has been the military contractor Lockheed Martin, which received a $43.8 billion in new or expanded contract funding over the past six months after it pledged $10 million to fund the dance hall last fall.
Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting company that serves military and intelligence agencies and pledged at least $5 million to the project, received $4 billion in contracts over the same period.
Meanwhile, Palantir—the data-mining surveillance giant with deep ties to the Trump administration—reaped over $1 billion in contracts after giving its own $5 million donation.
"Millions to fund Trump’s bizarre fever dreams are nothing compared to the billions they’re getting back in contracts and favorable government enforcement decisions," Golinger said. "The American people are paying the price.”
Other ballroom benefactors that have brought in more than $100 million worth of contracts over the past six months include Microsoft, Amazon, HP, and Caterpillar, while T-Mobile, Google, NextEra Energy, and Comcast have all brought in more than $10 million.
Public Citizen noted that while the White House has publicized some of the ballroom donors and others have been revealed by news organizations, not all of the companies that have contributed to the project are publicly known, since the secret funding agreement obtained by the group through a Freedom of Information Act request allows their identities to remain private.
In a statement to The Washington Post, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle suggested that critics should be grateful that Trump was soliciting donations from the wealthy for this very important undertaking.
“The same critics who are alleging fake conflicts of interest would also complain if American taxpayers were footing the bill for these long-overdue renovations,” he said, ignoring the fact that Trump has previously pressured Republicans in Congress to appropriate hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding to secure the ballroom.
Ingle added that “the donors for the White House ballroom project represent a wide array of great American companies and generous individuals, all of whom are contributing to make the People’s House better for generations to come.”
But several Democratic members of Congress have pointed to it as evidence of Trump selling out the government "to the highest bidder."
“Corporations wrote big checks to build Trump’s golden ballroom,” said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.). “Now they’re receiving billions of dollars in kickbacks—paid for by your tax dollars.”
“Wild coincidence or taxpayer-funded corruption?” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). “You be the judge.”
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) said that “the part that should make your blood boil” is the fact that many of the companies identified in the report “were facing federal enforcement actions, antitrust reviews, labor cases, [or] securities charges.”
"Many of those cases have been quietly dropped or scaled back since Trump took office. You write a check, your legal problems disappear," Levin said. "That’s not a coincidence."
“You cannot afford to donate to Trump’s ballroom, so he does nothing to improve the quality of your life,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “But for those who can, there are billions in government contracts.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing Shady Stock Trades, Warren Asks Bessent If SEC Should 'Be Knocking on President Trump's Door'
"Instead of draining the swamp, what Donald Trump is doing is he is enriching himself by taking advantage of his position," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "That is not public service."
Jun 03, 2026
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday pressed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on the suspiciously timed trading activity of President Donald Trump, pointing specifically to a large purchase of Nvidia stock just days before his administration approved a sale of the tech giant's chips to China.
During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Warren (D-Mass.) asked Bessent—who has criticized lawmakers for trading stocks—whether he would be willing to hold his boss to the same standard. Last year, Bessent said that if any private citizen traded like members of Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) "would be knocking on their door."
"Should the SEC be knocking on President Trump's door?" Warren asked Bessent, who responded that the Massachusetts Democrat and her congressional colleagues should "lead by example."
"I would like to see the president of the United States lead by example," replied Warren, who supports a ban on congressional stock trading and does not own or trade stocks in individual companies. "Instead of draining the swamp, what Donald Trump is doing is he is enriching himself by taking advantage of his position. That is not public service. He's the one who should lead by example."
Watch the exchange:
Financial disclosures released last month show Trump made more than 3,600 trades during the first three months of 2026, purchasing shares in some companies that his administration is tasked with regulating.
"Many of these trades coincided with favorable regulatory decisions," NOTUS reported. "Trump purchased $1 million to $5 million worth of Nvidia stock on February 10, only a week before Nvidia announced a major computer processing power deal with AI and social media giant Meta. Trump previously purchased $500,000 to $1 million worth of Nvidia stock on January 6, a week before the Commerce Department officially approved the sale of some Nvidia chips to China."
In a video response response to the disclosures, Warren asked: "Was this insider trading? And what else is Trump doing to boost his own stock?"
"The American people deserve to know," said Warren. "What Trump is doing should be illegal. It's long past time that we ban the president and every single lawmaker in this country from trading in stocks. We need to end this corruption now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy