

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.

Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
A special top-level government group to address the perils that climate change poses to Alaskan communities stopped meeting three years ago, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Also abandoned was an "Immediate Action" plan from 2009 to better shield communities most at-risk from sea-level rise and other climate-related changes.
Before she was picked as John McCain's running mate, Governor Sarah Palin expressed concern that "Alaska's climate is warming" with many coastal communities facing the brunt of unprecedented threats.
In 2007, she appointed the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet that began work on implementing a strategic plan for the state. In March 2009, an "Immediate Action Work Group" issued a detailed report to the Sub-Cabinet outlining actions needed to cushion the state's most endangered communities.
But after Palin resigned, her successor, Gov. Sean Parnell, a former ConocoPhillips executive, focused instead on more oil development, and the Climate Sub-Cabinet was quietly shut down. In November 2012, Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska professor and PEER Board member, started pursuing public record requests on what happened to the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet and its recommendations.
"Alaska is the state most vulnerable to climate change, and its disastrous effects are here now, and growing worse every year," Steiner said. "Convening the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet was the singular environmental achievement of Governor Palin, and now even that has been terminated by her successor, Governor Parnell. Ironically, Alaska's present oil and gas production contributes to the global warming that threatens Alaska's future. We can't simply ignore this threat, hoping it will go away - it won't."
In a response to Steiner dated February 1, 2013, the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) finally admitted that the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet last met three years ago in February 2010. The DEC defensively maintained that some climate-related work continued until later in 2010, but withheld all three records documenting that work. DEC also maintained that the incongruously named "Immediate Action Work Group" continued some activity early into 2011 when it, too, lapsed into oblivion.
As a result of the Parnell administration's disinterest in climate change, detailed planning for more than 100 at-risk Alaskan communities and ecosystems seems to be in limbo. On issues ranging from village relocation, to growing wildfire vulnerability and high erosion and flooding dangers, to sea ice loss, to impacts to infrastructure (ironically, including the Alaska pipeline), the state has abandoned a pro-active posture.
"Regardless of the causes, it is hard to deny the increasingly dramatic effects of climate change, especially in the Arctic region," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that Sarah Palin's views on climate change have tilted rightward since 2008, migrating into the "climate denier" camp. "Alaska cannot afford to keep buried its head in the melting permafrost."
PEER protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. We work with current and former federal, state, local, and tribal employees.
Brown University, the University of Southern California, and the University of Pennsylvania—the president's alma mater—all rejected the proposal.
Three more leading US universities have joined the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in rejecting President Donald Trump's compact that critics have condemned as an "extortion agreement" and "loyalty oath" for federal funding.
Brown University's Wednesday decision and Thursday announcements from the University of Southern California and the University of Pennsylvania came ahead of the Trump administration's October 20 deadline for the nine initially invited schools to respond to the "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education."
Although the University of Texas said it was "honored" to receive the offer, it has not officially signed on to the compact to receive priority access to federal funding and other "benefits." Neither has any of the other institutions: the University of Arizona, Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia.
Bloomberg reported Monday that "a few days after MIT rebuffed the proposal, the administration extended the offering to all higher education institutions," citing an unnamed person familiar with the matter.
Brown's president, Christina Paxson, released her full letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other Trump officials on Wednesday. She pointed out that "on July 30, Brown signed a voluntary resolution agreement with the government that advances a number of the high-level principles articulated in the compact, while maintaining core tenets of academic freedom and self-governance that have sustained the excellence of American higher education across generations."
"While a number of provisions in the compact reflect similar principles as the July agreement—as well as our own commitments to affordability and the free exchange of ideas—I am concerned that the compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown's governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission," Paxson wrote. "While we value our long-held and well-regarded partnership with the federal government, Brown is respectfully declining to join the compact."
Penn, also part of the Ivy League, rejected the compact on Thursday. In a statement, its president, Dr. J. Larry Jameson, said that "for 285 years, Penn has been anchored and guided by continuous self-improvement, using education as a ladder for opportunity, and advancing discoveries that serve our community, our nation, and the world."
"I have sought input from faculty, alumni, trustees, students, staff, and others who care deeply about Penn," with the goal of ensuring that "our response reflected our values and the perspectives of our broad community," Jameson detailed. "Penn respectfully declines to sign the proposed compact," and provided the US Department of Education with "focused feedback highlighting areas of existing alignment as well as substantive concerns."
"At Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability," he added. "The long-standing partnership between American higher education and the federal government has greatly benefited society and our nation. Shared goals and investment in talent and ideas will turn possibility into progress."
As The Daily Pennsylvanian, the campus newspaper, noted:
At a Wednesday meeting, Penn's Faculty Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution urging the University to reject the agreement.
"The 'compact’ erodes the foundation on which higher education in the United States is built," the October 15 resolution read. "The University of Pennsylvania Faculty Senate urges President Jameson and the Board of Trustees to reject it and any other proposal that similarly threatens our mission and values."
Penn is the alma mater of Trump and Marc Rowan, a billionaire private equity financier who helped craft the compact.
The Trump White House told the student newspaper that "any higher education institution unwilling to assume accountability and confront these overdue and necessary reforms will find itself without future government and taxpayers' support."
Despite the risk of funding loss, the University of Southern California also rejected the proposal on Thursday. In a statement to the campus paper, the Daily Trojan, interim president Beong-Soo Kim said that "although USC has declined to join the proposed compact, we look forward to contributing our perspectives, insights, and Trojan values to an important national conversation about the future of higher education."
Critics of the compact have called on educational leaders to oppose it. In a joint statement earlier this month, American Association of University Professors president Todd Wolfson and American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten urged "all college and university governing boards, campus administrations, academic disciplinary organizations, and higher education trade groups to reject such collusion with the Trump administration and to stand firmly on the side of free expression and higher education as the anchor of opportunity for all."
Acquiescing, they argued, "would be a profound betrayal of your students, staff, faculty, the public, higher education, and our shared democracy—one that would irretrievably tarnish your personal reputation and compromise your institution's legacy. We urge you not to capitulate and not to negotiate but to unite now in defense of democracy and higher education."
"AIPAC's brand is increasingly, perhaps irredeemably toxic," wrote one observer.
A centrist Democratic lawmaker on Thursday surprised many political observers when he announced he would be returning donations he'd received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running a primary challenge against Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), said that he was rejecting donations from AIPAC because it had aligned itself too closely with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who last year was accused of committing crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.
"I'm a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC's mission is to back that government," Moulton said in a social media post. "I don't support that direction."
As flagged by New York Times reporter Annie Karni, Moulton is now the fourth Democratic lawmaker who once received heavy support from AIPAC to reject their donations, following Reps. Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.), Deborah Ross (D-NC), and Valerie Foushee (D-NC).
Hamid Bendaas, communications director for the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, observed in a post on X that Moulton appeared to be ignoring advice given by a prominent Democratic consultant over the summer to not focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict because polls showed it wasn't important to voters.
Dylan Williams, the vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, argued that Moulton's rejection of AIPAC cash showed how far the organization's reputation with the electorate has fallen over the past several years.
"AIPAC is now so toxic to Democratic voters that support from it is widely seen as a political liability," he wrote. "The NRA-ization of AIPAC is nearly complete."
Ishaan Tharoor, a Washington Post global affairs columnist, also reflected on how much AIPAC's brand has been damaged over the last two years of war in Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 68,000 Palestinians.
"There was a time when people would refer to AIPAC as the gold standard in lobbying," he wrote. "So many in India and the Indian diaspora have talked about a future 'Indian AIPAC' one day influencing US politics in similar fashion. But AIPAC's brand is increasingly, perhaps irredeemably toxic."
Journalist Ryan Grim had a one-word reaction to Moulton's rejection of AIPAC cash: "Wow."
"I might die if I stop going to the doctor," said one Tennessee resident whose premiums jumped from $10 to $1,140 a month.
