

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.

Carroll Muffett, President: 202.742.5772, cmuffett@ciel.org
Amanda Kistler, Communications Director: 202.742.5832, akistler@ciel.org
New research by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) not only confirms that the tobacco and fossil fuel industries used a shared playbook, but also suggests that playbook originated not with tobacco--as long assumed--but with the oil industry itself.
As evidence mounts of the oil industry's decades-long campaign of climate deception and denial, its allies have dismissed any parallels to the tobacco industry's campaign of cancer denial. More than 100 industry documents drawn from the Tobacco Industry Archives demonstrate not only the legitimacy of the comparison between big oil and tobacco, but also reveal direct connections between these industries that go back far earlier than previously thought.
"From the 1950s onward, the oil and tobacco firms were using not only the same PR firms and the same research institutes, but many of the same researchers," said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. "Again and again we found both the PR firms and the researchers worked first for oil, then for tobacco. It was a pedigree the tobacco companies recognized, and sought out."
In one notable example, Stanford Research Institute - which proved instrumental in oil industry attacks on smog science in the 1950s and warned industry execs of climate risks in the 1960s - was funded under secret tobacco industry accounts to build a machine to test for workplace carbon monoxide. Similarly, mathematician Theodor Sterling, recognized by both tobacco executives and investigators as one of the industry's most important assets in the fight against cancer science, worked on behalf of oil company interests before joining the tobacco fight.
"Big Oil created the organized apparatus of doubt," Muffett said. "It used the same playbook of misinformation, obfuscation, and research laundered through front groups to attack science and sow uncertainty on lead, on smog, and in the early debates on climate change. Big Tobacco used and refined that playbook for decades in its fight to keep us smoking - just as Big Oil is using it now, again, to keep us burning fossil fuels."
Today's release scratches the surface of a vast trove of more 14 million formerly confidential documents in the Tobacco Industry Archives, many of which remain under seal. "These documents represent, at most, half of the story: the tobacco half," notes Muffett. "The rest of this story--including vital truths about the history of climate deception - remains hidden in the oil industry's files. Six decades of denial and deception is six too many. We owe it to ourselves, and to future generations, to bring that truth to light."
Below are some highlights from the findings:
In the late 1970s, Sir Richard Dobson served simultaneously as Chair of British American Tobacco and on the board of Exxon. Dobson is notorious for once suggesting that cigarette smoking in moderation is beneficial, asserting "the tobacco industry, in total, does more good than harm." During the late 1970s, BAT alone shared Board members with at least three different oil companies.
Oil companies were testing cigarette smoke for toxins as early as the 1950s, including in partnership with research funded by the tobacco industry.
Exxon and Shell patented and actively promoted their own cigarette filters repeatedly from the 1960s through the 1990s, and entered into joint research agreements with tobacco firms to bring them to market.
Stanford Research Institute, which was instrumental in the oil industry's Smoke and Fumes efforts, carried out similar efforts for tobacco spanning more than a decade, including psychographic analysis; testing filters for carbon monoxide absorption; and designing portable testing equipment to discretely analyze cigarette smoke.
A former Standard Oil executive recommended numerous oil-connected scientists for the Tobacco industry's Scientific Advisory Board, many of whom went on to work for tobacco.
Theodor Sterling, recognized by both tobacco companies and Justice Department prosecutors as one of tobacco's most important scientific assets for two decades, did similar work for oil companies fighting lead regulation before his work with tobacco.
Tobacco companies closely monitored research and developments on smog, lead, and other petroleum-linked air pollutants.
Since 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has worked to strengthen and use international law and institutions to protect the environment, promote human health, and ensure a just and sustainable society.
"Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs."
Pope Leo XIV on Friday vehemently rejected the notion that "God" endorses any war in remarks many interpreted as an implicit rebuke of President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and others who claim that the Christian deity figure supports the illegal US-Israeli war of choice against Iran.
"God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs," the pope said on X. "Military action will not create space for freedom or timees of peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples."
"Absurd and inhuman violence is spreading ferociously through the sacred places of the Christian East, profaned by the blasphemy of war and the brutality of business, with no regard for people’s lives, which are considered at most collateral damage of self-interest," the American pontiff added. "But no gain can be worth the life of the weakest, children, or families. No cause can justify the shedding of innocent blood."
This, after the pope responded to Trump's genocidal threat to destroy Iran's civilization by urging "all the people of goodwill to search always for peace, and not violence, to reject war, especially a war which many people have said is an unjust war."
Responding to President Trump’s threat that “a whole civilisation will die tonight”, Pope Leo XIV calls for peace, says “let's remember, especially the innocent children, the elderly, sick. So many people who have already become, or will become victims of this continued warfare,… pic.twitter.com/2LygUzjuC6
— Catholic Sat (@CatholicSat) April 7, 2026
The pope's latest remarks also followed Trump's assertion that God supports the US-Israeli war on Iran and the claim by Hegseth, a Christian nationalist, that American airstrikes on Iran—which have killed more than 2,000 people including hundreds of children—are being "carried out under the protection of divine providence."
Pope Leo used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what many observers interpreted as a swipe at Hegseth after the self-styled secretary of war publicly prayed that God "trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle."
“This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” the pope said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”
The pontiff also criticized the Trump administration ahead of its brief invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife in January.
The pope's latest comments came on the heels of reporting that a senior Pentagon official bullied Cardinal Christophe Pierre, the Vatican’s US diplomatic representative, telling him that the United States “has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world," and that "the Catholic Church had better take its side."
Another Pentagon official allegedly mentioned the Avignon Papacy, a period in the 14th century when popes resided in France and were essentially controlled by the French monarch—a reference some Vatican officials reportedly took as a threat.
Did…the Trump regime lowkey threaten to kill the pope?
[image or embed]
— Max Berger (@maxberger.bsky.social) April 8, 2026 at 2:32 PM
Early during the war, Congressional Freethought Caucus Co-Chairs Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel Ranking Member Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) led 27 of their colleagues in requesting the Defense Department investigate reports that US commanders were invoking the apocalyptic theology of "End Times" prophecy to justify attacks on Iran.
American leaders have claimed divine sanction for their wars since the nation's inception, from George Washington claiming that "the hand of Providence" favored the revolt against Britain, to George W. Bush declaring that "God is not neutral" as he launched the decadeslong "crusade" against terror after 9/11 that has killed nearly a million people in more than half a dozen countries, almost all of them Muslims.
"Governments must restore their aid budgets, and shore up the global humanitarian system that faces its most serious crisis in decades," said an advocate with the international charity Oxfam.
The global anti-poverty group Oxfam International warned this week that US President Donald Trump’s decision to slash foreign aid by more than half could kill nearly 10 million people by the end of the decade.
Responding to new data released Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) showing the largest annual drop in the history of official development assistance, Oxfam said “wealthy governments are turning their backs on the lives of millions of women, men, and children in the Global South.”
The OECD released preliminary data on international aid that was provided last year by member countries of the organization's Development Assistance Committee (DAC), finding the largest annual drop in the history of official development assistance.
OECD member countries provided $174.3 billion in aid last year, according to the new data, representing 0.26% of the countries' combined gross national income.
In 2024, the countries sent $215.1 billion, or 0.34% of their gross national income to developing countries, including across the Global South—helping to provide nutritional assistance and healthcare initiatives among other programs.
US foreign aid spending dropped by 56.9% after Trump dismantled the US Agency for International Development, cut smaller aid programs, and pushed Congress to rescind previously approved foreign assistance.
"At a time when aid cuts are already driving instability and fostering greater inequality, government donors are cutting life-saving aid budgets while financing conflict and militarization."
Overall, wealthy OECD countries provided 23.1% less in foreign aid last year than they did in 2024—a greater decline than what the Institute of Global Health in Barcelona projected in February when it released a study in The Lancet, evaluating the impact of development assistance funding declines around the world.
The institute found that aid cuts in 2025 alone, which it assumed would represent a 21% decrease in funding, would lead to 695,238 excess deaths. If cuts continued at the same rate, an estimated 9,416,417 people could die of preventable diseases like malaria and AIDS, starvation, and other impacts by 2030.
