
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.
"We should be banning drilling in the Arctic Ocean, not making it easier for industry to exploit and pollute."
The Trump administration on Monday proposed weakening Obama-era safeguards for fossil fuel drilling in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf, a move condemned by environmental groups as another industry handout that would make disastrous oil spills more likely.
The US Interior Department characterized the proposed changes, which will face a 90-day public comment period, as "targeted revisions" aimed at reducing "unnecessary regulatory burdens" that are limiting resource extraction off Alaska's coast. The new proposal, according to the agency, "would update requirements related to blowout preventer real-time monitoring, Arctic source control and containment equipment, relief rig capability, subsea isolation devices, mudline cellars, oil spill response plan-holder reviews, crane operations on artificial islands, and suspensions of operations and production."
The Trump administration unveiled the proposal as it pushed for a massive expansion of offshore drilling, even as the climate impacts of fossil fuel extraction continued to intensify across the US and worldwide. Joseph Gordon, campaign manager at Oceana, called the combination of expanded drilling and weakened safety standards "a recipe for catastrophe."
"This attempted rollback would make it even harder to prevent oil spills or tackle the horrors that inevitably follow in the remote and fragile Arctic," said Gordon. "Giving oil companies a pass on safety measures like blowout preventers would set a dangerous precedent that will put Alaska's waters, wildlife, and people at risk."
Cooper Freeman, Alaska director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "weakening rules for Arctic Ocean drilling is a truly terrible idea that threatens coastal communities and wildlife like bowhead whales and polar bears."
"Arctic oil drilling is one of the most dangerous extractive activities out there, and cleaning up a spill would be nearly impossible," Freeman added. "Stronger safeguards for Arctic offshore drilling came on the heels of the Deepwater Horizon blowout, where we learned that just one mishap can cause a catastrophe."
President Donald Trump, whose 2024 campaign was boosted by fossil fuel industry donations, began targeting Alaska drilling regulations on the first day of his second White House term, signing an executive order attacking "punitive restrictions implemented by the previous administration that specifically target resource development on both state and federal lands in Alaska."
In November, the Interior Department—led by Big Oil ally Doug Burgum—released a drilling plan targeting "every available offshore area in Alaska, including the High Arctic, which stretches 200 miles into the Arctic Ocean, with over 20 lease sales through 2031."
"We should be banning drilling in the Arctic Ocean, not making it easier for industry to exploit and pollute," Freeman said Monday.
"Rescinding the rule would not eliminate climate risk from the market—it simply blindfolds investors to it, at their own expense," said one critic.
Consumer and environmental advocates on Monday called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to end its push to rescind rules requiring companies to disclose risks related to climate change.
The SEC first adopted the climate disclosure rules in 2024, with the commission describing them as a response to "investors’ demand for more consistent, comparable, and reliable information about the financial effects of climate-related risks on a registrant’s operations."
But in June, the SEC—now under the leadership of President Donald Trump-appointed chair Paul Atkins—proposed scrapping the rules, which the commission described as "an overreach of statutory authority and unsound policy."
Elyse Schupak, climate policy advocate for Public Citizen, said that ending the disclosure rules would reflect "the desire of Paul Atkins’ SEC to ignore growing financial risks from climate change and to deprive investors of essential information."
"For polluting industries that seek to downplay their role driving the climate crisis and their exposure to related risks, finalizing the proposed rule would be a victory," said Schupak. "The SEC should withdraw this proposal as it contradicts the commission’s responsibility to facilitate transparency for investors and promote well functioning capital markets."
Alex Martin, climate finance policy director at Americans for Financial Reform, noted that many investors spoke up in favor of the disclosure rules when they were first proposed because they saw climate risk assessment as a valuable information to have before making major financial decisions.
If the new proposal is finalized, Martin added, it "will hurt workers saving for retirement by depriving people of information needed to assess companies' financial risks due to climate change—and by endangering other critical disclosures as well."
Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy for Better Markets, similarly argued that scrapping the SEC rules "will deprive investors of material information essential to making informed investment decisions."
"There can no longer be any serious dispute that the climate-related risk companies face matters greatly to their future prospects," Schiffrin emphasized. "An SEC that was serious about protecting investors would be facilitating investors’ access to this information, not preventing them from understanding how climate-related risks are impacting the companies in which they invest their hard-earned money."
Janet Ranganathan, managing director at the World Resources Institute, said repealing the rule was particularly nonsensical at a time when the country is dealing with multiple climate-related disasters, including wildfires in the Pacific Northwest.
"Rescinding the rule would not eliminate climate risk from the market—it simply blindfolds investors to it, at their own expense," said Ranganathan. "Climate risk should not become the exception to smart financial management simply because it has become politically contentious."
"The fossil fuel industry may not have struck the match, but the climate crisis they drove has loaded our landscapes with tinder," said an environmental activist.
Over 60,000 people were ordered to evacuate the Spokane area over the weekend as it was devastated by what Democratic Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell called the “top fire” in a nation currently being scorched by climate-fueled blazes.
Illustrating how the climate crisis is already impacting lives and communities across the country and the globe, three raging fires reportedly consumed over 600 structures as of Sunday, including homes and businesses, and reduced entire streets to their foundations.
At a briefing on Sunday afternoon, officials said more than 250,000 acres were burning across Washington, but reported no deaths or injuries.
Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown called it "the worst natural disaster our region has faced."
Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson has requested assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is under the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) wrote on social media that she had spoken with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and that he “made clear the federal government will do everything it can to support response and recovery,” though President Donald Trump has previously intervened to block disaster aid to Democrat-led states.
While the fires moderated over the weekend, on Monday they remained largely uncontained and continued to spread due to dry conditions from recent severe droughts in the region, exacerbated by rising global temperatures.
"This is climate change playing out live in real time," said meteorologist and Climate Central journalist Shel Winkley in a video about the Spokane fires.
Warmer temperatures, he explained, have caused a vicious cycle of "weather whiplash" in which greater winter rainfall facilitates plant growth before harsher summer heat domes suck moisture from these plants, turning them into a tinderbox.
“Northeastern Washington and central Oregon now see at least three more weeks of fire weather days each year than they did just back in the 1970s,” Winkley said. “More fire weather days means more chances for a spark, any spark, to turn into this.”
The blazes are part of a nationwide trend, with wildfires this year more severe on average than in previous years. Over the past decade, the average annual acreage burned in the US was more than double the average of the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to data from the National Interagency Fire Center.
Last week, an Oxfam analysis of data published in the journal Nature found that emissions from just five oil companies—BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies—were sufficient to cause around 1 in 4 heatwaves reported globally between 2000 and 2023—"heatwaves that would have been virtually impossible without human-made climate change."
Using S&P Capital Trucost data, the group estimated that Big Oil was responsible for more than $60 billion in environmental damage last year.
But as costs fall on the public, oil companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil have reported record profits of $12.1 billion and $14.5 billion over the past quarter, in part due to global oil price spikes driven by Trump's war with Iran.
"The fossil fuel industry may not have struck the match, but the climate crisis they drove has loaded our landscapes with tinder," said Clémence Dubois, the campaigns director for the environmental group 350.org. "Chevron and Exxon are profiteering from a model of distraction, leaving ordinary people to pay the price with higher bills and devastating impacts such as these fires. These profits feel almost criminal.“
Jay Inslee, Washington's former Democratic governor and a longtime advocate for policies to combat the climate crisis, said on Sunday that his friend, a legislator from Spokane, had been forced to flee his home due to the fires.
“Climate change isn’t some faraway threat,” Inslee said. “It’s happening right now, to our neighbors and friends. We have to fight for them."
"Once an administration begins punishing Americans for how they vote, the threat extends far beyond these projects."
A group of 39 Democratic senators on Thursday told the Trump White House to restore grants for their states that the administration itself admitted were canceled for purely political reasons.
In a court filing earlier this month, attorneys representing the US Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged that decisions about canceling grants for a series of renewable energy projects were based “solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State."
The Democratic senators responded with a letter to US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought demanding that the cancelations be reversed.
"You not only acted outside the bounds of the law," the senators wrote, "but cancelled projects that would have provided jobs, onshored manufacturing, and lowered skyrocketing energy prices. Congress authorized those projects and appropriated funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and annual appropriation bills."
Later in the letter, the senators argued that more was at stake beyond grants for green energy.
"Once an administration begins punishing Americans for how they vote, the threat extends far beyond these projects," the Democrats wrote. "No state, community, business, or worker can trust that the federal government will apply the law fairly."
"This is not only an attack on jobs, affordable energy, and America’s economic competitiveness," the Democrats added. "It is an attack on the rule of law and the basic democratic principle that the federal government serves the entire country—not merely those who support the president."
Last year, the DOE recommended canceling more than 600 grants awarded for energy projects under former President Joe Biden’s administration. However, the OMB subsequently intervened and canceled fewer than half of the recommended projects, while keeping grants for projects in states that voted for President Donald Trump.
After a group of California researchers challenged the terminated grants in a lawsuit, the DOE acknowledged that “with one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators.”
The DOE also admitted that there was no “programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor” to justify the cuts.
"The last thing we need is a loud, water thieving, light polluting, data center near our town (or any others for that matter)."
Country music legend Willie Nelson on Tuesday spoke out against plans to build an artificial intelligence data center near his hometown of Abbott, Texas.
In a statement posted to social media, the 93-year-old Nelson said that his community, "like many others, needs to fight against data centers invading our land."
"The last thing we need," Nelson continued, "is a loud, water thieving, light polluting data center anywhere near our town (or any others for that matter). The strength of rural America has never come from industrial footprints. It comes from generations of people, open spaces, local businesses, and a connection to the land."
Nelson said that Americans deserve "thoughtful stewardship that doesn't steal farmland... and small family farmers' livelihoods," adding that data centers "only destroy the environment around them."
"Let's now allow our own demise," Nelson concluded, "or give up control over necessary resources in the US, and especially in Abbott."
Nelson's stand against data centers earned praise from Texas state Rep. Gina Hinojosa (D-49), who is running to unseat incumbent Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
"Now Willie Nelson has spoken: data centers are hurting Texas," wrote Hinojosa. "Greg Abbott has the sole power to fix TODAY what he broke. Abbott must sign an emergency order ending the taxpayer handouts he passed, and call a special session to end this data center madness."
Data centers have become political lightning rods in recent months, as residents across the country object to their massive resource consumption, which is leading to a major spike in utilities bills, as well as noise pollution.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment.”
"Big Oil’s greed is incompatible with a livable planet and unless governments rein it in, they will make a mockery of international climate targets,” said one Oxfam campaigner.
An analysis published Tuesday highlights how the world's top fossil fuel companies are expected to rake in nearly twice as much in second-quarter profits as they did during the first quarter of 2026, a windfall that comes as their polluting products help fuel extreme heat that kills hundreds of thousands of people around the world annually.
Oxfam International's analysis warns that the profits of the world’s six largest oil and gas companies are on track to skyrocket from $23 billion during the first quarter of the year to $45 billion in Q2 as emissions from their products intensify deadly heatwaves.
"Projected full-year profits of BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies amount to $147 billion, more than their combined profits over the previous 21 months (Q2 2024 to Q4 2025)," the report states. "Among the biggest winners, Chevron is expected to report that it has quadrupled its profits to $1,200 a second in the last three months, while ExxonMobil’s profits are expected to have tripled to $1,800 a second."
"Oil and gas corporations share an outsized responsibility for the climate crisis," the publication continues. "Emissions from BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies were sufficient to cause around 1 in 4 heatwaves reported globally between 2000 and 2023—heatwaves that would have been virtually impossible without human-made climate change."
New Oxfam analysis finds that emissions from 5 major fossil fuel corporations were enough to cause 1 in 4 heatwaves between 2000 and 2023. Heatwaves that would have been virtually impossible without climate change.It’s time to #MakeRichPollutersPayMore: bit.ly/BigOilQ2prof...
[image or embed]
— Oxfam International (@oxfaminternational.bsky.social) July 28, 2026 at 12:00 AM
Conflicts like the US-Israeli war of choice on Iran and the ongoing Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine, as well as Big Oil greed, are among the leading factors blamed for spiking fuel costs.
On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that top US fossil fuel executives have sold nearly $400 million in their own companies' stock since Trump launched the Iran War on the last day of February.
“Fossil fuel corporations are making a killing, literally and figuratively," Mariana Paoli, Oxfam's climate policy lead, said in a statement Tuesday.
"As extreme heat, floods, and storms devastate communities across the world, the industry is preparing another bonanza of profits," she continued. "Families are paying the price three times over—through destroyed homes and harvests, through soaring energy prices, and through a cost-of-living crisis worsened by dependence on fossil fuels."
"Big Oil’s greed is incompatible with a livable planet, and unless governments rein it in, they will make a mockery of international climate targets,” Paoli added.
The report comes amid a summer of dangerous heat events in the United States, including prolonged “heat domes” that have pushed temperatures to life-threatening levels and contributed to at least dozens of deaths, as well as more record heatwaves in Europe that have left thousands dead and fueled massive wildfires.
"Yet rather than scaling back fossil fuel production and accelerating the transition to renewable energy, the six largest fossil fuel corporations plan to increase oil and gas production by 14% by 2030 compared to 2024 levels, equivalent to pumping an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil a day," Oxfam noted.
Paoli said Tuesday that "while Big Oil fuels extreme weather events, rich countries are refusing to increase the public climate finance that poorer countries urgently need to cope with the climate crisis."
“Until governments make the richest polluters pay, fossil fuel corporations will keep driving us deeper into climate chaos," she added. "Taxing the richest polluters could help close the gap in funding for climate adaptation and speed the transition towards renewable energy. Fossil fuel corporations must feel the heat, not us."
Oxfam contends that the "rich polluter profit tax" it has modeled could raise as much as $400 billion globally in its first year based on 2024 figures, compared with the estimated $290 billion to $1 trillion needed annually by 2030 to compensate for the loss and damage caused by climate change in the Global South. Unlike one-off windfall profits taxes, the rich polluter profit tax would be permanent.
"We are facing a climate emergency, therefore governments should each impose this tax swiftly," Oxfam said last month. "Countries across all continents should form a ‘coalition of the willing’ to coordinate and speed up their efforts and counter fossil fuel company lobbying and tax avoidance."
The Oxfam analysis follows the release earlier this month of a World Health Organization (WHO) report showing nearly 500,000 annual heat-related deaths worldwide in the years 2000-19—a figure expected to grow as extreme temperatures driven by the climate emergency become the new normal.
"Mitigating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions is imperative and urgent to limit the magnitude of human costs from extreme heat," WHO said.
Between 2026-40, the average wholesale price of liquefied natural gas could be 80% higher than during the past decade, thanks to Trump's acceleration of exports and the construction of AI data centers.
As President Donald Trump's push for artificial intelligence data centers sends demand for natural gas soaring, a report released Tuesday projects that wholesale prices will likely double by the late 2030s if his energy and AI policies continue, driving up household energy bills.
The report from the climate activist group Oil Change International, which argues for an end to reliance on fossil fuels, found that recent surges in wholesale natural gas prices are being driven by Trump's so-called "energy dominance" agenda, which has cranked up natural gas exports.
In his second term, Trump has resumed and accelerated approvals for new natural gas export terminals following a pause on permits under the Biden administration.
Nearly 90 million metric tons of new annual liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity reached a final investment decision as of June, on top of 60 million that had already been under construction, the report found. Combined, the researchers predicted that these projects could double US LNG exports by the early 2030s.
While pursuing energy dominance, Trump is also pursuing "AI dominance," which has included the breakneck development of data centers specifically built to run on fossil fuels, including natural gas.
His administration has fast-tracked federal permits for data center developers, loosened environmental review processes, and directed his agencies to provide incentives to finance the data center boom.
