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.
Image depicts pollution that will come from the future Entergy gas plant. (Image: NoGasPlant)
"What do you do when you want to push through a climate change-inducing, obscenely expensive fracked gas power plant in the USA's most climate threatened city?" asked "Gasland" director Josh Fox. "Well... pay actors to testify, of course!"
Fox's comments on the astroturfing are in response to recent reporting by The Lens that multiple professional actors were were paid to attend New Orleans City Council meetings to show support for a proposed Entergy gas power plant.
"We knew this to be true, but now it's been proven," said the Gulf Restoration Network.
According to 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben, "This is a mind-boggling story."
The gigs involved attending city council meetings in October and February. The actors would either get paid $60 for sporting bright orange t-shirts that read "Clean Energy. Good Jobs. Reliable Power," or $200 if they got up to endorse the power plan and deliver a pre-written speech. They all had to sign NDAs, which listed "DG Consultants"--a business The Lens found no listing for; were given a clear directive to "tell nobody you're being paid"; were recruited and organized by men named Garrett Wilkerson and Daniel Taylor; and were "literally paid under the table" after the October meeting at a local Dave & Busters, a restaurant/arcade.
\u201cThis is a mind-boggling story. The fossil fuel industry hired hundreds of actors to pretend they were citizens and testify at pubic hearings against renewable energy. And it worked.\nhttps://t.co/rSuPmMcWJY\u201d— Bill McKibben (@Bill McKibben) 1525476442
In a Facebook message seen by The Lens, Wilkerson said he was with a group called Crowds on Demand, though at the October meeting, he and Taylor indicated they were with a new organization called the Council for Responsible Governance. The Lens also found no listing of such a group.
The news outlet spoke to three of the actors, one of whom was wiling to give his name. One of them said he recognized 10 to 15 others sporting orange shirts at the October meeting as being local actors.
"They paid us to sit through the meeting and clap every time someone said something against wind and solar power," said Keith Keough.
From The Lens:
One of the hired actors told The Lens that they were instructed to arrive early [to the October meeting]. "They said, you guys have to be there first thing because as soon as they open the door, we want you guys in there so if there are any protesters we got that whole room filled."
In contrast, for the final meeting on the project in March when the vote took place, the crowd was mainly opponents--no swarm of orange shirts to be found.
The campaign was apparently successful; the city council approved it 6-1 on March 8.
In fact, Councilwoman Susan Guidry, who cast the sole opposing vote, told The Lens: "I think it had a phenomenal impact on public opinion."
It's unclear who's behind the organizing. But Guidry says it was pretty clear to her. " How can you not link Entergy to this?" she asked. "Who else would have paid all these people to come there and say they want a gas-fired power plant?"
An environmental coalition says they'll be asking state and local authorities to investigate any wrongdoing, and to find out ultimately who's behind the effort.
Entergy, for its part, said it's not them.
"While we reiterate that Entergy did not pay, nor did we authorize any other person or entity to pay supporters to attend or speak at Council meetings, we recognize that our interactions with our stakeholders must always be based on honesty and integrity. To that end, we are in the process of finalizing our investigation," it said in a press statement.
The power plant has been doggedly opposed by environmental groups, who say it would would pile on environmental injustice, and increase pollution, flood risks, and utility bills.
"What we deserve is a focus on more reliable infrastructure instead of this expensive gas plant from Entergy," said Logan Burke, executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, following the project's approval.
"We demand a smarter energy future for our community and want investment in clean energy that truly provides resilience in the face of climate change. The world is watching and we cannot say we are preparing for a sea-level rise if we are doubling down on a gas plant in a floodplain."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
"What do you do when you want to push through a climate change-inducing, obscenely expensive fracked gas power plant in the USA's most climate threatened city?" asked "Gasland" director Josh Fox. "Well... pay actors to testify, of course!"
Fox's comments on the astroturfing are in response to recent reporting by The Lens that multiple professional actors were were paid to attend New Orleans City Council meetings to show support for a proposed Entergy gas power plant.
"We knew this to be true, but now it's been proven," said the Gulf Restoration Network.
According to 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben, "This is a mind-boggling story."
