

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.
The April edition of the monthly public radio program America Abroad, "Global Energy and Innovations," sounded like an infomercial for the natural gas "fracking" industry. Which, in essence, is what it was.
The show, which is distributed by Public Radio International (PRI), began with host Madeleine Brand declaring:
Thanks to a breakthrough in the technology known as "fracking," the hydraulic fracturing of rock, the United States is enjoying a boom in cheap natural gas.
She went to say that "supporters argue that the new technology not only brings new jobs but also provides cleaner energy than coal."
And what do fracking opponents say? That's unclear; the counterpoint to fracking's boosters--"natural gas will do everything we want it to do," as one soundbite put it--is the observation that "some experts" think that cheap gas means "there's less incentive to develop clean, renewable energy."
The tilt in the episode isn't that surprising, considering who was paying for it. The show was underwritten by the Qatar Foundation International, controlled by the ruling family of the oil-rich nation, and the Stuart Family Foundation, funders of an array of conservative think tanks and advocacy groups.
Qatar's oil company, QPI, is a world leader in exporting liquefied natural gas (Bloomberg, 12/13/10) and partners with Chevron in "export-oriented LNG facilities." QPI just invested $1 billion in Canadian natural gas fields, whose fracking-extracted products would be primarily marketed to North American consumers. And QPI recently signed a major deal with ExxonMobil to construct a $10 billion natural gas export terminal in Texas (Bloomberg, 5/9/13).
Are you surprised to learn that ExxonMobil and Chevron are both among America Abroad's general funders?
The show's lead interview was with MIT professor Henry Jacoby, co-chair of an MIT Energy Initiative study titled "The Future of Natural Gas." Jacoby heralds fracking as a clean technology, discounts renewable energies as currently unrealistic and supports the U.S. market switch to exporting liquefied natural gas.
The segment doesn't reveal that the MIT Energy Initiative's governing board and founders include executives from major gas and oil corporations such as Chevron, BP, Shell and Saudi Aramco. Multiple members of the research team were also working for oil and gas companies during the project (Public Accountability Initiative, 3/13).
One of the main messages of the program is that fracking can be a "bridge to the future," a fossil fuel to exploit until renewables are finally ready to be widely used. As Brand put it, several high-profile solar industry failures "came at the same time fracking technology was fueling a boom in American natural gas production."
The show also tapped former Shell CEO John Hofmeister, who now runs a group called Citizens for Affordable Energy, to send the same message: Sure, clean energy would be great, "but in the meantime, the most affordable are clearly the traditional hydrocarbons, as well as nuclear, as well as hydropower. I'm talking about oil, natural gas and coal."
And it was especially revealing to see how the show engaged criticism of fracking. "The controversy over fracking," Brand commented, "as well as concerns about climate change, in part, led to a renewed and invigorated interest in all things green in political circles." That led to a mention of Al Gore's climate activism--but only to make the point that this "politicized the issue of climate change and, by extension, the renewable energy industry to the point where it harmed that industry's ability to connect with Republicans in certain states."
America Abroad should have done a better job of balancing the guest list of this program to include more critical voices. But that would have meant directly challenging the business interests of the show's funders.
ACTION:
Ask America Abroad ombud Jeffrey Dvorkin to investigate the show's report on fracking and the multiple conflicts of interest of the show's funding.
CONTACT: America Abroad Media
Ombudsman
Jeffrey Dvorkin
ombudsman@americaabroadmedia.org
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
"We must also investigate the continued breaking of the law around the DOJ still hiding Epstein files from the public," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Pam Bondi may no longer be US attorney general, but that doesn't get her out of previously scheduled testimony before the House Oversight Committee about her handling of criminal case files related to late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), in a Thursday social media message posted shortly after Bondi's termination, warned the one-time AG that being fired by President Donald Trump "still doesn’t get her out of testifying to Congress about Epstein."
"We must also investigate the continued breaking of the law around the DOJ STILL hiding Epstein files from the public," Ocasio-Cortez added. "This isn’t over."
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement that Bondi "will not escape accountability and remains legally obligated to appear before our Committee under oath" on the scheduled date of April 14.
"Oversight Democrats have been leading serious investigations into Bondi and Secretary Kristi Noem," Garcia added. "If they think we are moving on because they were fired, they are gravely mistaken."
The calls for Bondi to follow through with her planned testimony aren't only coming from Democrats, as Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) told CNN on Friday that she has no plans to back off her demands that the former AG speak under oath later this month.
"When I issued this subpoena that was voted on by the Oversight Committee a number of weeks ago, we did it by name and not by the title of the attorney general," said Mace. "So she's still compelled and required by law to come before the Oversight Committee, and at this juncture I'm not backing away from that or backing down from that. I do believe that handling of the Epstein files was done in a very poor manner."
Rep. Nancy Mace: "The subpoena is by name and not by the title of the attorney general, so she's compelled and required by law to come before the Oversight Committee, and at this juncture I'm not backing away from that" pic.twitter.com/UULq6e9Q4m
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 3, 2026
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, also cited Bondi's handling of the Epstein files as a permanent and emblematic stain on her legacy as the nation's top law enforcement officer.
"[Bondi] ran an historic and egregious cover-up right out of the Justice Department," Raskin said. "Investigations into co-conspirators were shut down. She withheld three million pages of documents in defiance of the law. The names of abusers, enablers, accomplices and co-conspirators were redacted from public view while the identities of victims were exposed to the world. Under Bondi, perpetrators were coddled and survivors given the back of the hand."
In addition to her handling of the Epstein files, which earned bipartisan criticism, Bondi also ceded to President Donald Trump's demands to file criminal charges against political enemies including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Leticia James.
Both of those cases were tossed last year by a federal judge who found that Trump's handpicked US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was illegally installed in the position.
"The truth is, there are not enough factories, or skilled workers, or materials to effectively spend such a huge increase," said one expert. "It will be a recipe for waste, fraud, and abuse."
The budget document that President Donald Trump's White House is set to release Friday calls for $1.5 trillion in military spending for the coming fiscal year, an unprecedented sum that—if approved by Congress—would add nearly $7 trillion to the US national debt over the next decade.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, which got an early look at the president's fiscal year 2027 budget, reported that the plan includes roughly $1.15 trillion in baseline US military spending as well as $350 billion in supplemental funding "that Republicans could pass in a party-line budget reconciliation bill." The Journal doesn't specify the purpose of the proposed supplemental funding, but the Pentagon has asked Congress for at least $200 billion for the Iran war.
The budget, which would boost total US military spending by more than 40% compared to the current fiscal year, also reportedly calls for investments in Trump's so-called Golden Dome missile defense system, a project that critics have derided as an absurd boondoggle.
Earlier this week, Trump suggested the US federal government can't afford to fund childcare and other domestic social programs because it is "fighting wars."
William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in an analysis of the budget proposal ahead of its official release that "whatever vehicles the administration chooses to promote this huge increase, it will be doubling down on a failed budgetary and national security strategy."
"If passed as requested, $1.5 trillion in Pentagon spending—in a single year–will make America weaker by underwriting a misguided strategy, funding outmoded weapons programs, and crowding out other essential public investments," Hartung argued. "The Pentagon doesn’t need more spending, it needs more spending discipline. Spending billions of dollars on a Golden Dome system that can never achieve the President’s dream of a leak-proof missile defense system is sheer waste, as is continuing to lavish funds on overpriced, underperforming combat aircraft like the F-35, or multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers that are vulnerable to modern high-speed missiles."
"The truth is, there are not enough factories, or skilled workers, or materials to effectively spend such a huge increase," he added. "It will be a recipe for waste, fraud, and abuse."
In anticipation of the White House proposal, a broad coalition of nearly 300 advocacy organizations sent a letter to members of Congress on Thursday demanding that they reject Trump's request and any other proposed budget increases for the Pentagon, which recently failed its eighth consecutive audit.
"We must invest in critical human needs programs in our communities. Instead, we have cut those programs massively," the groups wrote, pointing to the record Medicaid and nutrition assistance cuts that Trump and congressional Republicans approved last year.
"The Pentagon is unaccountable to American taxpayers, having never passed an audit, while more than half of its budget (54 percent) is paid to corporate military contractors, whose profits are rising. Further gigantic increases would be grossly irresponsible," the groups continued. "Funding an unaccountable Pentagon by more than $1 trillion while underfunding human needs programs undermines our security by preventing us from investing in the shared prosperity that comes from more housing, health care, climate and public health protections, ending hunger, and providing quality public education."
"Just pointless forever war, death and destruction—a flailing, furious, rapidly declining superpower," one analyst wrote of the Trump administration's assault.
US President Donald Trump late Thursday threatened more illegal attacks on Iranian civilian infrastructure, including bridges and power plants, as Iran's military said it shot down an American fighter jet over Tehran, with state-affiliated media publishing apparent photos from the scene.
An Iranian official told Drop Site's Jeremy Scahill that Iran's forces hit an F-15 warplane, causing the jet to crash and sparking "an intense fire." The unnamed Iranian official said the pilot could not have evacuated due to the "nature of the strike," but "no remains have yet been found."
The US Central Command had not commented on the purported downing of an American fighter jet as of this writing. Last month, a US F-35 was forced to make an emergency landing at an air base in the Middle East after reportedly being struck by Iranian fire.
🚨 BREAKING | An Iranian official told Drop Site News that a U.S. F-15 warplane struck by Iranian forces went down over southern Tehran Province, with intense fire reported at the crash site.
The official said the nature of the strike prevented the pilot[s] from ejecting before… https://t.co/iUKD0AqRQQ pic.twitter.com/BI4TzolmZY
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) April 3, 2026
Iran's claim on Friday came as Trump issued more belligerent threats on his social media platform, declaring that the US military "hasn’t even started destroying what’s left in Iran."
"Bridges next, then Electric Power Plants!" the president wrote, shortly after bragging about the US military's destruction of an Iranian highway bridge. "New Regime leadership knows what has to be done, and has to be done, FAST!"
Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, characterized Trump's message as "more threats of war crimes as POTUS flails and seeks to coerce an exit to his own self-inflicted, unnecessary, and ill-conceived war."
Trump's renewed threats came amid reports of US-Israeli attacks on a century-old Iranian medical research center, pharmaceutical facilities, residential buildings, and other civilian infrastructure—and on emergency responders aiding those wounded by the attacks.
"War crime after war crime after war crime," US Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the lone Iranian American member of Congress, wrote early Friday. "Now’s the time to speak up if you’re against this reckless war of choice. The consequences will be vast and catastrophic."
Ben Rhodes, a political analyst who worked in the Obama administration, wrote that the US military's recent actions have "nothing to do with nuclear or helping Iranians."
"Just pointless forever war, death and destruction—a flailing, furious, rapidly declining superpower," Rhodes added.