Gas is expected to power much of the near-term energy use from these data centers. The facilities, which operate 24/7, are being constructed faster than transmission lines can keep up, meaning that new gas plants are being proposed as an alternative.
The report finds that the demands of the AI data center boom could increase gas consumption by 17% by the early 2030s. With the cheapest gas being rapidly depleted, more demand will require producers to expand drilling in parts of the country where it's significantly more expensive to operate, like the Haynesville shale region of Louisiana and East Texas.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have gutted federal support for wind power construction and other renewable energy sources, which will further increase dependency on gas.
In addition to pumping more planet-heating greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the report finds that this increased demand will likely cause prices to soar for consumers.
Citing fluctuations in the Henry Hub gas price benchmark, the report projected that between 2026-40, the average wholesale price of gas could be 80% higher than during the past decade of US LNG exports, which it notes was "a decade when energy price volatility was already causing hardship in the US and LNG-importing countries."
"Trump's policies are making everyone's lives more expensive while Big Tech and the fossil fuel industry cash in. Our research shows that the cost-of-living crisis will only escalate in the coming years if Congress and government agencies don’t intervene," said Lorne Stockman, research director at Oil Change International.
"Our leaders must stand up to Trump, phase out LNG exports, stop the reckless data center build-out, and transition the US economy off of fossil fuels to make energy affordable again," he added.
Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, argued in an op-ed for Common Dreams on Tuesday that Oil Change's report, as well as another recent report demonstrating how the fossil fuel industry had hidden the climate damage caused by natural gas from the public for more than half a century, showed that it's long past time to "make gas a dirty word" in a similar fashion to oil.
"Politicians locking us into natural gas are guaranteeing that our kids will spend much of their lives paying far more for energy than they should—and far more than people in the rest of the world will be spending," he wrote.
McKibben noted recent reporting in The New York Times detailing how, in the wake of Trump's war in Iran, which has caused LNG prices to soar across Europe and Asia, nations are beginning to "unshackle" themselves from it as an alternative fuel source. Not so in the US.
"The natural gas industry," he wrote, "is destroying the climate, and destroying people’s lungs, and it’s trying to lock us into this expensive practice for decades to come."
“It is the most painful manifestation of a climate emergency that is making… wildfires more voracious and heatwaves more frequent, and as a result our land more vulnerable," said Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.
More than 300,000 people have been displaced as historic wildfires tear across France and Spain, presaging what some have called a climate-fueled "crisis of habitability" across Europe, which is heating faster than anywhere else on the globe.
Record heat and drought have fueled multiple record wildfires around the French wine-growing region of Bordeaux and in central Spain near Madrid. As the region expects to see temperatures above 95°F later this week, firefighters are racing to quell the blaze as it grows out of control.
Across the two countries, at least one person has been killed, and more than 100 have been sickened or injured. In France, 80 firefighters have been injured.
About 448 square miles of terrain have been scorched across France since the beginning of 2026, the highest annual total in modern history, even though it's only July.
The fires in France have grown so powerful and unwieldy that they've formed what the National Firefighters Federation of France described as a “pyrocumulonimbus”—an unprecedented fire-generated thunderstorm cloud that generates its own wind and lightning, which spreads the flames across the landscape.
In Spain, fires around Ávila burned about 193 square miles in five days—an area roughly five times the size of Barcelona—making it the largest wildfire in the nation's history. Civil protection chief Virginia Barcones said her country was facing a "monster."
Extreme wildfires are becoming more common around the world as global temperatures increase. Across Europe, where temperatures have soared twice as fast as the global average, the pattern has been even more intense.
Last year was the worst fire year on record in the European Union, with nearly 4,170 square miles of land burned—almost double the annual average from 2006-24.
Speaking at a climate conference, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez emphasized that the fires should not be viewed as isolated incidents.
“It is the most painful manifestation of a climate emergency that is making… wildfires more voracious and heatwaves more frequent, and as a result our land more vulnerable,” Sánchez said. “It is no longer an exception. It is the rule.”