The gigs involved attending city council meetings in October and February. The actors would either get paid $60 for sporting bright orange t-shirts that read "Clean Energy. Good Jobs. Reliable Power," or $200 if they got up to endorse the power plan and deliver a pre-written speech. They all had to sign NDAs, which listed "DG Consultants"--a business The Lens found no listing for; were given a clear directive to "tell nobody you're being paid"; were recruited and organized by men named Garrett Wilkerson and Daniel Taylor; and were "literally paid under the table" after the October meeting at a local Dave & Busters, a restaurant/arcade.
\u201cThis is a mind-boggling story. The fossil fuel industry hired hundreds of actors to pretend they were citizens and testify at pubic hearings against renewable energy. And it worked.\nhttps://t.co/rSuPmMcWJY\u201d— Bill McKibben (@Bill McKibben) 1525476442
In a Facebook message seen by The Lens, Wilkerson said he was with a group called Crowds on Demand, though at the October meeting, he and Taylor indicated they were with a new organization called the Council for Responsible Governance. The Lens also found no listing of such a group.
The news outlet spoke to three of the actors, one of whom was wiling to give his name. One of them said he recognized 10 to 15 others sporting orange shirts at the October meeting as being local actors.
"They paid us to sit through the meeting and clap every time someone said something against wind and solar power," said Keith Keough.
From The Lens:
One of the hired actors told The Lens that they were instructed to arrive early [to the October meeting]. "They said, you guys have to be there first thing because as soon as they open the door, we want you guys in there so if there are any protesters we got that whole room filled."
In contrast, for the final meeting on the project in March when the vote took place, the crowd was mainly opponents--no swarm of orange shirts to be found.
The campaign was apparently successful; the city council approved it 6-1 on March 8.
In fact, Councilwoman Susan Guidry, who cast the sole opposing vote, told The Lens: "I think it had a phenomenal impact on public opinion."
It's unclear who's behind the organizing. But Guidry says it was pretty clear to her. " How can you not link Entergy to this?" she asked. "Who else would have paid all these people to come there and say they want a gas-fired power plant?"
An environmental coalition says they'll be asking state and local authorities to investigate any wrongdoing, and to find out ultimately who's behind the effort.
Entergy, for its part, said it's not them.
"While we reiterate that Entergy did not pay, nor did we authorize any other person or entity to pay supporters to attend or speak at Council meetings, we recognize that our interactions with our stakeholders must always be based on honesty and integrity. To that end, we are in the process of finalizing our investigation," it said in a press statement.
The power plant has been doggedly opposed by environmental groups, who say it would would pile on environmental injustice, and increase pollution, flood risks, and utility bills.
"What we deserve is a focus on more reliable infrastructure instead of this expensive gas plant from Entergy," said Logan Burke, executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, following the project's approval.
"We demand a smarter energy future for our community and want investment in clean energy that truly provides resilience in the face of climate change. The world is watching and we cannot say we are preparing for a sea-level rise if we are doubling down on a gas plant in a floodplain."
"What do you do when you want to push through a climate change-inducing, obscenely expensive fracked gas power plant in the USA's most climate threatened city?" asked "Gasland" director Josh Fox. "Well... pay actors to testify, of course!"
Fox's comments on the astroturfing are in response to recent reporting by The Lens that multiple professional actors were were paid to attend New Orleans City Council meetings to show support for a proposed Entergy gas power plant.
"We knew this to be true, but now it's been proven," said the Gulf Restoration Network.
According to 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben, "This is a mind-boggling story."
The gigs involved attending city council meetings in October and February. The actors would either get paid $60 for sporting bright orange t-shirts that read "Clean Energy. Good Jobs. Reliable Power," or $200 if they got up to endorse the power plan and deliver a pre-written speech. They all had to sign NDAs, which listed "DG Consultants"--a business The Lens found no listing for; were given a clear directive to "tell nobody you're being paid"; were recruited and organized by men named Garrett Wilkerson and Daniel Taylor; and were "literally paid under the table" after the October meeting at a local Dave & Busters, a restaurant/arcade.
\u201cThis is a mind-boggling story. The fossil fuel industry hired hundreds of actors to pretend they were citizens and testify at pubic hearings against renewable energy. And it worked.\nhttps://t.co/rSuPmMcWJY\u201d— Bill McKibben (@Bill McKibben) 1525476442
In a Facebook message seen by The Lens, Wilkerson said he was with a group called Crowds on Demand, though at the October meeting, he and Taylor indicated they were with a new organization called the Council for Responsible Governance. The Lens also found no listing of such a group.
The news outlet spoke to three of the actors, one of whom was wiling to give his name. One of them said he recognized 10 to 15 others sporting orange shirts at the October meeting as being local actors.
"They paid us to sit through the meeting and clap every time someone said something against wind and solar power," said Keith Keough.
From The Lens:
One of the hired actors told The Lens that they were instructed to arrive early [to the October meeting]. "They said, you guys have to be there first thing because as soon as they open the door, we want you guys in there so if there are any protesters we got that whole room filled."
In contrast, for the final meeting on the project in March when the vote took place, the crowd was mainly opponents--no swarm of orange shirts to be found.
The campaign was apparently successful; the city council approved it 6-1 on March 8.
In fact, Councilwoman Susan Guidry, who cast the sole opposing vote, told The Lens: "I think it had a phenomenal impact on public opinion."
It's unclear who's behind the organizing. But Guidry says it was pretty clear to her. " How can you not link Entergy to this?" she asked. "Who else would have paid all these people to come there and say they want a gas-fired power plant?"
An environmental coalition says they'll be asking state and local authorities to investigate any wrongdoing, and to find out ultimately who's behind the effort.
Entergy, for its part, said it's not them.
"While we reiterate that Entergy did not pay, nor did we authorize any other person or entity to pay supporters to attend or speak at Council meetings, we recognize that our interactions with our stakeholders must always be based on honesty and integrity. To that end, we are in the process of finalizing our investigation," it said in a press statement.
The power plant has been doggedly opposed by environmental groups, who say it would would pile on environmental injustice, and increase pollution, flood risks, and utility bills.
"What we deserve is a focus on more reliable infrastructure instead of this expensive gas plant from Entergy," said Logan Burke, executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, following the project's approval.
"We demand a smarter energy future for our community and want investment in clean energy that truly provides resilience in the face of climate change. The world is watching and we cannot say we are preparing for a sea-level rise if we are doubling down on a gas plant in a floodplain."
"The very institution that is supposed to keep district residents safe is now allowing ICE to jeopardize the safety and lives of hardworking immigrants and their families," said one local labor leader.
The ACLU and a local branch of one of the nation's largest labor unions were among those who condemned Thursday's order by Washington, DC's police chief authorizing greater cooperation with federal forces sent by President Donald Trump to target and arrest undocumented immigrants in the sanctuary city.
Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith issued an executive order directing MPD officers to assist federal forces including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in sharing information about people in situations including traffic stops. The directive does not apply to people already in MPD custody. The order also allows MPD to provide transportation for federal immigration agencies and people they've detained.
While Trump called the order a "great step," immigrant defenders slammed the move.
"Now our police department is going to be complicit and be reporting our own people to ICE?" DC Councilmember Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said. "We have values in this city. Coordination and cooperation means we become a part of the regime."
ACLU DC executive director Monica Hopkins said in a statement that "DC police chief's new order inviting collaboration with ICE is dangerous and unnecessary."
"Immigration enforcement is not the role of local police—and when law enforcement aligns itself with ICE, it fosters fear among DC residents, regardless of citizenship status," Hopkins continued. "Our police should serve the people of DC, not ICE's deportation machine."
"As the federal government scales up Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, including mass deportations, we see how local law enforcement face pressure to participate," she added. "Federal courts across the country have found both ICE and local agencies liable for unconstitutional detentions under ICE detainers. Police departments that choose to carry out the federal government's business risk losing the trust they need to keep communities safe."
Understanding your rights can help you stay calm and advocate for yourself if approached by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or police. 🧵
[image or embed]
— ACLU of the District of Columbia (@aclu-dc.bsky.social) August 11, 2025 at 7:30 AM
Jaime Contreras, executive vice president and Latino caucus chair of 32BJ SEIU, a local Service Employees International Union branch, said, "It should horrify everyone that DC's police chief has just laid out the welcoming mat for the Trump administration to continue its wave of terror throughout our city."
