

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.

As the new Congress begins its work, fourteen groups from across the country are taking a stand against business-as-usual spending priorities. Together, they are releasing a Fossil Fuel Subsidies Tradeoff Calculator (www.BigOilGiveaways.com) -- an online tool that compares the cost of government giveaways for Big Oil to the cost of crucial social programs, such as food stamps, Pell grants, healthcare for veterans, and many others.
Groups fighting for racial and economic justice are joining communities of faith and environmentalists to remind Congress that welfare for polluters is an unacceptable use of public money. As federal programs that feed the hungry and heal the sick struggle for funding, oil and gas companies continue to drain billions of U.S. tax dollars in the form of subsidies and other special interest giveaways.
Here are a few examples of how government handouts to dirty energy companies could be better spent:
If budgets are ultimately about priorities, it is time to tell Congress that its real priority is the well-being of the American people, and not Big Oil's bottom line.
"Leaving the social safety net in tatters and keeping Big Oil on the dole is not just a failure to prioritize. It is a failure of conscience," said Lukas Ross, Climate and energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "In the face of record inequality, crumbling infrastructure, and looming climate disruption, it is time for Congress to think hard about the government spending we need and the corporate welfare we don't."
"U.S. taxpayers know what the nation's spending priorities should be -- dignified jobs, resilient infrastructure, affordable health care, education without crippling debt, a clean environment," said Janet Redman, director of the climate policy program at the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington DC-based think tank. Redman added, "It's an abomination that while Americans are working every day for a transition to a more sustainable, more equal and more democratic economy, members of Congress are willingly trading off our future for the short-term profits of fossil fuel executives. They should be ashamed - or better yet, fired."
"Our tax dollars should be invested in programs that lift up the American people not funneled to our country's wealthiest corporate polluters," said Allison Fisher, Energy and Climate Outreach Director at Public Citizen. "This calculator demonstrates the exact opportunity cost of continuing to shower Big Oil with government handouts. And those costs are less dollars being spent on education, healthcare for our veterans and other critical social programs. That needs to change."
"When corporations and wealthy special interests can set the political agenda, everyday Americans lose," said Marge Baker, executive vice president at People for the American Way. "This calculator highlights the real harm done in the lives of ordinary people when big money dominates public policy. Americans want a political system that prioritizes the needs of all Americans, not one that simply caters to big business."
"This tool allows individuals to see the difference we could make on issues we care about -- from feeding hungry kids to providing better health care to cleaning up our environment -- if we weren't wasting so many tax dollars subsidizing fossil fuels," said Susan Stephenson, Executive Director of Interfaith Power & Light. "Not only are these subsidies unnecessary for an established and profitable industry, they are counterproductive, because they undermine clean energy alternatives, like wind and solar. I don't think anyone would put money for oil companies on their list of spending priorities."
" Climate change is already making people hungry, and the use of fossil fuels is largely to blame, representing the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions globally," said Heather Coleman, Climate Change Manager at Oxfam America. "We must transition to a low-carbon global economy to save lives and shifting subsidies away from fossil fuels is fundamental to achieving this goal."
"Make no mistake: the fossil fuel industry exploits every avenue in its means to distort the political process," said Patti Lynn, Managing Director at Corporate Accountability International. "Until Congress can insulate policymaking from Big Oil and Big Energy, our representatives will continue to pander to the interests of this destructive industry at the expense of public health, critical social services, and the stability of the planet."
"Congress has stripped food assistance for kids and seniors, but they continue to give billions in handouts to the wealthiest and most polluting companies in the world, said Jeremy Hays, Executive Director of Green For All. "We the People should not be subsidizing rich polluters. Our scarce public resources should protect the health and safety of our communities."
"Let's be blunt, the propping up of oil companies while denying climate change is pure corruption," said Ani Zonneveld, President of Muslims for Progressive Values, "And the Quran has warned us as such '...And do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption' (Qur'an, 2:60). As a faith-base organization, we are particularly appalled at the justification of this corruption in the name of one's religion."
"I am often asked why in Europe they can make the transition to renewable energy with the support of the labor movements, but we cannot," said Joe Uehlein, Board President of the Labor Network for Sustainability. "I answer by saying that sustainability starts at the kitchen table and here in the U.S. fear is built into our system because of a very weak social safety net. In other industrialized societies no worker has to worry about health care. No worker has to worry about educating their kids, or pensions, or unemployment compensation -- these societies take care of basic human needs. We do not. This is what's holding us back. It's hard to think about the future when you're struggling every day to put food on the table, secure health care, save for a pension, and send your kids to school. This must change."
"Far too often, Congressional representatives say, 'the government is broke' as they cut vital public services and continue doling out 53% of annual discretionary spending to the Pentagon. Our communities and countries around the world are paying the price for distorted national spending priorities," said Judith LeBlanc, Field Director at Peace Action. "America's path to prosperity and security depends on the Congress spending our tax dollars on what makes the world a safer and more secure place, not on enriching Big Oil or wars that are fueled by the struggle over the control of fossil fuels. We must move the money from Big Oil subsidies and the bloated Pentagon budget to fund public services."
"What an injustice that dirty fossil fuels get the subsidies, and the health of our people gets short-changed," fumed Barbara Gottlieb, Environment & Health Director at Physicians for Social Responsibility. "Let's do away with these oil subsidies, invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and give ourselves a much healthier world."
"There are two words that perfectly describe the ongoing use of public funds to support the fossil fuel industry: climate denial," said Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International. "Ending fossil fuel subsidies should be the first step in fighting climate change."
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400"What a complete clown show," said one critic of Hegseth's new initiative.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday elicited instant ridicule after he unveiled a new plan to offer military personnel testosterone injections.
In a video announcement, Hegseth said he was authorizing a screening program to ensure US soldiers "have the right testosterone levels" to perform at their "absolute best."
"It's well established science that, as we age, testosterone levels often drop," the US defense secretary explained. "Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters aged 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment."
The High-T Department of War. pic.twitter.com/hlAUq3j2cD
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) July 15, 2026
Personnel who are found lacking in testosterone, Hegseth continued, would get recommendations for hormone injections, though he emphasized that this would be entirely optional.
"This initiative, it's not about artificial enhancement," Hegseth emphasized. "It's about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities."
Critics on social media responded to Hegseth's new testosterone injection plan with mockery.
Journalist Amanda Katz joked that Hegseth's plan was "literally gender-affirming care" of the kind that Hegseth halted for transgender service members last year.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) similarly asked Hegseth if the new program means that "now y’all support gender-affirming care?"
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that the Hegseth initiative "is gender affirming care and it completely debunks all of Republicans’ attacks on trans people."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Missouri and a veteran of the US Army, called Hegseth's initiative "the absolute dumbest thing imaginable for the secretary of defense to be focused on."
"We are literally at war and this idiot is in his office doing two camera make up videos on testosterone," Wellman added. "What a complete clown show. I’m so sorry for our poor service members who have to deal with this ridiculous man."
Attorney Bradley Moss likened the Hegseth plan to the plot of Soldier, a 1998 movie starring Kurt Russell that bombed with both critics and audiences.
Moss added, however, that Hegseth's idea appeared even "stupider" than the movie.
Attorney Will Stancil wondered if Hegseth's testosterone program might finally push some military personnel over the edge.
"Without a hint of sarcasm I think he might get himself fragged eventually," Stancil wrote.
The lone Democrat on the FCC said Brendan Carr's plan would "destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families."
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr announced Wednesday that his agency will soon vote to repeal a decades-old rule aimed at limiting consolidation among television broadcasters, a move that press freedom organizations say would be disastrous for journalism and American democracy.
Carr, a loyalist of President Donald Trump, outlined his proposal in an op-ed for the far-right online publication Breitbart, claiming his plan would "restore balance to the broadcast airwaves." But Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, warned in a fiery statement that "this unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families who depend on local stations for news and emergency alerts."
Carr said the FCC will vote on August 6 on his proposal to eliminate a rule barring any single TV broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of US households—a limit designed to constrain television conglomerates. The FCC, which has a two-to-one Republican majority, is likely to approve the plan.
But Gomez argued in her statement on Wednesday that Carr's proposal is illegal, noting that "Congress wrote that specific [39%] number into federal law in 2004, and it did so on purpose."
"This is not the first time the FCC has tried to move on this issue," said Gomez. "In 2003, the commission raised the cap to 45% under its own authority. Congress stepped in within months, rewrote the law to set the cap at 39%, and made clear the FCC did not have the authority to change it. An FCC vote to raise the cap now would be unlawful, as it would mean doing the exact thing Congress has already said the commission cannot do."
Politico noted that Carr's proposal "marks a likely victory for the National Association of Broadcasters and its members such as Nexstar and Sinclair, which would be freer to pursue mergers that would breach the cap."
Earlier this year, the FCC approved Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of rival TV company Tegna. A federal judge blocked the merger deal in April pending resolution of a legal challenge. If the merger is finalized, the new media conglomerate would reach roughly 80% of US households, blowing past the statutory 39% limit that Carr is now working to remove.
"Just as the FCC had no power to waive a congressional statute to grease the skids for Nexstar’s merger with Tegna, it has no power now to completely obliterate the limit Congress set," Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press, said in a statement on Wednesday. "The national cap remains good policy. It promotes competition, localism, and diversity in broadcasting, incentivizing stations to preserve local newsrooms and local-journalism jobs instead of duplicating stories nationwide and passing that off as local news."
"But whatever the law’s merits may be," Wood added, "the key point is that Brendan Carr cannot undo the limit that Congress set just because he feels like it.”
"America is strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them."
Days after Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed to "dismantle” the International Criminal Court, Rep. Ilhan Omar hit back on Wednesday with a resolution urging the US to join the international war crimes tribunal for the first time.
The Democrat from Minnesota was the first member of Congress to push back against the Trump administration's pledge that it would “systematically disable” the ICC's “ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty.”
“The ICC is a crucial tool for justice in places where victims have nowhere else to turn,” Omar told The Guardian. “If we truly believe in human rights and the rule of law, we should strengthen international justice—not undermine it. The United States should lead by example and show that no one is above the law.”
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998. But during President Donald Trump's second term, his administration has waged war on the body, specifically over its investigations into Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and investigations into US personnel over alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
It has imposed sanctions on most of the court's leadership, as well as on those who have "materially assisted" ICC investigations it opposes, including lawyers and human rights groups that have provided evidence.
The administration has also reportedly demanded that the court amend the Rome Statute to ensure that Trump and members of his administration, as well as Israeli officials, cannot be investigated or prosecuted.
Rubio's pledge to dismantle the court has drawn widespread condemnation from human rights advocates.
Agnès Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, said that “in trying to discredit the court, Rubio instead highlights its very purpose: ensuring accountability when those with the power to act choose not to.”
"His arguments read like a tacit admission of wrongdoing," she said, "suggesting concerns that US officials could one day be held accountable for actions that may amount to crimes under international law, including deporting people to torture in El Salvador’s prisons or the campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
She said, "The only reason he would have to fear the ICC is if US officials have committed such crimes outside the United States and the US government is unwilling to hold them genuinely accountable.”
Omar's resolution came as a pair of advocacy organizations launched a lawsuit against Trump and other top administration officials alleging that they illegally "muzzle[d] Palestine advocacy" in violation of the First Amendment when they sanctioned human rights groups that called for investigations into US and Israeli nationals over war crimes in Gaza.
While Rubio has denounced the court's very existence as a threat to “every aspect of [America’s] political and legal system," and argued that it could lead to the prosecution of US soldiers simply for serving in the military, Omar said this was "simply not true."
"The ICC is an international court of last resort, intended to prosecute only the most horrific crimes—war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity—when countries are unable or unwilling to do so themselves," she said. "The best way to avoid ICC scrutiny is simple: don't commit atrocity crimes, and if credible allegations arise, investigate them transparently and hold those responsible accountable."
Omar has introduced two previous resolutions calling on the US to ratify the Rome Statute and join the ICC in 2020 and 2022. Neither of them was brought to the floor for a vote, though the latter one had nine Democratic cosponsors.
Announcing plans for a new resolution on Monday, she said, "I urge my colleagues who believe in justice and human rights to join me."
She said: "America is strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them. If we respect human rights, uphold the rule of law, and hold ourselves to the same standards we ask of others, we have nothing to fear from the ICC.”