In an op-ed for Le Monde, philosopher Cynthia Fleury and the Socialist mayor of Saint-Médard-en-Jalles in southwestern France, Stéphane Delpeyrat-Vincent, wrote that where previous fires and heatwaves have posed threats to individuals, "the 2026 heatwave has been something else entirely."
"No longer are only individuals at risk, but entire regions," they wrote. "Extreme heat now goes hand in hand with megafires, the destruction of whole landscapes, the collapse of environments and the evacuation of entire towns. The health crisis has become a crisis of habitability."
"At its core, the revisions strip communities of their right to be heard."
Preservationists are reacting with fury after allies of President Donald Trump moved to weaken federal restrictions on construction projects built on historic sites.
Trump-appointed members of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on Friday voted move forward with rules that would weaken Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires the federal government to both evaluate how construction projects might impact protected places and to consult with people and groups affected by such projects, including Tribal Nations.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, on Monday ripped Trump for stacking the council with loyalists who appear determined to "tear down the safeguards that protect America's history so he and his billionaire friends can build whatever they want, wherever they want."
"Right now, a developer has to stop and listen before paving over a tribal burial ground, a Revolutionary War battlefield, or the church where your grandparents were married," Huffman added. "Trump's council wants to end that and cut tribal nations, states, counties, towns, and communities out of that conversation entirely."
Greg Werkheiser, founding partner at the law firm Cultural Heritage Partners, said in an interview with NPR published on Friday that the vote amounted to an "attempt to gut historic preservation protections."
"There are millions of these sites in this country," Werkheiser emphasized, "and all of them are made less protected by this effort by the Trump administration."
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) on Monday denounced the council's vote, describing it as "a significant step back for historic preservation, community participation, and the inclusive design processes that serve the public good."
"At its core, the revisions strip communities of their right to be heard," said the AIA. "These revisions place approximately 1.4 million historic sites at greater risk by shifting decisions away from the communities where they are rooted. The revisions make public comment optional rather than mandatory, narrow the definition of historic property, and shift decision-making authority almost entirely to federal agencies—sidelining state historic preservation officers, tribal historic preservation officers, tribes, and local governments."
Michaela Pavlat, manager for the National Parks Conservation Association Indigenous Partnerships Program, said the Friday vote was a "calculated, yet unwarranted attack on tribal consultation, historic preservation, and the regulations that have protected the places that tell our country’s diverse stories."
Gussie Lord, managing attorney for tribal partnerships at Earthjustice, noted that the National Historic Preservation Act "has not slowed the pace of new roads and power plants in this country, but it has given Tribes a seat at the table and preserved irreplaceable Indigenous sites from destruction."
"What happens when entire landscapes are bulldozed without a thought to their cultural and historic importance?" Lord asked. "No one should support cutting Tribes out of the decision-making process for projects that impact their rights and sacred places."
"It is despicable that the administration is taking away funding from states that did not vote for Trump," said US Sen. Dick Durbin.
President Donald Trump's administration has admitted in court that it chose to cancel certain grants for clean energy projects because they were set to benefit Democratic-voting states.
The New York Times reported on Friday that attorneys representing the US Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged in court documents filed earlier this month that decisions about canceling grants were based "solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State."
The Times described this as a "stunning admission" that "offered an unvarnished glimpse into the way President Trump has weaponized the provision of federal education, energy, health, housing, and infrastructure aid in his second term."
According to the Times, the DOE last year recommended canceling more than 600 grants awarded for energy projects under former President Joe Biden's administration.
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget only made 284 of the recommended cuts while leaving the rest of the grants in place.
After a group of California researchers challenged the terminated grants in a lawsuit, the DOE acknowledged that "with one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators."
The DOE also admitted that there was no "programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor" to justify the cuts.
In a social media post, New York Times reporter Tony Romm noted that the DOE made these admissions "as part of a process meant to avoid discovery" and "perhaps spare it from sharing more damaging records" in its possession.
The Times report drew a sharp reaction from Trump administration critics.
"This is corruption," said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif.). "It’s how this administration has acted since day one: punishing states, businesses, and ordinary Americans who push back on Trump. It’s a major betrayal of our nation that will lead to higher energy prices and should be condemned by people of all political parties. It’s un-American and despicable."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) accused the administration of "the weaponization of government" with its selective grant cancellations.
"This administration shows us time and time again they only care about one person," Kim added, "and that person only cares about himself."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) argued that the filings prove "what we have long known, that their grant cancellations were not based on 'waste' or sound policy but vindictiveness."
"It is despicable," Durbin emphasized, "that the administration is taking away funding from states that did not vote for Trump."
Jennifer Victory, political scientist at George Mason University, described the administration's scheme as "violations of the rule of law that would be sufficient for impeachment in any other American presidency but aren't in this one because pathological partisan loyalty has rotted the constitutional order."
Sam Stein, managing editor at The Bulwark, said that the DOE's admission about targeting Democratic states was "something we all knew and saw at the time and yet still breathtaking to read... in print."
"When the Trump administration declares a crisis ‘under control’, it’s time to brace for the worst yet to come," said one critic.
The United States under Trump-appointed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is currently experiencing major public health crises, including record-high measles cases, an outbreak of a parasite that causes explosive diarrhea, and potential salmonella contamination that led to a recall of nearly two million egg cartons.
Numbers released by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Friday revealed that there have been 2,318 recorded cases of measles this year, the highest number of cases recorded since the virus was declared eliminated in the country more than two decades ago.
Some public health experts who spoke with The New York Times said that lower uptake of the measles vaccine was to blame for the outbreak.
Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at the Brown University School of Public Health, told the Times that "this is just going to keep happening" in the US unless vaccination rates improve.
"It’s going to mean living in a perpetual state of vulnerability and risk until we get vaccination levels up," Nuzzo emphasized.
Dr. Jonathan Temte, a former chairman of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, placed blame for the outbreaks on the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the leadership of Kennedy, who prior to becoming America's top public health official was best known as an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist.
“We have seen virtually no national messaging," said Temte. "We’ve seen no ad campaigns... I think that really tells us something about their priorities."
Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care, also slammed Kennedy's leadership at NHS, accusing him and President Donald Trump of being on "a suicide mission to scare America families away from vaccines without cause or evidence."
"What they’ve accomplished is a huge dip in vaccination rates and the worst measles crisis in 35 years," Woodhouse added. "While the nation’s measles elimination status is doomed, the Trump CDC apparently has not spent a dime on public service ads promoting the one thing that will get us out of the woods: the measles vaccine."
Measles isn't the only disease spreading throughout the country, as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on Friday that "four new states... are now considered part" of the outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a foodborne illness that causes explosive diarrhea.
The FDA has said that iceberg lettuce sourced from Taylor Farms de Mexico is likely the source of the outbreak, which so far has led to nearly 2,000 infections and almost 100 hospitalizations.
News about the continued spread of the outbreak came two days after the FDA revealed it was investigating another potential source of cyclospora, the parasitic bacteria that causes cyclosporiasis.
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), who earlier this week demanded answers from Kennedy about his decision to terminate the CDC's previously required surveillance of cyclospora, sent the HHS secretary a letter on Friday ripping his leadership of the department.
"Your silence amidst an ongoing outbreak of diarrheal disease," Ossoff wrote, "is indicative of the reckless arrogance with which you demolished America's public health defense."
Woodhouse, in a statement released Thursday, noted that Kennedy had declared the outbreak "under control" this week even though federal data shows it growing.
"If history is any judge, when the Trump administration declares a crisis ‘under control’, it’s time to brace for the worst yet to come," said Woodhouse.
The FDA also announced on Wednesday that Midwest Poultry Services was voluntarily recalling nearly 1.6 million cartons of eggs over potential contamination by the bacteria salmonella.
As the FDA noted, salmonella infections often result in a number of unpleasant conditions, including "fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain."
Economist Dean Baker summed up the current situation in the US in a Friday social media post: "War, diarrhea, measles, and now salmonella, that's pretty damn MAGA!"