

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.

Bill Snape, (202) 536-9351
As the worst environmental disaster in
U.S. history devastates the Gulf of Mexico, clarifying the urgent need
for bold,
effective climate legislation, a new Center for Biological Diversity
analysis of
the American Power Act demonstrates the bill's gross inadequacies.
The Center's analysis shows that the
domestic
greenhouse gas emissions allowed under the bill could lead to global
greenhouse
gas concentrations of 650 parts per million (ppm). At these
concentrations,
global mean temperatures would almost certainly rise 2degC (3.6degF) over
preindustrial levels. There is also an 80-percent chance that the
increase
would exceed 3degC (5.4degF), and a 40-percent chance that the
increase would
exceed 4degC (7.2degF), according to leading scientists. Even a 2degC
increase
could cause the displacement of millions due to sea-level rise,
irreversible
loss of entire ecosystems, and the triggering of multiple climactic
"tipping
points" that would result in additional, accelerated warming.
"The decisions we make today will
determine the
health and livability of the planet for generations to come," said Bill
Snape,
senior counsel at the Center. "Policymakers need to acknowledge the
great danger
from proposals like the American Power Act, which simply do not provide
the
pollution reductions that scientists warn are needed to tackle this
crisis. The
hard truth is that the bill would leave our children and grandchildren
to deal
with what can only be called climate catastrophe."
To limit future warming to 2degC, developed
countries
like the United States must make firm commitments to reduce their
emissions by
25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels within the next decade. Even assuming
successful implementation of the bill's programs -- an unlikely scenario
given
its many loopholes -- the Act would likely reduce emissions by less than 1
percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
The Act would also offer a smorgasbord of
subsidies,
regulatory streamlining provisions, and other incentives for expanded
offshore
oil exploration, nuclear power, and continued reliance on coal-fired
electricity
generation.
Making matters worse, the climate bill
also
devastates proven, effective programs under the federal Clean Air Act
that could
be used to achieve the immediate and long-lasting emissions reductions
that are
needed. It removes EPA's ability to set a national pollutant cap for
greenhouse
gases, permanently removes the agency's ability to set greenhouse
standards for
major polluters like oil refineries and cement plants, and prohibits the
regulation of important greenhouse gases like methane from sources such
as coal
mines until at least 2020.
"Passing a climate bill with inadequate
greenhouse
gas reduction goals is bad enough, but adding subsidies for offshore oil
drilling and other fossil fuels to the mix while gutting successful
existing
laws that can get the job done is downright crazy," said Snape.
The Center's longer analysis of the
American Power
Act is available here.
The Center's short summary of key
provisions of the
bill is available here.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252“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."