

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.

A survey of more than 350 bank branches released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group revealed that fewer than half of branches obeyed their legal duty to fully disclose fees to prospective customers, while one in four provided no fee information at all.
The report, Big Banks, Bigger Fees: A National Survey of Bank Fees and Fee Disclosure Policies, which includes a bank fee tips guide for consumers, also found that despite widespread stories about the "death" of free checking, free and low-cost checking choices are still widely available, if consumers shop around.
"Shopping for banks is harder when banks fail to obey the law and provide up front information about the fees they charge," said Ed Mierzwinski, U.S. PIRG Consumer Program Director and report author. "We look forward to July 21, when the CFPB, the new consumer cop with only one job, protecting consumers, steps onto the financial beat and starts keeping the banks honest about their fees."
Surveyors visited 392 bank branches in 21 states to compare fees and determine whether banks were complying with the 1991 Truth In Savings Act, which requires disclosure of all account-related fees to prospective customers. In 2008, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report finding that researchers "could not obtain" complete fee schedules at 22% of branches visited. Three years later that number is virtually the same, according to the new U.S. PIRG report.
"The Truth In Savings Act is a simple law that is supposed to help consumers shop around," said Mierzwinski. "But banks would rather hide the truth from consumers than give them better information to help the market work. What do the banks have to hide?"
Among the findings of Big Banks, Bigger Fees:
* Only 38% of banks visited provided researchers with fee schedules as required by law on their first request. After two or more requests, eventually a total of 55% complied with the law.
* In a finding nearly identical to the GAO report, nearly one-quarter of branches (23%) never complied and refused to provide fee information, claimed that they didn't have it, or told researchers to "go online."
* Researchers found a wide variety of free or low-cost checking options, at more than half of branches surveyed. Although the biggest banks have recently tightened requirements to obtain free checking, they have not eliminated it.
The shopping guide included in the report compares banking options, directs consumers to free and low-cost checking choices, and provides a list of fees that consumers should look out for when picking a bank. The group urged consumers to vote with their feet when they find that bank fees are too high.
"Big banks are blaming regulation for doing what they always do, which is raise fees," said Mierzwinski, "But free checking is still there for consumers who look for it and there are lots of ways to avoid high bank fees."
U.S. PIRG also made a series of recommendations to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which takes over most consumer law writing and enforcement on July 21. It called on the CFPB to enforce the Truth In Savings Act, and to require banks to post fees on the web in searchable formats and make fee disclosures in a clear, tabular format - not buried in cumbersome multi-page brochures.
"Banks will continue to ignore the Truth In Savings Act and other consumer laws until the CFPB takes over in July, " concluded Mierzwinski. "But the banks don't want consumers to have their own tough cop. That's why they've launched a relentless Congressional campaign to weaken the CFPB, deny it a strong director and delay its startup date, because the banks like it better when there are no cops on the beat."
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
"Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill," implored Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
ExxonMobil's CEO told President Donald Trump during a Friday meeting that Venezuela is currently "uninvestible" following the US invasion and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, underscoring fears that American taxpayers will be left footing the bill for the administration's goal of exploiting the South American nation's vast petroleum resources.
Trump had hoped to convince executives from around two dozen oil companies to invest in Venezuela after the president claimed US firms pledged to spend at least $100 billion in the country. However, Trump got a reality check during Friday's White House meeting, as at least one Big Oil CEO balked at committing financial and other resources in an uncertain political, legal, and security environment.
“If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Trump during the meeting. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.”
Exxon CEO: If you look at the commercial constructs, frameworks in place in Venezuela today, it's uninvestable. Significant changes have to be made to these frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections and change to the hydrocarbon laws. pic.twitter.com/vpdH6ftfzm
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 9, 2026
There is also skepticism regarding Trump's promise of "total safety" for investors in Venezuela amid deadly US military aggression and regime change.
However, many of the executives—who stand to make billions of dollars from the invasion—told Trump that they remain eager to eventually reap the rewards of any potential US takeover of Venezuela's vast oil resources.
The oil executives' apparent aversion to immediate investment in Venezuela—and Trump's own admission that the American people might end up reimbursing Big Oil for its efforts—prompted backlash from taxpayer advocates.
"Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media Friday. "And oil execs should commit now: no taxpayer subsidies, no special favors from the White House."
Sam Ratner, policy director at the group Win Without War, said Wednesday that "already today, Trump was saying that US taxpayers should front the money to rebuild Venezuelan oil infrastructure, all while oil companies keep the proceeds from the oil."
"This is not just a war for oil, but a war for oil executives," Ratner added.
Noting that "Big Oil spent nearly $100 million to get Trump elected in 2024," former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich—who served during the Clinton administration—described Friday's meeting as "returning the favor" and "oligarchy in action."
According to an analysis by the advocacy group Climate Power, fossil fuel industry interests spent nearly $450 million during the 2024 election cycle in support of Trump and other Republican candidates and initiatives.
Trump shows you his priorities–Big Oil companies.“Running” Venezuela is all about enriching his donors.The American people are done fighting foreign wars to pad the pockets of oil executives.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Jason Crow (@crow.house.gov) January 9, 2026 at 12:35 PM
Reich and others also noted that Trump informed oil executives about the Venezuelan invasion even before he notified members of Congress.
"That tells you everything you need to know: It was never about 'narcoterrorism' and always about oil," Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) said on Bluesky.
The legal watchdog Democracy Forward this week filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding information about any possible Trump administration collusion with Big Oil in the lead-up to the Venezuela invasion.
Other observers shot down assertions by Trump and members of his administration that the attack on Venezuela and Maduro's ouster are ultimately about restoring democracy.
"Want to know who’s meeting with Trump this morning about Venezuela’s future?" Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) asked on X.
"Not pro-democracy leaders," she said. "Oil and gas executives."
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
The killing of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis this week came as Republicans in Congress were planning to bring a homeland security spending bill to the House floor, deciding on whether the agency that's surged thousands of armed agents into communities across the country should have increased funding—and progressive lawmakers are demanding that the Democrats use the upcoming government funding deadline to hopefully reduce the department's ability to wreak further havoc.
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told CNN Thursday. "I know we can’t fix everything in the appropriations bill but we should be looking at ways we can put some commonsense limitations on their ability to bring violence to our cities."
But the top Democratic leaders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) both appeared to have little interest in discussing how their party can use the appropriations process as leverage to rein in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that have taken part in President Donald Trump's mass deportation operation.
Both Schumer and Jeffries sharply criticized Wednesday's shooting and the Trump administration's insistence that, contrary to mounting video evidence, the ICE agent who shot Good was acting in self-defense.
But Jeffries said Thursday that he was focused on passing other appropriations bills that were ultimately approved by the House.
“We’ll figure out the accountability mechanisms at the appropriate time," Jeffries told reporters.
With Congress facing a January 30 deadline for approving government spending packages—and with public disapproval of ICE at an all-time high—several lawmakers have said this week that right now is the "appropriate time" to rein in the agency in any way the Democrats can.
"Statements and letters are not enough, and the appropriations process and the [continuing resolution] expiring January 31 is our opportunity," Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios.
Schumer also refused to say whether the Democrats would use the appropriations process as leverage to cut funding to ICE, whose budget is set to balloon to $170 billion following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year. Republicans will need Democratic support to pass a spending bill in the Senate, where 60 votes are required.
The Senate leader said only that he has "lots of problems with ICE" when asked whether he would support abolishing the agency—a proposal whose support has gone by 20 percentage points among voters in just one year, according to a recent survey. Both leaders also would not commit to slashing the homeland security budget should the Democrats win back majorities in Congress this year.
"It’s hard to be an opposition party when you refuse to oppose the blatantly illegal and immoral things being done by the opposition," said Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health.
Sharing a clip of Jeffries' remarks to reporters about the agency's funding, historian Moshik Temkin said that "people need to understand that at its core ICE is a bipartisan project, increasingly funded and normalized over multiple Democratic administrations and congressional majorities, and a few of them (not this guy) are starting to realize how foolish, weak, and misguided they were."
Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are among the progressive lawmakers calling on the Democrats to demand reduced funding for ICE—even if it means another government shutdown months after the longest one in US history late last year, which began when the Democrats refused to join the GOP in passing a spending bill that would have allowed Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire. Ultimately, some Senate Democrats caved, and the subsidies lapsed.
"We can't just keep authorizing money for these illegal killers," Jayapal told Axios. "That's what they are, this rogue force."
Ocasio-Cortez told the Independent that Democrats should "absolutely" push to cut funding.
“This Congress, this Republican Congress, while they cut a trillion dollars to Americans’ healthcare, and they exploded the ICE budget to $170 billion making it one of the largest paramilitary forces in the United States with zero accountability as they shoot US citizens in the head—absolutely,” she said.
On the podcast The Majority Report, Emma Vigeland and Sam Seder called on progressive Democrats to demand Schumer's ouster in light of his refusal to take action to rein in ICE as its violence in American communities escalates.
It's time for Democrats to oust Chuck Schumer from leadership pic.twitter.com/ByWMJ495zb
— Majority Report (@majorityfm) January 9, 2026
"Change the news cycle and show that you'll be an opposition party," said Vigeland. "Call for his ouster."
Seder added that Schumer "has the ability to wage a fight to prevent the funding of DHS. He has the ability to do that and he doesn't want it. He's running away from any leverage he has, deliberately."
One expert asserted that the House vote to subpoena Seth Harp "is clearly designed to chill and intimidate" journalists from reporting on government policies and practices.
Free press defenders voiced alarm and outrage following Wednesday's vote by a congressional committee to subpoena a journalist wrongly accused of "leaking classified intel" and "doxing" a US special forces commander involved in President Donald Trump's invasion of Venezuela and abduction of the South American nation's president and his wife.
Seth Harp is an investigative journalist, New York Times bestselling author, and Iraq war veteran whose work focuses on links between the US military and organized crime. On January 4—the day after the US bombed and invaded Venezuela and kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—Harp posted on X the name and photo of a commander in Delta Force, which played a key role in the attack.
Experts noted that Harp did not break any laws, with Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern pointing out that "reporters have a constitutional right to publish even classified leaks as long as they don’t commit crimes to obtain them."
“Harp merely published information that was publicly available about someone at the center of the world’s biggest news story," he added.
However, the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday approved in a voice vote a motion introduced the previous day by Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) to subpoena Harper. Democrats on the committee backed the measure after Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) added an amendment to also subpoena co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, according to the Washington Post.
Responding to the committee vote, Harp told the Post:
The idea of a reporter "leaking classified intel" is a contradiction in terms. The First Amendment and ironclad Supreme Court precedent permit journalists to publish classified documents. We don’t work for the government and it’s our job to expose secrets, not protect them for the convenience of high-ranking officials. It’s not “doxing" to point out which high-ranking military officials are involved in breaking news events. That’s information that the public has a right to know.
Harp also took to social media to underscore that he's not the only journalist being targeted with dubious "doxing" claims.
The House lawmakers' vote drew widespread condemnation from press freedom advocates.
“Luna’s subpoena of investigative reporter Seth Harp is clearly designed to chill and intimidate a journalist doing some of the most significant investigative reporting on US special forces," Defending Rights & Dissent policy director Chip Gibbons said in a statement.
"Harp did not share classified information about the US regime change operation in Venezuela. And even if he had, his actions would firmly be protected by the First Amendment," Gibbons added. "This is a dangerous assault on the press freedom, as well as the US people’s right to know. It is shameful it passed the committee.”
PEN America Journalism and Disinformation program director Tim Richardson said Thursday that “any attempt to haul an investigative reporter before Congress for doing their job reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a free press."
"Seth Harp is an independent journalist, not a government official, and therefore cannot be accused of ‘leaking’ classified information in the way those entrusted with such material can," Richardson added. "The information at issue was publicly available, not secret or unlawfully obtained."
In a bid to protect reporters and their sources, House lawmakers in 2024 unanimously passed the PRESS Act, legislation prohibiting the federal government from compelling journalists and telecommunications companies to disclose certain information, with exceptions for imminent violence or terrorism. However, under pressure from Trump, the Senate declined to vote on the proposal.
"The bill died after Trump ordered the Senate to kill it on Truth Social," said Stern. "Apparently, so did the principles of Reps. Luna, Garcia, and their colleagues.”