

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.

Film director Josh Fox grew up in rural Pennsylvania on the Delaware
River, which sits above the natural gas-rich Marcellus shale formation
deep underground. When he was offered $100,000 to lease his property
for natural gas exploration, Fox decided to chronicle drilling's impact
on the American landscape and its people.
On Monday, June 21 at 9:00 p.m. EDT, Home Box Office (HBO) will
premiere "Gasland," Fox's documentary on the dangers of natural gas
exploration. Writing in Variety, the entertainment industry
publication, critic Robert Koehler said, "If a film can ever enact
social change, which is rare, the potency of "Gasland" suggests that
this may be that film." Gasland has won acclaim on the independent film
festival circuit, including taking home the Special Jury prize at the
2010 Sundance Film Festival.
"Gasland's message is invaluable to our work educating lawmakers and
the public on the dangers that unregulated natural gas drilling poses
to public health and the environment," said Dusty Horwitt, senior
counsel at Environmental Working Group (EWG). "Mr. Fox's film is
particularly relevant in its depiction of the impact that unchecked gas
drilling has had on the health of rural American families and the
callous attitude of industry representatives."
"I leaned heavily on EWG's research on natural gas extraction
techniques as source material for Gasland," said Fox. "EWG's advocacy
for safer drilling brings heft to arguments urging lawmakers at the
local and national level to address the astounding lack of regulation
of natural gas drilling," Fox said.
EWG is hosting a live chat with Fox following the HBO premiere on Tuesday June 22nd at https://www.enviroblog.org/2010/06/fracking-live-chat-with-ewg-gasland-di...
Natural gas companies have industrialized the Western landscape,
punching thousands of wells into pristine lands, injecting toxic
chemicals, consuming millions of gallons of water, digging pits for
hazardous waste and carving out sprawling road networks. Yet almost
uniquely among U.S. industries, oil and gas drillers are exempt from
regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the
Clean Air Act and other federal environmental laws.
With the discovery of large natural gas reserves in the Marcellus
shale, New York, Pennsylvania and other eastern states are now in line
to experience similar devastation. As "Gasland" documents, residents of
Pennsylvania have already had their drinking water contaminated in
areas where drilling took place.
Recent research by EWG has focused on a process known as horizontal
drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing, which has enabled gas
companies to unlock huge new deposits of gas buried in deep shale
formations. Known as "fracking," the process shatters the rock to allow
captive gas and oil to flow to the surface. Fracking is used in 90
percent of the nation's natural gas and oil wells.
In "Drilling Around the Law," https://www.ewg.org/drillingaroundthelaw,
EWG showed that drilling companies are skirting federal law and
injecting toxic petroleum distillates into thousands of wells,
threatening drinking water supplies from Pennsylvania to Wyoming.
Federal and state regulators, meanwhile, largely look the other way.
A report titled "Free Pass for Oil and Gas in the American West,"
documented that the boom in unregulated oil and natural gas exploration
across the West poses a threat to public health and the environment.
Exclusive EWG maps detailed drilling activity county by county.
EWG Safe Drinking Water Fact Sheet Produced in Conjunction with Earthworks - https://www.ewg.org/Safe-Drinking-Water-Act-Should-Cover-Hydraulic-Fractu...
Key findings of EWG's reports included:
* Drilling companies are using dozens of petroleum distillates in
their hydraulic fracturing fluids. These distillates, including
kerosene, mineral spirits and diesel fuel, contain high levels of the
so-called BTEX chemicals benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene,
which are toxic in water at minuscule levels. Benzene is of particular
concern because it is a known human carcinogen in water at
concentrations higher than five parts per billion.
* In a worst-case scenario, petroleum distillates used to
hydraulically fracture a single well could contain enough benzene to
contaminate more than 100 billion gallons of drinking water to unsafe
levels, according to drilling company disclosures in New York and
published studies. That's more than then times the water used by the
state of New York every day.
* In using petroleum distillates, companies are skirting the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act, which requires a permit for fracturing with
diesel fuel (itself a petroleum distillate). In 2004, the EPA concluded
that the use of diesel fuel in fracturing poses "the greatest potential
threat to [underground sources of drinking water] because the BTEX
constituents in diesel fuel exceed the [maximum contaminant level] at
the point-of-injection." EWG found that other petroleum distillates
used in fracking can contain even higher levels of benzene but do not
require a permit.
* Regulators in four states (New York, Pennsylvania, Montana and
Texas) told EWG that they do not check to determine whether drilling
companies are using diesel or other petroleum distillates. Regulators
in these states and Wyoming said they do not issue permits for
fracturing. A Wyoming official who asked not to be named said companies
there commonly fractured with diesel.
* In February, the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported that
two companies, B.J. Services and Halliburton, had injected diesel in
hydraulic fracturing operations in at least 15 states from 2005 through
2007. At least some of these injections occurred on or after Aug. 8,
2005, when the Energy Policy Act of 2005 became law. This law exempted
hydraulic fracturing from the Underground Injection Control permitting
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act except when diesel is used,
so the two companies may have broken the law if they fractured with
diesel without a permit. The committee did not disclose where the
injections occurred.
* The committee also found that B.J. Services violated a non-binding
2003 agreement with EPA not to inject diesel fuel directly into
underground sources of drinking water in coal bed methane formations.
* Companies have sought to drill for natural gas in the watershed
that provides New York City's drinking water. The city has strongly
opposed such drilling.
* Industry often claims there is no evidence that hydraulic
fracturing has ever contaminated drinking water, but people from
Pennsylvania to Wyoming have clearly documented that their water was
affected.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982“At a time of extreme and growing inequality," said one critic, "today’s proposals will drain lending away from Main Street families’ needs and priorities and further enrich the already wealthy on Wall Street."
The Trump administration and Federal Reserve unveiled proposals Thursday that would significantly reduce capital requirements for the largest banks in the United States, potentially setting the stage for another financial industry collapse as the US-Israeli war on Iran destabilizes the global economy and jacks up prices for consumers.
Under the new rules proposed by the Fed, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, large banks would have to hold nearly 5% less capital on average. The advocacy organization Better Markets noted that the proposals—combined with other deregulatory actions taken by the Trump administration and the Fed over the past year—would return Wall Street banks' capital requirements "to the irresponsibly low 2007 levels they had just before the 2008 crash."
“At a time of extreme and growing inequality, when tens of millions of Americans are struggling to pay their bills, today’s proposals will drain lending away from Main Street families’ needs and priorities and further enrich the already wealthy on Wall Street and the top 10% of Americans they focus on serving," Dennis Kelleher, the president of Better Markets, said in a statement. "The banking agencies’ proposals to loosen capital rules are a victory for Wall Street lobbying, and claims to the contrary are nothing more than an attempt to mislead the American people."
Fed Gov. Michael Barr, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, was the central bank board's lone dissenting voice against the new rules, a product of years of aggressive Wall Street lobbying for less stringent regulations in the wake of the Great Recession.
"Today's proposals, if adopted, would harm the resilience of banks and the US financial system," Barr warned in a statement. "There are suggestions that liquidity requirements could also be reduced. Additionally, Federal Reserve supervisory staff have been cut by over 30%, and supervisory practices have been weakened. Banking is built on trust. I worry greatly that these actions are rapidly eroding that trust."
The new deregulatory package, which will be subject to a 90-day public comment period before it's finalized, comes as President Donald Trump is waging an expensive and deadly war on Iran with no end in sight and attacking social programs at home, from Medicaid to nutrition assistance.
“With private credit markets cratering, AI transforming the workforce, and Trump’s Iran war threatening the world economy, we need healthy, resilient, well-capitalized banks," said Bartlett Naylor, an economist for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "Lessons learned after millions lost their jobs, homes, and savings following the 2008 megabank crash must not be ignored."
"Trump’s bank regulators propose to tear at the already tissue-thin layer of solvency levels at the nation’s banks," said Naylor. "Lowering solvency standards won’t generate more loans; it will only send banks closer to failure."
Matt Stoller, an anti-monopoly researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, wrote that the juxtaposition of a quagmire in Iran, Wall Street deregulation, and millions of Americans losing health insurance "tells the story" of the Trump administration.
Today's WSJ front page tells the story of the Trump admin.
#1: Hegseth Says ‘No Time Set’ on Ending Operations in Iran
#2: U.S. Regulators Propose More Lenient Capital Rules for Big Banks
#3: Millions of Americans Are Going Uninsured Following Expiration of ACA Subsidies pic.twitter.com/26jKsQuNc4
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) March 19, 2026
The effort to curb banks' capital requirements was spearheaded by Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, a Trump appointee whose nomination last year was criticized by watchdogs as a "gift to the banking industry."
Kelleher of Better Markets said Thursday that "such counterproductive, shortsighted, and wrongheaded rulemaking isn’t a surprise given that the interests of Wall Street’s biggest banks are driving the priorities at the banking agencies, rather than facts, merit, and the public interest."
"The worst is at the Federal Reserve, where the senior regulatory staff comes from Wall Street’s top DC lobbyist (the Bank Policy Institute), Goldman Sachs, and one of Wall Street’s top law firms (a former partner is now the director responsible for supervising and regulating his recent Wall Street clients)," Kelleher observed. "That’s why mindless deregulation, especially for the biggest Wall Street banks, is at the top of the agenda, just as it was in the years before the 2008 crash."