More than 20 million Americans are expected to see their health insurance premiums more than double next year after Republicans refused to extend a tax credit for those who purchase health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
And as the GOP remains firm in its stance that it will not vote to extend the credits in order to end the government shutdown entering its third week and the open enrollment period for ACA insurance fast approaching, Americans in some states are already getting a glimpse into how the price of their insurance will skyrocket in 2026.
On Wednesday, ACA health insurance marketplaces in six states—California, Maine, Minnesota, Vermont, Oregon, and Kentucky—launched "window shopping" tools that allow residents to compare their current insurance premiums with the ones they can expect to pay next year.
Across each of these states, the advocacy group Protect Our Care found plans that are expected to increase dramatically, sometimes to prices several times higher than they were this year.
“There is no longer any doubt about the healthcare disaster Republicans have created,” said the group's chair, Leslie Dach. “Working families can now log onto a computer and see the Republican healthcare betrayal right before their eyes."
Middle-income Americans who are older, but not yet old enough to receive Medicare, are expected to see the steepest increases in their premiums, according to KFF. When Protect Our Care looked at plans for 60-year-old couples making $85,000 a year, the group found staggering results in each state.
In Clay County, Kentucky, the group found that a Clear Silver plan, which charges that couple a premium of $559 per month this year, will cost $2,736—nearly five times that amount—next year after subsidies expire.

In Mission Viejo, California, premiums for the same couple's Anthem Blue Cross Silver plan would more than quadruple, from $516 per month this year to $2,188 next year.
The same is true in Medford, Oregon, where a Moda Health Silver plan would increase from $622 this year to $2,644.
In Burlington, Vermont, an MVP Silver plan that costs $602 per month this year will spike to $2,577.
While these are particularly egregious examples, KFF estimated earlier this month that the average ACA recipient will see their premiums increase by 114% next year, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects will result in more than 4 million people becoming unable to afford health insurance.
State-level estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that across the states that have opened window shopping, costs for many families were doubling, tripling, or worse.
Residents across the country are beginning to grapple with the extraordinary rise in costs they are about to face.
In Tennessee, where more than half a million people pay lower premiums due to the ACA subsidies, a 62-year-old Chattanooga resident, Cheri Roberts, told the Chattanooga Times Free Press that if they are allowed to expire, her current $10 a month premium will explode to $1,140 next year.
"I just had no idea," Roberts said about the expiring tax credits, adding that she sees eight different specialists for varying health issues and has multiple surgeries planned. "I'm not trying to exaggerate, but I might die if I stop going to the doctor."
Julia Tilley, a resident of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, told PennLive/The Patriot-News that she fears her premiums will soar as Pennsylvania's insurance department predicts a premium increase of 102% on average for its 530,000 ACA recipients.
Though she says she has not yet received a letter from her insurer, Tilley said one of her friends was told their family's premiums were ballooning from $100 to $1,800 a month.
“There’s really no way to prepare for it,” Tilley said. “I mean, how do you suddenly come up with $15,000 more a year? My husband can’t work more because he has a head injury."
Tilley says she already works full-time taking care of her adult daughter, who has autism. "It’s not like I can go get another job," she says. "So we’re stuck.”
She says she has tried on multiple occasions to reach out to her Republican congressman, Rep. Scott Perry, but has not heard back.
According to KFF, 57% of ACA recipients live in congressional districts represented by Republicans, and polls by the organization have suggested that failure to extend the subsidies may hurt their electoral chances.
A poll from early October found that 78% of adults say that Congress should extend the subsidies, including the vast majority of Democrats and independents and even 57% of self-identified "MAGA" Republicans. If the subsidies are not extended, 39% who support extending them have said they'd blame US President Donald Trump, while another 37% say they'd blame Republicans in Congress. Just 22% say they'd blame Democrats.
"Virtually all marketplace enrollees—across states, ages, family sizes, and income levels—will see big premium increases," said Gideon Lukens, a senior fellow and director of health policy research for CBPP. "These are real people facing real consequences if Congress doesn’t act to extend the enhancements as soon as possible."