

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.
MBA students from top business schools across the country helped
companies uncover energy efficiencies that could save $35 million in
net operational costs over five years while preventing 57,000 tons of
carbon pollution. These are the results of the Climate Corps program, a
groundbreaking initiative designed by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
that trains business students to identify energy efficient strategies
that will reduce the negative environmental impacts of company
operations while benefitting the bottom line.
EDF selected the 2008 Climate Corps Fellows from the University of
Michigan, Stanford University and Rice University, among others and
placed them in summer fellowships at companies such as Yahoo! Inc.,
Cisco, Intuit, NVIDIA, Salesforce.com, Crescent Real Estate and KKR.
With technical support from EDF, Climate Corps fellows spent 12 weeks
identifying and analyzing energy efficiency opportunities and
developing detailed investment and implementation plans.
In only a few weeks, the seven Climate Corps Fellows helped their
host companies find efficiencies in lighting, computer equipment and
heating and cooling systems to:
* Save $35 million in net costs over five years;
* Reduce greenhouse gas emissions per year by 57,000 metric tons - equivalent to taking more than 7,000 SUVs off the road and
* Conserve more than 119 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year - enough to power 10,000 homes.
Climate Corps Fellows also helped accelerate their host companies'
sustainability initiatives. "Cisco has committed to reducing our
greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2012. Our labs account for almost 70%
of our carbon footprint, so we must reduce their energy consumption
significantly in order to meet our goal. Our Climate Corps Fellow came
on board so quickly that we got started on our R&D lab initiative
several months sooner than expected," said John Haley, senior manager,
workplace resources, Cisco.
"As a results-driven organization, EDF designed the Climate Corps
program to help corporations realize real cost-savings through
energy-efficiency while developing tangible sustainability
strategies,'" said Millie Chu Baird, project manager for corporate partnerships at EDF.
"Despite widespread discussion about the greening of business, many
companies remain unaware of practical, cost-effective strategies they
can take to capture both environmental and business benefits. Our next
step is to grow the Climate Corps program and develop a set of best
practices we can share with corporations around the country."
Through training and hands-on experience, Climate Corps Fellows
acquire the hard skills they will need to tackle tough energy decisions
they are likely to encounter later in their careers. "Climate Corps
does a great job of educating the next generation of corporate
environmental leaders," said Christina Page, director, climate and
energy strategy, Yahoo!.
For year two of the Climate Corps program, EDF will work with Net
Impact to recruit, train and place MBA-level Fellows in companies and
widely share the first year's results with business communities across
the country. EDF and Net Impact are currently looking for
forward-thinking businesses interested in hosting a 2009 Climate Corps
fellow.
"We are thrilled to partner with EDF on the Climate Corps program,"
said Liz Maw, executive director, Net Impact. "Our network is full of
talented, focused MBAs seeking to put their skills to use for social,
environmental and economic good. We look forward to seeing economic and
environmental results of this important work."
For more information, visit www.edf.org/climatecorps.
Environmental Defense Fund's mission is to preserve the natural systems on which all life depends. Guided by science and economics, we find practical and lasting solutions to the most serious environmental problems. We work to solve the most critical environmental problems facing the planet. This has drawn us to areas that span the biosphere: climate, oceans, ecosystems and health. Since these topics are intertwined, our solutions take a multidisciplinary approach. We work in concert with other organizations -- as well as with business, government and communities -- and avoid duplicating work already being done effectively by others.
"Trump is right. A pointless war or universal daycare," said one Democratic politician. "He’s right: That’s the choice."
A day after Secretary of State Marco Rubio unironically advised Iran to spend its public funds "helping the people of Iran" instead of on weapons, President Donald Trump announced that the US government has "to take care of one thing: military protection" and isn't able to provide people in the US with necessities like healthcare and childcare.
"Oh wow, he actually admitted it," said US Rap. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) in response.
At an Easter lunch at the White House Wednesday, the president said that "the United States can’t take care of daycare" and demanded that states fully fund childcare programs.
"We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare. You gotta let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too," said Trump. “It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things."
Trump: We can't take care of daycare. We're a big country. We're fighting wars. It's not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these things. pic.twitter.com/vLGpp7KJnm
— FactPost (@factpostnews) April 1, 2026
The wars the president has waged and threatened to wage since taking office last year include his invasion of Venezuela in January and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro; the killing of more than 160 people in boat bombings in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean; an oil blockade on Cuba that's left tens of thousands of people waiting for surgeries and unable to access essential medications, with Trump threatening to take over the country by force; and the current US-Israeli war on Iran.
The conflicts that Trump said Americans must sacrifice federal funding for public programs in order to continue are opposed by a majority of Americans, according to polls. All have been called violations of international law by legal experts.
Trump's comments on the government's inability to provide public services came as the Pentagon is seeking $200 billion to continue funding the war on Iran, which has killed nearly 2,000 Iranians and more than 1,000 people across the Middle East as the conflict has widened, and exacerbated the US affordability crisis by raising average gas prices to over $4 per gallon.
A 2021 analysis by The New York Times found that the US spends about $500 per family each year on early childhood care, or roughly 0.2% of its GDP. Other wealthy countries that the US considers its peers spend an average of more than $14,000 per family annually, with Norway spending close to $30,000, Finland spending more than $23,000, and Germany spending over $18,000.
The president has previously attacked childcare spending, cutting $10 billion in federal childcare funds to five Democratic-led states in response to a social services fraud scandal in Minnesota. Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last year are projected amount to about $1 trillion over the next decade, and hundreds of hospitals are at risk of closing or having to reduce healthcare services as a result of the cuts—which, in addition to funding Trump's military actions, helped pay for tax cuts for corporations and the rich.
"The warmongers in the White House and Congress will always fund death and destruction," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) Wednesday night after Trump's comments. "They will let people in our country starve and die before they stop funding wars."
Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for US Senate in Maine, said Trump's remarks were a simple statement of fact about the choice the administration has made about its priorities.
"Trump is right. A pointless war or universal daycare," said Platner. "He’s right: That’s the choice."
In a primetime address, President Donald Trump reiterated his threat to destroy Iranian energy infrastructure and provided no timeline for an end to his illegal war.
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday delivered an incoherent primetime address in which he threatened to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages" while also claiming negotiations to end the conflict were ongoing, remarks that provided no clear indication of when or how the illegal war of choice would end.
Trump's speech marked his first major address on the war since the US, in partnership with Israel, started bombing Iran more than a month ago, without congressional approval and in violation of international law. A day after declaring that Iran "doesn’t have to make a deal" to end the war, Trump said during his Wednesday speech, "If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously"—a grave war crime.
In the face of polls showing the Iran War is deeply unpopular with the American public, Trump sought to justify continuing the assault by comparing its duration to that of the two World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. At the president's direction, thousands of troops are currently heading to the Middle East to join the tens of thousands already there, fueling fears of a ground invasion and a devastating quagmire.
After baselessly claiming Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, Trump insisted Wednesday night that the country's leadership was "rapidly building a vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles" that could soon "reach the American homeland"—an assertion contradicted by US intelligence.
The president also waved away concerns about rising gas prices, which have already cost American drivers billions of dollars collectively. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical route through which roughly 25% of global seaborne oil trade passes each year, will "just open up naturally" once the conflict is over, Trump asserted, adding that "the gas prices will rapidly come back down."
Collin Rees, US campaign manager at the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement that "Trump's rambling lies can't conceal how his reckless, illegal war of aggression is sending energy prices for working families through the roof."
"Trump claims this conflict is different from past wars for oil, but it's playing out with exactly the same deadly patterns," said Rees. "War and volatility push prices higher and fossil fuel companies cash in on windfall profits, while every day people face rising costs for gas, food, and basic necessities. Instead of investing in what people actually need—like childcare, healthcare, and resilient communities—Trump is doubling down on senseless military escalation that serves the interest of his billionaire allies and fossil fuel CEOs."