The drop in foreign aid spending would suggest even more people could be killed by the cuts over the next four years.
“We are in a time of increasing humanitarian needs; strong pressures on the poorest and most fragile countries; and facing growing global uncertainties and massive insecurity," said Carsten Staur, chair of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which compiled the data. "In this situation, the world needs more ODA, not less—to help fight extreme poverty, improve resilience, and mobilize more private resources."
Trump's cuts helped make Germany the largest provider of development assistance for the first time ever, providing $29.1 billion to countries in need. The US sent $29 billion while the United Kingdom provided $17.2 billion, Japan sent $16.2 billion, and France sent $14.5 billion. All five of the top ODA providers reduced their foreign aid spending, accounting for 95.7% of the total decline.
Eight out of the DAC's 34 member countries either maintained or increased their development aid spending, and four countries—Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, and Sweden—exceeded the United Nations' target of spending 0.7% of their gross national income on ODA.
Didier Jacobs, development finance lead for Oxfam, emphasized that while "recklessly" cutting foreign aid, "the Trump administration has been preparing to ask Congress for tens of billions in additional funding for bombs, ammunition, and other military equipment relating to its unlawful war against Iran."
"At a time when aid cuts are already driving instability and fostering greater inequality, government donors are cutting life-saving aid budgets while financing conflict and militarization. Cuts from donors including Germany, France and the UK will be felt by the world’s poorest," said Jacobs.
In addition to slashing military spending instead of crucial foreign aid, he said, "there are other ways to find tens of billions, such as by taxing the $2.84 trillions of dollars that the super-rich hide in tax havens.”
"Governments must restore their aid budgets," he said, "and shore up the global humanitarian system that faces its most serious crisis in decades."
"It is unacceptable that Treasury may not have performed the most basic planning before it was launched," said US Sen. Ron Wyden.
The top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee revealed Thursday that an adviser to the US Treasury Department admitted he was unaware of the agency doing any work to prepare for the economic fallout of President Donald Trump's war on Iran, which has plunged the global economy into chaos and cost American drivers billions at the pump.
Sriprakash Kothari, a top adviser to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trump's nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, told US Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) staff behind closed doors that "not only did he not perform any work related to energy markets leading up to the war, but that he wasn’t aware of anyone at Treasury who did," Wyden wrote in a letter to Bessent.
Wyden quotes Kothari as saying he did no work to prepare for economic impacts of the war "leading up to the conflict," just "subsequent" to its start on February 28.
"When later asked to clarify this response, he reiterated that he had not performed any analysis or work related to energy markets, or any other economic facet, in the lead-up to military action in Iran," Wyden added. "He further told staff that the work he performed subsequently occurred after learning about the February 2026 strikes in the news. Mr. Kothari was then asked whether he was aware of anyone at Treasury performing analysis or work related to energy markets in the lead-up to potential military action in Iran, he responded that he was not aware of anyone performing any such work."
Wyden wrote that given the "rapidly growing affordability crisis" in the US—a crisis intensified by Trump's war on Iran—"it is unacceptable that Treasury may not have performed the most basic planning before it was launched."
"Every problem resulting from the conflict which we are seeing now," wrote Wyden, "was not only foreseeable but was predicted by the intelligence agencies, which reported as recently as last March that Iran was 'capable of inflicting severe damage to an attacker' and of 'disrupting shipping, particularly energy supplies, through the Strait of Hormuz.'"
In just six weeks, Trump's Iran war has cost American taxpayers over $30 billion and counting, and US drivers collectively spent over $8 billion more on gas during the first month of the illegal assault, which sent oil prices surging.
CNN reported last month that the Trump administration "significantly underestimated Iran’s willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US military strikes while planning the ongoing operation."
"While key officials from the Departments of Energy and Treasury were present for some of the official planning meetings about the operation before it started," CNN reported, citing unnamed sources familiar with the discussions, "the agency analysis and forecasts that would be integral elements of the decision-making process in past administrations were secondary considerations."