"Mullin’s long list of conflicts of interest even as he seeks this next level of public office is reprehensible."
Government watchdog Public Citizen on Thursday slammed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for voting to advance the nomination of Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin to be the next US homeland security secretary.
Shortly after the committee delivered an 8-to-7 vote to advance Mullin's (R-Okla.) nomination out of committee, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert described the move as "simply inappropriate."
"It is inappropriate because of his self-enrichment," Gilbert said. "Mullin’s long list of conflicts of interest even as he seeks this next level of public office is reprehensible."
The New York Times reported on Sunday that Mullin has grown significantly wealthier throughout his tenure first as a US congressman then as a US senator, in part because he is "one of the most prolific stock buyers in Congress."
According to financial disclosure forms cited by the Times, Mullin's net worth in 2024 was between $29 million and $97 million, a massive jump from the estimated net worth of $2.8 million to $9 million he reported in 2012.
In addition to citing Mullin's self-enrichment during his political career, Gilbert decried the senator's past statements defending actions taken by federal immigration enforcement officials, including the fatal shootings of Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
"It is inappropriate because Mullin has consistently defended ICE agents involved in fatal shootings," said Gilbert, "and justified the use of lethal force in enforcement operations, rather than calling for accountability or reform of use-of-force policies. It is inappropriate because he treats protest against ICE operations as a prosecutable offense rather than a legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights and an expression of community concern."
While Mullin on Wednesday walked back his past attack on Pretty as "deranged," he stood by his claim that the shooting of Good was entirely justified.
Mullin's nomination advanced to the Senate floor after Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) broke with his party, canceling out the "no" vote on the committee delivered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who got into an angry spat with Mullin on Wednesday over past comments the Oklahoma Republican made justifying a 2017 assault on his colleague from Kentucky.
In a social media post defending his vote to advance Mullin, Fetterman argued that "we need a leader" at the US Department of Homeland Security and said his vote in favor of the nomination was "rooted in a strong committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation’s security."
A majority of those polled in a new Data for Progress survey also said that the war "is not worth the risk."
As President Donald Trump says he's "not afraid" of a Vietnam-style invasion of Iran and is reportedly considering sending thousands more US troops to the Middle East, polling published Thursday reveals that most American voters strongly oppose boots on the ground in a war a majority believe isn't worth it.
Just over two-thirds—68%—of respondents to the Data for Progress survey said they oppose deploying US ground troops to Iran, while just 26% support such action. Among Democratic respondents, 86% were against a ground invasion, which is also opposed by 71% of Independents. Republicans were split, with 48% supporting and 48% opposing sending troops into Iran.
Slightly more than half (52%) of those polled said they agree with the statement "going to war with Iran is not worth the risk because it will cost billions of dollars and result in the deaths of civilians and more American service members," 13 of whom have been killed during a war whose globally defining moment thus far has been the massacre of around 175 children and staff at a girls' school bombed by the US.
Among Democrats, 77% of survey respondents said the war isn't worth it. Conversely, 64% of Republicans said the war on Iran is worthwhile.
NEW: A strong majority of voters (68%) would oppose the U.S. putting boots on the ground in Iran.This includes 85% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and about half of Republicans.
[image or embed]
— Data for Progress (@dataforprogress.org) March 19, 2026 at 8:38 AM
The Data for Progress survey follows Wednesday's publication of a Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft poll revealing that nearly 8 in 10 people who voted for Trump in 2024—when he campaigned heavily on a "no new wars" platform—want a swift end to the war on Iran.
Nearly three weeks into the US-Israeli war that Trump said was "won" more than a week ago, Iran remains undefeated, launching missiles and drones at targets throughout the Middle East, paralyzing international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and demonstrating continuity of government as Israel assassinates one of its leaders after another.
As the war grinds on with no clear objective or exit strategy, the Pentagon is reportedly seeking more money and more troops for the fight. Democratic senators have warned that the US is "on a path" to a land invasion of Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly approved the deployment of more warships and thousands of Marines to the region.
Asked Wednesday by a reporter if he is afraid of "another Vietnam"—where more than 58,000 US troops and around 50 times as many Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians were killed over two decades—Trump replied, "I'm really not afraid of anything."
The Pentagon is now reportedly asking Congress to authorize another $200 billion for a war that's already costing taxpayers around a billion dollars a day.
This, as American workers and families struggle to make ends meet as the price of gas and other consumer goods spike amid an expensive betrayal of Trump's campaign promise to "make America affordable again."