"More and more people are seeing through this charade," Rees added. "This war isn't about energy security or safety, it's about protecting a system where fossil fuel profits come before people’s lives and livelihoods. The way to escape this cycle of death is to end this war and advance a swift and just transition to renewable energy sources that can break our dependence on volatile, unreliable fossil fuels."
"The human cost of this war is unconscionable. The economic cost is dangerous and growing."
Democratic members of Congress viewed Trump's speech as further confirmation that the president never had a clear objective for the unlawful war—which has killed nearly 2,000 Iranians and displaced millions—and has no serious exit plan, just a vow to bomb Iran "extremely hard over the next two to three weeks."
"Anyone watching that speech has no idea whether Trump is escalating or deescalating the war with Iran," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "But to be fair, neither does he."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media that Trump "campaigned for the presidency on avoiding foreign wars and lowering costs 'on day one.'"
"His promises are now in tatters," wrote Warren. "The human cost of this war is unconscionable. The economic cost is dangerous and growing. The president should end this war today."
The lone Iranian American in Congress, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), condemned Trump's threat to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages, where they belong."
"He’s talking about a country of 90 million people," said Ansari. "Vile, horrifying, evil."
The agreement funds most Department of Homeland Security operations—but punts on funding for President Donald Trump's deadly Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown.
House and Senate Republicans on Wednesday announced a deal to advance a plan to fund the US Department of Homeland Security, which would end a partial DHS shutdown but deliberately punt the most contentious issue—funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement—for a future reconciliation fight.
Under the plan—which was rejected last week by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) as a "crap sandwich"—most DHS operations will be funded via regular spending bill while Republicans will attempt to fund President Donald Trump’s deadly ICE crackdown via a two-step legislative process meant to thwart any potential Democrat filibuster.
“In the coming days, Republicans in the Senate and House will be following through on the president's directive by fully funding the entire Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks: through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process," Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a joint statement.
REMINDER: The Senate unanimously passed BIPARTISAN legislation to fund all of DHS except ICE and Border Patrol. Speaker Johnson called that deal “a joke,” killed it, and sent Congress home for two weeks. And now he’s apparently saying he wants that deal after all?
— Rep. Mike Levin (@levin.house.gov) April 1, 2026 at 1:59 PM
The deal would immediately restore pay for workers including Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents. However, it excludes ICE and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which have been the subject of a tense partisan standoff over Trump's anti-immigrant blitz.
The plan contains no restrictions on ICE, which Democrats sought in the wake of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as well as a record surge in immigrant deaths in the agency's custody.
“For the last 47 days, Donald Trump and Republicans have subjected the nation to chaos at airports, jeopardized our national security, and kept the government closed to allow ICE to continue to brutalize the American people without consequence,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said in response to the agreement.
“Through it all, House Democrats continue to stand up for the American people and aggressively push back against far-right extremism,” he added. “Mike Johnson and House Republicans have come to realize that we will never bend the knee.”
The DHS shutdown was the longest in history, according to The New York Times.
Opponents of more funding for ICE—which is flush with $75 billion in fresh allocations under last year's budget reconciliation package—weighed in on the deal.
"Today’s announcement signals a clear recognition of what the public knows and believes: No additional funds are needed, given the shocking and stark realities and horrors already coming from an out-of-control immigration enforcement apparatus with $150 billion left to spend," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement, referring to the total amount of ICE and CBP funding under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
“All members of Congress should vote to pass the bill immediately to fund DHS without sending any more money to ICE and CBP and bring this self-created crisis and chaos to an end," Schulte continued.
"Moving forward with a party-line, reconciliation process that would send hundreds of billions of dollars more to ICE and CBP—on top of the $150 billion they already have—and seemingly pay for it with cuts to healthcare would be a terrible policy outcome," he added, "and one that would be met with massive, overwhelmingly public opposition.”