"The very institution that is supposed to keep district residents safe is now allowing ICE to jeopardize the safety and lives of hardworking immigrants and their families," Contreras continued. "Their complicity is dangerous enough but helping to enforce Trump's tactics and procedures are a violation of the values of DC residents."
"DC needs a chief who will not cave to this administration's fear tactics aimed at silencing anyone who speaks out against injustice," Contreras added. "We call for an immediate end to these rogue attacks that deny basic due process, separates families, and wrongly deports hardworking immigrants and their families."
The condemnation—and local protests—came as dozens of immigrants have been detained this week as government forces occupy and fan out across the city following Trump's deployment of National Guard troops and federalization of the MPD. The president dubiously declared a public safety emergency on Monday, invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act. Trump also said that he would ask the Republican-controlled Congress to authorize an extension of his federal takeover beyond the 30 days allowed under Section 740.
Washington, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser—a Democrat who calls the occupying agencies "our federal partners"—has quietly sought to overturn the capital's Sanctuary Values Amendment Act of 2020, which prohibits MPD from releasing detained individuals to ICE or inquiring about their legal status. The law also limits city officials' cooperation with immigration agencies, including by restricting information sharing regarding individuals in MPD custody.
While the DC Council recently blocked Bowser's attempt to slip legislation repealing the sanctuary policy into her proposed 2026 budget, Congress has the power to modify or even overturn Washington laws under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. In June, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed Rep. Clay Higgins' (R-La.) District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, which would repeal Washington's sanctuary policies and compel compliance with requests from the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE. The Senate is currently considering the bill.
Trump's crackdown has also targeted Washington's unhoused population, with MPD conducting sweeps of encampments around the city.
"There's definitely a lot of chaos, fear, and confusion," Amber Harding, executive director of the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, told CNN Thursday.
David Beatty, an unhoused man living in an encampment near the Kennedy Center that Trump threateningly singled out last week, was among the victims of a Thursday sweep.
Beatty told USA Today that Trump "is targeting and persecuting us," adding that "he wants to take our freedom away."
Nearly two-thirds of Americans said they disapprove of the Trump administration slashing the Social Security Administration workforce.
As the US marked the 90th anniversary of one of its most broadly popular public programs, Social Security, on Thursday, President Donald Trump marked the occasion by claiming at an Oval Office event that his administration has saved the retirees' safety net from "fraud" perpetrated by undocumented immigrants—but new polling showed that Trump's approach to the Social Security Administration is among his most unpopular agenda items.
The progressive think tank Data for Progress asked 1,176 likely voters about eight key Trump administration agenda items, including pushing for staffing cuts at the Social Security Administration; signing the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is projected to raise the cost of living for millions as people will be shut out of food assistance and Medicaid; and firing tens of thousands of federal workers—and found that some of Americans' biggest concerns are about the fate of the agency that SSA chief Frank Bisignano has pledged to make "digital-first."
Sixty-three percent of respondents said they oppose the proposed layoffs of about 7,000 SSA staffers, or about 12% of its workforce—which, as progressives including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have warned, have led to longer wait times for beneficiaries who rely on their monthly earned Social Security checks to pay for groceries, housing, medications, and other essentials.
Forty-five percent of people surveyed said they were "very concerned" about the cuts.
Only the Trump administration's decision not to release files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case was more opposed by respondents, with 65% saying they disapproved of the failure to disclose the documents, which involve the financier and convicted sex offender who was a known friend of the president. But fewer voters—about 39%—said they were "very concerned" about the files.
Among "persuadable voters"—those who said they were as likely to vote for candidates from either major political party in upcoming elections—70% said they opposed the cuts to Social Security.
The staffing cuts have forced Social Security field offices across the country to close, and as Sanders said Wednesday as he introduced the Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act, the 1-800 number beneficiaries have to call to receive their benefits "is a mess," with staffers overwhelmed due to the loss of more than 4,000 employees so far.
As Common Dreams reported in July, another policy change this month is expected to leave senior citizens and beneficiaries with disabilities unable to perform routine tasks related to their benefits over the phone, as they have for decades—forcing them to rely on a complicated online verification process.
Late last month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent admitted that despite repeated claims from Trump that he won't attempt to privatize Social Security, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act offers a "backdoor way" for Republicans to do just that.
The law's inclusion of tax-deferred investment accounts called "Trump accounts" that will be available to US citizen children starting next July could allow the GOP to privatize the program as it has hoped to for decades.
"Right now, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are quietly creating problems for Social Security so they can later hand it off to their private equity buddies," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Thursday.
Marking the program's 90th anniversary, Sanders touted his Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act.
"This legislation would reverse all of the cuts that the Trump administration has made to the Social Security Administration," said Sanders. "It would make it easier, not harder, for seniors and people with disabilities to receive the benefits they have earned over the phone."
"Each and every year, some 30,000 people die—they die while waiting for their Social Security benefits to be approved," said Sanders. "And Trump's cuts will make this terrible situation even worse. We cannot and must not allow that to happen."
"Voters have made their feelings clear," said the leader of Justice Democrats. "The majority do not see themselves in this party and do not believe in its leaders or many of its representatives."
A top progressive leader has given her prescription for how the Democratic Party can begin to retake power from US President Donald Trump: Ousting "corporate-funded" candidates.
Justice Democrats executive director Alexandra Rojas wrote Thursday in The Guardian that, "If the Democratic Party wants to win back power in 2028," its members need to begin to redefine themselves in the 2026 midterms.
"Voters have made their feelings clear, a majority do not see themselves in this party and do not believe in its leaders or many of its representatives," Rojas said. "They need a new generation of leaders with fresh faces and bold ideas, unbought by corporate super [political action committees] and billionaire donors, to give them a new path and vision to believe in."
Despite Trump's increasing unpopularity, a Gallup poll from July 31 found that the Democratic Party still has record-low approval across the country.
Rojas called for "working-class, progressive primary challenges to the overwhelming number of corporate Democratic incumbents who have rightfully been dubbed as do-nothing electeds."
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in June, nearly two-thirds of self-identified Democrats said they desired new leadership, with many believing that the party did not share top priorities, like universal healthcare, affordable childcare, and higher taxes on the rich.
Young voters were especially dissatisfied with the current state of the party and were much less likely to believe the party shared their priorities.
Democrats have made some moves to address their "gerontocracy" problem—switching out the moribund then-President Joe Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race and swapping out longtime House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) for the younger Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.).
But Rojas says a face-lift for the party is not enough. They also need fresh ideas.
"Voters are also not simply seeking to replace their aging corporate shill representatives with younger corporate shills," she said. "More of the same from a younger generation is still more of the same."
Outside of a "small handful of outspoken progressives," she said the party has often been too eager to kowtow to Trump and tow the line of billionaire donors.
"Too many Democratic groups, and even some that call themselves progressive, are encouraging candidates' silence in the face of lobbies like [the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee] (AIPAC) and crypto's multimillion-dollar threats," she said.
A Public Citizen report found that in 2024, Democratic candidates and aligned PACs received millions of dollars from crypto firms like Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreesen Horowitz.
According to OpenSecrets, 58% of the 212 Democrats elected to the House in 2024—135 of them—received money from AIPAC, with an average contribution of $117,334. In the Senate, 17 Democrats who won their elections received donations—$195,015 on average.
The two top Democrats in Congress—Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—both have long histories of support from AIPAC, and embraced crypto with open arms after the industry flooded the 2024 campaign with cash.
"Too often, we hear from candidates and members who claim they are with us on the policy, but can't speak out on it because AIPAC or crypto will spend against them," Rojas said. "Silence is cowardice, and cowardice inspires no one."
Rojas noted Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), who was elected in 2022 despite an onslaught of attacks from AIPAC and who has since gone on to introduce legislation to ban super PACs from federal elections, as an example of this model's success.
"The path to more Democratic victories," Rojas said, "is not around, behind, and under these lobbies, but it's right through them, taking them head-on and ridding them from our politics once and for all."