August, 21 2018, 12:00am EDT
100-Plus Corporate Executives Met With Trump Since Charlottesville Neo-Nazi Rally
Despite previously distancing themselves from the Administration, many companies have come crawling back
WASHINGTON
Corporate executives strongly condemned the president's bigoted comments on the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia last year, but since then, more than 100 corporate leaders from 91 businesses have flocked to the president's side, Public Citizen found.
After President Donald Trump blamed "both sides" for the violence, many executives on the president's business advisory councils, including CEOs of Merck, Under Armour and Intel, resigned from the groups before Trump disbanded the councils completely.
Among CEOs who were not on the councils who issued statements condemning Trump's refusal to unequivocally condemn neo-Nazi violence were executives from Aetna, Airbnb, Apple, Nike and Peebles.
However, many companies who tried to distance themselves from the president's words have met with Trump within the past year, including Johnson & Johnson's Alex Gorsky, Apple's Tim Cook and JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon.
With Public Citizen's previous tally, the total number of Trump's corporate executive meetings since his election is at least 502.
According to a National Bureau of Economic Research analysis of the last administration's White House visitor logs, Obama had exactly 100 corporate executive meetings during his first seven years in office.
"The corporate class' continued coziness with the president, despite their condemnations, betrays their cowardice," said Rick Claypool, a Public Citizen research director. "Corporate executives have demonstrated that they distanced themselves from the president just for show."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
22 Democrats Join GOP to Block Lebanon War Powers Resolution, Enabling Netanyahu's Sabotage of US-Iran Ceasefire
"The United States is not a bystander to these war crimes. It's an active participant," said the resolutions sponsor Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
Jun 30, 2026
Nearly two dozen Democrats joined almost every Republican on Tuesday to vote down a war powers resolution that would have halted US military participation in Israel's assault on Lebanon, which is threatening to derail President Donald Trump's peace negotiations with Iran.
"More than 1.3 million people have already been forced to leave their homes or be killed, with the Israeli military telling them they will not be allowed to return," said the resolution's sponsor, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), on the House floor Tuesday. "Eighty-one Lebanese neighborhoods have been violently depopulated and demolished—erased from the map entirely."
Along with Republican Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Lauren Boebert (Colo.), the resolution received support from 187 Democrats on Tuesday, more than double the number who supported a similar resolution introduced by Tlaib earlier this month.
Despite top House Democrats, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (NY), giving rhetorical backing to the resolution this time around, The Intercept reported that they did not formally whip the vote.
Twenty-two Democratic hawks joined the GOP to vote against ending cooperation with Israel's war, which has killed more than 4,000 people since March.
Among them were a clique of Democrats who have signed on to the centrist "Promise to America" aimed at countering the momentum of progressive and democratic socialist candidates within the party—including Reps. Donald Davis (NC), Laura Gillen (NY), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Adam Gray (Calif.), Susie Lee (Nev.), and Tom Suozzi (NY).
Others include favorites of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), including Reps. George Latimer (NY), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), and Brad Schneider (Ill.), who have each received over a million dollars from it and other pro-Israel lobbying groups over their careers, according to FEC reports reviewed by Track AIPAC.
Other Democratic opponents include Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md.), Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), Donald Norcross (NJ), Jimmy Panetta (Calif.), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Brad Sherman (Calif.), Darren Soto (Fla.), Norma Torres (Calif.), Juan Vargas (Calif.), and Marc Veasey (Texas), many of whom have also received extensive support from the lobby.
As voting began on Tuesday afternoon, Lebanese-American journalist Rania Khalek said that "how people vote on this is a big indicator of who is bought and paid for by the war machine and Israel lobby."
In a comment to Axios, the staunch pro-Israel centrist Golden justified his vote against the measure by claiming that "to the best of my knowledge, we're not engaged in a conflict with Lebanon."
Latimer made a similar statement on social media, claiming that the resolution was only good for "messaging" since the US did not have any active troops in Lebanon.
But Tlaib argued on the House floor that "the United States is not a bystander to these war crimes. It's an active participant."
"The United States is currently engaged in illegal and unauthorized hostilities supporting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in violation of the War Powers Act," she said. "The Trump administration is providing intelligence, coordinating strikes, demonstrating overt command over the Israeli military decisions, including greenlighting specific Israeli attacks and operations."
Other supporters of the resolution emphasized that ending Israel's occupation of Lebanon is a precondition for ending Trump's war with Iran.
"Ending Israeli military action in Lebanon is a key part of ensuring that the negotiation process with Iran continues and peace prevails in the Middle East," said Rep. Betty McCullom (D-Minn.).
The memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran earlier this month states that, for peace to be achieved, it must be implemented on "all fronts," including in Lebanon.
Iranian negotiators have repeatedly emphasized that they will not allow Trump to pull back from the war he's desperate to end unless Israel fully withdraws troops from Lebanon, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emphatically refused to do.
Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams earlier this month that without US military participation, Israel could likely continue its occupation “only for a limited period of time."
Just Foreign Policy, an anti-war group that has agitated for the passage of Tlaib's war powers resolution, lambasted the 22 Democrats who voted against it.
"These 22 fringe House Democratic hawks revealed today that they don't actually want the Iran War to end," the group wrote in a post to social media. "By failing to end US participation in the Israeli war in Lebanon, they are undermining a peace deal."
Noting that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused oil prices to spike and inflation to ripple across the economy, the group said these Democrats were "keeping prices high for Americans."
Just Foreign Policy's executive director Erik Sperling told The Intercept that although the resolution did not pass, the vote signaled that things were moving in the right direction.
“Democrats have been pretty unified about speaking out against the killing of innocents and all of the harm by the Iran War, but there has been less vocal outrage about the mass killing and occupation in Lebanon,” Sperling said. “This is just an important signal that Democrats are aware of the way the Lebanon war is a humanitarian crisis and is the key roadblock to ending this war and delivering the peace that Americans are demanding.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A National Outrage': Days After Monsanto Ruling, Trump EPA Approves More Forever Chemical Pesticides
Ripping "Trump's reckless push to ignore science and embrace these extremely harmful, long-lasting pesticides," one critic said his legacy will be the millions "his shortsighted policies will sicken and prematurely kill."
Jun 30, 2026
The US Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday continued its betrayal of President Donald Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," approving the use of multiple "forever chemical" pesticides on crops despite public health concerns.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are called forever chemicals because they don't naturally break down—instead accumulating in human and animal bodies as well as the environment. They have been used in everything from fabrics for clothing and furniture to firefighting foam to nonstick cookware, and are tied to various health problems, including increased risk of some cancers.
The Trump EPA on Tuesday finalized its approval of using two PFAS pesticides, diflufenican and epyrifenacil, on corn and soybeans, the two most widely grown crops in the United States.
The agency also expanded its allowances for another previously approved forever chemical pesticide, bifenthrin, and greenlighted the first food use of chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide tied to reproductive issues.
"While the Biden administration had approved one PFAS pesticide in the prior four years, this is the third and fourth approval of a PFAS pesticide under Trump in just his second year in office," the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) noted in a Tuesday statement. "The previous two PFAS pesticide approvals were cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram."
As the center detailed:
The EPA has stated in press materials that these new fluorinated pesticides are not PFAS. That assertion is based on the fact that they do not meet the chemicals office's unilateral regulatory PFAS definition. But the new pesticides do meet the much more widely accepted PFAS definition that was developed transparently by dozens of scientists around the world. That definition has subsequently been endorsed by more than 150 leading PFAS researchers, is used by nearly every US state for regulating PFAS, and specifically was written into past versions of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Using the scientific definition of a PFAS that is widely accepted in this country and around the world, these pesticides are PFAS.
The EPA had even initially acknowledged that these pesticides met the more broadly accepted PFAS definition on its fluorinated pesticides webpage. Yet three weeks after creating the webpage, it removed any mention of the conflicting definition, instead portraying the agency’s unilateral definition as the only PFAS definition.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBD obtained documents showing that those website revisions were overseen by EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's assistant administrator, Douglas Troutman, and Kyle Kunkler—a former American Soybean Association (ASA) lobbyist controversially installed as the office's deputy assistant administrator for pesticides—and reviewed by agency Administrator Lee Zeldin.
While ASA president and Ohio soybean farmer Scott Metzger welcomed the Tuesday approvals, saying that "we appreciate EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the agency" for advancing the registrations, Nathan Donley, CBD's environmental health science director, was deeply critical and tied the developments to the Trump administration's other actions serving the pesticide industry.
"It's a national outrage that Trump's EPA is expanding use of dangerous, cancer-linked PFAS pesticides just days after the Supreme Court limited the American people's right to sue pesticide companies," said Donley, referring to last week's ruling in favor of Monsanto and against thousands of people who argue that its glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
In addition to the Trump administration backing Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—in the case before the high court, the president in February issued an executive order mandating the production of glyphosate. Since returning to office last year, Trump has also faced criticism for EPA approvals of other pesticides, from atrazine to dicamba, and for his administration's MAHA report that echoes industry talking points.
Donley declared Tuesday that "Trump's reckless push to ignore science and embrace these extremely harmful, long-lasting pesticides ensures his legacy won't be the many monuments he's built to himself, but the many millions of people his shortsighted policies will sicken and prematurely kill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Upholds Transgender Athlete Bans, Giving States Green Light For Discrimination
"We have entered a period when the legal recognition and legal protections for trans and intersex people are at an all-time low," said the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Jun 30, 2026
In a ruling that defenders of LGBTQ+ rights say clears the way for discrimination, the US Supreme Court upheld state laws banning transgender girls and women from participating on school and college athletic teams.
In a decision that will likely supercharge attacks on transgender people by red states and the Trump administration, the court said that state-level bans on transgender athletes did not violate either the 14th Amendment of the Constitution or Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education.
The court's six conservatives ruled that Idaho and West Virginia did not violate the equal protection clause because the laws were made in the interest of athletic fairness.
"Biological males generally possess inherent physical advantages in sports," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the majority, describing it as a topic where there is still "medical and scientific uncertainty."
He dismissed equal protection claims from two athletes: 16-year-old shot put champion Becky Pepper-Jackson of West Virginia and 25-year-old Boise State student Lindsey Hecox, who failed to make her school's cross-country team because she was "too slow" but played in club-level sports.
The athletes argued that they took puberty-blocking medication that would have blunted their advantages, but Kavanaugh wrote that states were under no obligation to "grant individualized exemptions to specific athletes or subclasses."
The court ruled unanimously that West Virginia's state ban did not violate Title IX. But the court's three liberals disagreed on the question of equal protection.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the scientific uncertainty surrounding the question was precisely why states should proceed with caution rather than enact categorical bans.
“In the end, to the court, the facts do not matter, even though the consequences are serious,” she wrote in her dissent.
She added that state bans will be harmful to trans people seeking friendship and community through sports. She said because of the court's decision, a state can deny young people "these experiences simply because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not."
Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Non-Binary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal—which represented Pepper-Jackson—said the ruling was "deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers."
"Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports," she added. "Now, one population, transgender youth and collegians, are targeted for specific and baseless discrimination."
The decision effectively legitimizes efforts in more than two dozen Republican-led states that have adopted bans on transgender athletes. However, Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR), noted that the decision did not go as far as it could have, allowing other states to leave intact policies that let trans students participate.
"This is a disappointing decision, but also a narrow one that leaves the door open for the many states and schools that have adopted reasonable policies that protect both fairness and inclusion with respect to transgender students," Minter said. "Today’s limited decision means that states and schools across the country still have the power to make reasonable rules to ensure fairness without banning all transgender girls."
NCLR staff attorney Rachel Berg said that the ruling still "ignores clear discrimination and political attacks against transgender girls" and invites "invasive policing of young people's bodies."
"Blanket bans on transgender girls playing school sports invite anyone to call for a ‘gender check’ on any girl who wants to play sports if they think she is ‘too tall’ or ‘too strong,’” she warned.
Lambda Legal listed several cases in which young people in states with bans have been singled out and targeted with aggressive physical scrutiny by state officials:
In Florida, a 15-year-old junior varsity volleyball player was the subject of a police investigation after an anonymous accusation, prompting local officials to draft a 500-page report investigating her medical history, body weight, and anatomy. In Utah, a teenage basketball player was accused of being transgender by a member of the state board of education, leading to threats of violence against her and her family, and a teenager in Maine faced a similar attack from a state senator. In May, President Donald Trump similarly targeted a 16-year-old transgender girl for participating in a high school track meet. Under an Arizona ban, a cisgender male student was prohibited from participating on the boys’ team at his high school because of a clerical error that listed him as female on his original birth certificate.
Tuesday's decision comes amid an onslaught of other state-level legislation attacking transgender people, including bans on gender-affirming care for youth, bathroom bans, restrictions and invalidations of legal documents, and laws prohibiting schools from respecting students' preferred gender identities.
Karla Gonzales Garcia, the gender, sexuality, and identity director at Amnesty International USA, said the decision also "comes at a time of rising authoritarian practices under the Trump administration, which use gender and sexuality as a cultural battle for political gain."
The administration has threatened to investigate, sue, and strip funding from schools that accept trans athletes; attempted to throttle medical funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care; banned transgender people from the military; and pushed to force transgender women into men's prisons where they are at severe risk of sexual assault.
The Center for Constitutional Rights said that Tuesday's ruling "confirms what trans and intersex advocates have known for some time: we are in the Plessy v. Ferguson/Bowers v. Hardwick era of trans rights," referring to Supreme Court cases that upheld Jim Crow segregation and state bans on homosexuality.
"We have entered a period when the legal recognition and legal protections for trans and intersex people are at an all-time low," the group continued. "Anti-trans policymakers and activists have, through their actions and rhetoric, made their goal clear: to terrorize trans people and remove them from public life."
Several Democratic members of Congress expressed solidarity with the transgender community following the ruling.
"The Supreme Court’s ruling to allow states to ban trans kids from playing in sports is discriminatory and opens the door to incredibly invasive examinations of children to determine who can play on what team," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), whose adult daughter is trans. "This decision targets a tiny population of athletes and further emboldens Republicans’ anti-trans crusade."
Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) warned that the decision "hands Trump yet another weapon to strip protections and funding from schools across our nation," and said Republicans were "weaponizing our most vulnerable kids as pawns in a fight they did not choose."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said: "We will keep fighting. Discrimination and hate will not win."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular