

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.
Today, United States Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) delivered a major address at the National Press Club to lay out her bold and comprehensive set of policy solutions that would fundamentally change the way Washington does business and restore the American public's faith in democracy. In her remarks, Senator Warren unveils her sweeping anti-corruption legislation, the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, to eliminate the influence of money in our federal government and ensure that it works for American families.
Warren's legislation is the most ambitious anti-corruption legislation since Watergate. The legislation contains six big ideas:
1. Padlock the Revolving Door and Increase Public Integrity by eliminating both the appearance and the potential for financial conflicts of interest; banning Members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and other senior government officials from owning and trading individual stock; locking the government-to-lobbying revolving door; and eliminating "golden parachutes".
2. End Lobbying as We Know It by exposing all influence-peddling in Washington; banning foreign lobbying; banning lobbyists from donating to candidates and Members of Congress; strengthening congressional independence from lobbyists; and instituting a lifetime ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress, Presidents, and agency heads.
3. End Corporate Capture of Public Interest Rules by requiring disclosure of funding or editorial conflicts of interest in rulemaking comments and studies; closing loopholes corporations exploit to tilt the rules in their favor and against the public interest; protecting agencies from corporate capture; establishing a new Office of Public Advocate to advocate for the public interest in the rulemaking process; and giving agencies the tools to implement strong rules that protect the public.
4. Improve Judicial Integrity and Defend Access to Justice for All Americans by enhancing the integrity of the judicial branch; requiring the Supreme Court follow the ethics rules for all other federal judges; boosting the transparency of federal appellate courts through livestreaming audio of proceedings; and encouraging diversity on the federal bench.
5. Strengthen Enforcement of Anti-Corruption, Ethics, and Public Integrity Laws by creating a new, independent anti-corruption agency dedicated to enforcing federal ethics laws and by expanding an independent and empowered Congressional ethics office insulated from Congressional politics.
6. Boost Transparency in Government and Fix Federal Open Records Laws by requiring elected officials and candidates for federal office to disclose more financial and tax information; increasing disclosure of corporate money behind Washington lobbying; closing loopholes in federal open records laws; making federal contractors - including private prisons and immigration detention centers - comply with federal open records laws; and making Congress more transparent.
Remarks by Senator Elizabeth Warren
**As Prepared for Delivery**
August 21, 2018
I want to begin with two numbers. 73. 18.
For more than half a century, the National Election Survey has been asking Americans a simple question: Do you trust the federal government to do the right thing all of the time, or at least most of the time?
In 1958, the first year this survey was conducted, the number was 73-that is, 73% of Americans polled said, yes, they trusted their government to do the right thing at least most of the time.
For a long time, the number remained high.
1968 was a year of historic convulsions. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, Bobby Kennedy was killed, North Korea captured a US surveillance ship, and North Vietnam launched the Tet offensive. Faith in government went down, but overall, it held firm. 62% still trusted government.
After Watergate, the number took a big hit, dropping to 36%.
But today?
Eighteen.
From 73 to 18. Not even one in five Americans today trust their government to do the right thing.
I'd love to stand here and tell you that this was some sudden drop after Donald Trump was elected, but that wouldn't be true.
This problem is far bigger than Trump.
The way I see it, a loss of faith this broad, and this profound, is more than a problem - it is a crisis. A crisis of faith.
This is the kind of crisis that leads people to turn away from democracy. The kind of crisis that forces people to stop believing in what we can do together. The kind of crisis that creates fertile ground for cynicism and discouragement. The kind of crisis that gives rise to authoritarians.
---
Why have so many people lost faith? Thoughtful people give different answers.
Some say it's the result of politicians making government the enemy. And that's true.
Since Watergate, generation after generation of American politicians have attacked the very idea that our government can do anything right. Recall Ronald Reagan's famous line: What are the nine most terrifying words in the English language? I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Really? Government help is terrifying? Give me a break. Do you know what's actually terrifying? Hurricanes like Katrina and Maria are terrifying, which is why victims of natural disasters ask for government help. After a lifetime of hard work, growing old and going broke is terrifying, which is why the American people strongly support Social Security. Choosing between food and medicine is terrifying, and that's why the American people rise up and take to the streets when Republicans try to cut back Medicare and Medicaid.
And there's so much more that we want to work on together. Americans want roads and bridges. They want power and water systems. They want a top-notch economic system. They want real cybersecurity and a military that defends our nation. And they want a government that can deliver those things.
Government can be a powerful force for good - but only when it works for the people.
And the American people understand that today, it doesn't.
Our national crisis of faith in government boils down to this simple fact: people don't trust their government to do the right thing because they think government works for the rich, the powerful and the well-connected and not for the American people.
---
And here's the kicker: They're right.
At a time when this country faces enormous challenges, our government actively serves the richest and most powerful and turns its back on everyone else.
At a time of skyrocketing inequality and stagnant wages for the middle class, our government is giving gargantuan handouts to the wealthiest Americans.
At a time when mass incarceration grinds down human beings and destroys communities of color, our government is putting more cash into the for-profit prison industry.
At a time when sea levels are rising and the health threats posed by climate change are accelerating by the day, our government is handing over both taxpayer money and federally protected lands to the fossil fuel industry.
At a time of staggering drug prices and soaring out of pocket costs, our government tucks tail and runs away from any serious challenge to big Pharma and greedy insurance companies.
At a time of crippling student loan debt, our government is bending over backwards to help bogus for-profit colleges and student loan companies get richer by cheating students.
Across the board, our government-our government-is failing to fix the problems that face our working families. Instead, it's making the problems worse by giving more money, more power, and more advantages to those who already have all three.
And so often - whether it leads to poisoned water or toxic bank loans - communities of color are hit first and hit hardest.
Our government systematically favors the rich over the poor, the donor class over the working class, the well-connected over the disconnected.
This is deliberate, and we need to call this what it is - corruption, plain and simple.
Corruption has seeped into the fabric of our government, tilting thousands of decisions away from the public good and toward the desires of those at the top. And, over time, bit by bit, like a cancer eating away at our democracy, corruption has eroded Americans' faith in our government.
I know that's a stark assessment. But I'm not here to describe the death of democracy. I'm here to talk about fighting back. I'm here because I believe that change is hard, but change is possible.
Change can start with reforming how our largest companies operate. Last week, I introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, which would restore the once-common idea that giant American corporations should look out for a broad range of American stakeholders. By requiring our largest companies to seat workers on their boards, limiting the ability of executives to get rich quick off short-term stock price bumps, and giving shareholders and Directors a real say in corporate political spending, this bill could go a long way toward restoring real economic democracy in America. And in the process, it would ensure that when American businesses engage with our government, they are speaking on behalf of their entire communities - and not simply as megaphones for the wealthy and the powerful.
Getting American corporations to start acting like responsible American citizens is an important first step toward limiting corruption. But broader changes are needed.
Today, I'm introducing the most ambitious anti-corruption legislation proposed in Congress since Watergate. This is an aggressive set of reforms that would fundamentally change the way Washington does business. These reforms have one simple aim: to take power in Washington away from the wealthy, the powerful, and the well-connected who have corrupted our government and put power back in the hands of the American people.
We can do this. We must do this. And when we do, we will restore the faith of the American people - not just in our government, but faith in democracy itself.
---
The recent explosion of big political spending has delivered a gut-punch to our democracy. I do what I can by not taking any PAC money or any money from federal lobbyists. There's a lot of work to do on campaign finance, starting with overturning Citizens United. But that's not nearly enough. The corrupting influence of big money in Washington reaches much further than political campaigns.
Big money eats away at the heart of our democracy. Over the last few decades, it has created a pervasive culture of soft corruption that colors virtually every important decision in Washington.
Consider a couple of examples:
First, the rich and powerful buy their way into Congressional offices. Exhibit A: Mick Mulvaney. After he left Congress, Mulvaney told a roomful of bankers that he had a rule in his office: if a lobbyist didn't give him money, the lobbyist didn't get a meeting-he met only with those lobbyists who ponied up for his campaign war chest. Today, Mulvaney is President Trump's head of the Office of Management and Budget and the person running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And when he made these comments right out in public with the press listening in, Trump and pretty much every Republican in Washington just shrugged.
The rich and powerful also offer up some pretty nice gifts for public servants to do their bidding. In the early 2000s, Congressman Billy Tauzin started pushing an idea: expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs. Good for seniors-in fact, life saving for some. But also very good for Big Pharma-more prescriptions filled, more money coming in.
And it might all have landed there, with seniors getting drug coverage and drug companies selling more drugs - but Big Pharma wanted more. Number one on their list was a flat prohibition on the worrisome possibility that the government might actually negotiate for lower drug prices. And Billy delivered - which I'm sure had nothing to do with the more than $200,000 in campaign contributions the Congressman received from the drug industry.
Today, Big Pharma rakes in billions from seniors on Medicare while charging sky-high prices for the drugs they need-and no one in government can negotiate those prices. And what happened to Billy?
In December of 2003, the very same month the bill was signed into law, PhRMA - the drug companies' biggest lobbying group - dangled the possibility that Billy could be their next CEO.
In February of 2004, Congressman Tauzin announced that he wouldn't seek re-election. Ten months later, he became CEO of PhRMA -at an annual salary of $2 million. Big Pharma certainly knows how to say "thank you for your service."
Sometimes the payoff comes upfront. Goldman Sachs handed Gary Cohn over a quarter of a billion dollars on his way out the door to become the head of President Trump's National Economic Council. A quarter of a billion dollars to help quarterback a tax package that included giveaways worth just over a quarter of a billion to Goldman -in the first quarter of 2018 alone. That's quite the return on investment for Goldman Sachs. For the taxpayers who paid Mr. Cohn's salary and were under the mistaken impression that Mr. Cohn was working for them, the return was not so good.
The examples are everywhere these days. A Commerce Secretary who acts like a cartoon version of a Wall Street fat cat, awash in financial conflicts, intertwined with Russian financial interests, suspected of swindling millions from his business partners and using his official position to pump up his fortune through shady stock trading. An EPA Administrator who resigns in disgrace over corruption, only to be replaced with another EPA Administrator who belongs in the coal baron's hall of fame. A Congressman facing indictment for insider trading.
Let's face it: there's no real question that the Trump era has given us the most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes. But they are not the cause of the rot - they're just the biggest, stinkiest example of it.
Corruption is a form of public cancer, and Washington's got it bad. It's time for treatment, time to isolate and quarantine the ability of big money to infect the decisions made every day by every branch of our government.
---
This problem is enormous - but we've dealt with enormous problems before. We just need some big reform ideas and a willingness to fight for real change. So here's the First Big Change - Padlock the revolving door between big business and government.
Ban elected and appointed officials from becoming lobbyists after they leave office. Not for one year. Not for two years. For the rest of their lives. Sorry, Billy. No more Congressman Pharma.
And no more pre-bribes like the Gary Cohn giveaway. No special deals for millions and millions of dollars to the policymakers who will be in a position to pay back their old employers.
We can also lock the revolving door for people who have led a company that got caught breaking the law or anyone who worked as a lobbyist for any corporation. A six-year time-out before that lobbyist or outlaw CEO can take a job in government. And we can limit the ability of America's biggest and most powerful companies to gain unfair market advantages from vacuuming up every former regulator on the market.
Sure, there's lots of expertise in the private sector, and government should be able to tap that expertise. And, yes, public servants should be able to use their expertise when they leave government. But we've gone way past expertise and are headed directly into graft. Padlock the revolving door.
Here's my Second Big Change: Stop self-dealing by public officials. If a person works for the government, then that work should serve the public. No making policy decisions to help yourself instead of taxpayers.
Right now, that problem begins with a President who may be vulnerable to financial blackmail from a hostile foreign power and God knows who else - a President and his family who may be personally profiting off hundreds of policy decisions every day - but we don't know, because he won't show us his tax returns and won't get rid of his personal business interests.
The truth is, it's insane that we have to beg the President of the United States to put the American people ahead of his own business interests. Insane.
Presidents should not be able to own companies on the side. And we shouldn't have to beg candidates to let the American people to see their financial interests. That should be the law - not just for presidential candidates, but for every candidate for every federal office.
While we're at it, enough of the spectacle of HHS Secretaries and herds of congressmen caught up in insider trading schemes. It's time to ban elected officials and senior agency officials from owning or trading any company stocks while in office. They can put their savings in conflict-free investments like mutual funds or they can pick a different line of work.
Third Big Change - End lobbying as we know it.
The term "lobbying" has been around for nearly two hundred years. And our Constitution protects "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But as recently as the 1970s there was no real corporate lobbying industry. There were lobbyists here and there, but there were not enough to fill a school bus.
Today, the national Chamber of Commerce spends tens of millions of dollars to block policies that threaten the profits of a handful of America's richest corporations. They currently occupy an enormous building facing the White House, a sort of visual alternative to the government elected by the people. But back in the 1970s, the Chamber had no presence in DC to speak of. That started to change in 1972, when a hotshot corporate lawyer named Lewis Powell wrote a secret memo for the Chamber.
The Powell Memo declared that the free enterprise system was under assault and urged the Chamber to mobilize America's biggest businesses and establish themselves as a political force to be reckoned with.
It was a declaration of war on democracy. Powell called on corporations to raise armies of lobbyists and descend on Washington. And, boy, did they respond.
Today, lobbying is a multi-billion-dollar industry -more than $3.3 billion in 2017 alone. More than eleven thousand registered lobbyists are deployed to work day and night to influence our government, largely on behalf of wealthy clients. And, by the way, that memo worked out pretty well for Lewis Powell too-a few months later, he was named to the Supreme Court.
Nobody would argue that companies have nothing to contribute to our democratic process. Of course they do. But today, lobbyists working for the wealthy and well-connected crowd the halls of government like it's happy hour every hour. And particularly in Congress, where staff budgets and in-house expertise continue to shrink , it's easier than ever for them to simply overwhelm our democracy so that the lobbyists-or the lobbyists' paying clients-are the only ones whose stories get heard.
That's not how a government of the people-all the people-is supposed to work. So let's fix it.
Start by fixing the Swiss cheese definition of a "lobbyist." Require everyone who gets paid to influence government to register.
And bring lobbying out into the sunlight. Make every single meeting between a lobbyist and a public official a matter of public record. Require public disclosure of any documents that lobbyists provide to government officials. Put it all online. And if that seems overwhelming-too many meetings, too many company-drafted bills, too many love notes-think about what that means is going on in the dark recesses of our government right now.
Put a windfall tax on excessive lobbying, to ensure that when companies spend millions trying to stop the government from protecting the public, the cops on the beat get more resources to fight back.
And while we're at it, let's strengthen the government's independence from lobbyists. Raising Congressional salaries to track other federal officials would mean that low-paid staffers don't feel compelled to audition for jobs with influence peddlers when they should be standing up to them.
Finally, let's just plain get rid of some of the most corrosive and dangerous lobbying practices. The trial of Donald Trump's campaign manager has exposed how foreign governments hide their efforts to influence the American government through lobbying. We should ban Americans from getting paid to lobby for foreign governments-period. If foreign governments want to express their views, they can use their diplomats.
One more piece: End legalized lobbyist bribery by prohibiting lobbyists from writing campaign checks or giving personal gifts to anyone running for or holding federal office.
Reining in corporate lobbyists will make a big difference. But there's more.
Too often, decisions in the federal agencies charged with implementing our laws end up captured by the very same corporate giants that they're supposed to be keeping in check. It's time for that to stop. Corporations should have a seat at the table, but they shouldn't take over the whole restaurant.
And that's my Fourth Big Change - End corporate capture of rulemaking.
Start by empowering beleaguered agencies to stand up to well-heeled corporate giants that don't want to follow any rules.
When someone lies to a court, we call it "perjury." But, too often, when companies lie to regulatory agencies during the rulemaking process, they just call it "analysis"-and no one bats an eye. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's EPA has the gall to try to block objective, high quality science from being considered in the rulemaking process.
Enough of this garbage. Prosecute companies that knowingly mislead government agencies. And stop the practice of companies paying for sham "studies" designed to derail the rulemaking process. Instead, let's force anyone who submits a study to a regulatory agency to disclose who's paying for it and who's editing it. If studies with financial and editorial conflicts don't meet minimal methodological standards, throw them out before they disrupt the process.
---
Fifth Big Change - Restore faith that ordinary people can get a fair shake in our courts.
For starters, strengthen the code of conduct for all federal judges - no stock trading, no payments from corporations for attending events, no honoraria for giving speeches, no lavish getaways and fancy hunting trips funded by billionaires.
And I mean all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. I've heard Supreme Court justices say we should just trust that they'll be ethical all on their own. Yeah, right. I watched as Justice Gorsuch trotted over to Trump International Hotel to give a speech sponsored by a political organization that has worked for decades to break the backs of unions. A few months later, Justice Gorsuch delivered the deciding vote to crush public sector unions. What union member believed that her side actually had a fair hearing? There's a reason judges should be required to avoid even the appearance of favoritism.
The courts should also be more open. Individuals and small businesses should be able to have their day in court. Americans should be able to see easily what's happening in the judicial process. Public filings should be easier to access online and free to the public. And it's ten years' past time for us to start audio livestreaming federal appellate and Supreme Court proceedings.
---
Finally, Big Change Number Six - Hire a new independent sheriff to police corruption. There are dedicated public servants that enforce our ethics laws, but they have less authority than security guards at the mall. Build a new anticorruption agency to make sure that all key federal officials-even powerful Senators and Presidents-file disclosures and get rid of conflicts. Close up the loopholes in federal open records laws. This agency can shine floodlights on government actions and empower the public and press with new tools to help safeguard our democracy.
And we can do our best to insulate the sheriff's office from partisan politics and give it the tools it needs to seriously investigate violations and punish offenders.
---
Washington corruption is not a small problem, and it will not be rooted out with small solutions. In addition to the big changes I talked about today, my legislation contains dozens more ideas to promote clean government, from giant reforms to small tweaks and everything in between.
These changes will require everyone who runs for or who holds office to change at least some of their practices - including me. Many of these ideas challenge the most fundamental assumptions about how business is currently done in our nation's capital. Inside Washington, some of these proposals will be very unpopular, even with some of my friends. Outside Washington, I expect that most people will see these ideas as no-brainers and be shocked they're not already the law.
I'm sure the people who make big money off the current system will yell and scream and spend millions of dollars trying to stop these changes. And the all-day-long pundits and Washington insiders who live in the same neighborhoods and eat at the same sushi bars and go to the same book parties will say 'this will never pass' and try to color me naive for even trying. But it's that kind of self-serving group-think that's allowed corruption to spread through this town for decades.
Besides, such nay-saying ignores our history: Our country has responded to deep corruption with bold action before.
I won't pretend to be sure I've gotten everything exactly right. I'm willing and eager to discuss the details. My bill proposes a year-long transition for people to adapt to the new system before these changes would go into effect. But here is my promise: I plan to fight to pass as many of these reforms as possible. I believe we can break the stranglehold that the wealthy and well-connected hold over our government. I believe we can get our democracy working again.
---
There are millions of good people working in government. People who show up to do a hard day's work in federal, state and local government, determined to deliver essential services and their best judgments on behalf of the public.
Men and women who are uniquely aware that they owe their jobs - and their salaries - to you, the people of the United States.
They are Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, their staffs, interns and volunteers.
They are career public servants, serving here at home and in remote corners of the world.
They are unified by a belief in the greater good of government. It's that belief, that shared vision of what it means to live and work and fight for a future in our democracy that gives me hope.
We owe everyone fighting for that greater good a debt of gratitude.
But we also owe them rules that promote an unwavering determination to serve the public-and only the public.
This is not about big government versus small government. It's about whether government works for the wealthy and well-connected or government works for the people.
Only 18% of Americans believe our government is doing right most of the time. But I'm not throwing my hands up and walking away. I'm not giving in to the cynicism. I still believe that in our darkest hours, at our lowest points, government can be a force for good to bring us back together.
And here's the good news: deep down, still Americans believe it, too.
You see it in the fight to make government affirm healthcare as a basic human right.
You see it in the fight to make government stand for people and against giant corporations.
You see it the fight to insulate government from the influence of corporate contributions.
You see it in the fight to make government a force for healing our racial and cultural divides.
Americans know that they have a government that isn't working for them. But instead of giving up, more and more people are demanding a government that is run by the people for the people.
A country where everyone - everyone - has a fighting chance to get ahead.
A country that stands for truth, honesty, compassion and service to one another.
A country and a government that's worth believing in and worth fighting for.
That's the country I believe in. That's the government I will fight for. I believe we can save our government, and together we can make it work for the people.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat and fearless consumer advocate who has made her life's work the fight for middle class families, was elected to the United States Senate on November 6, 2012, by the people of Massachusetts.
“Fossil Free Zones are where the transition away from fossil fuels stops being a promise and starts happening on the ground.”
More than 40 advocacy groups on Thursday issued a declaration calling on the world's governments to establish permanent "Fossil Free Zones” to protect the climate, critical ecosystems, and Indigenous peoples and their lands from oil, gas, and coal exploration and extraction.
Unveiled at the United Nations Climate Change Conference—also known as COP31—in Antalya, Türkiye, the Fossil Free Zones Declaration urges governments to make the zones a central component of each nation's plans to transition away from oil, coal, and gas.
What is a Fossil Free Zone? As Cecilia Requena, a Bolivian senator and environmentalist, and Juan Pablo Osornio, the engagement and policy director at the nonprofit green group Earth Insight, explained:
A Fossil Free Zone is a defined area demarcated by its ecological, biodiversity, or cultural significance, where exploration, extraction, and development of fossil fuels are permanently prohibited. Think tropical rainforests, key biodiversity areas, Indigenous peoples’ territories, and critical marine ecosystems. They translate the abstract global commitment to transitioning away from fossil fuels into something tangible: a map, a boundary, a legal safeguard.
"Amid deep geopolitical fragmentation and weakening international cooperation, continued dependence on fossil fuels is further exacerbating existing vulnerabilities," the Fossil Free Zones Declarations states.
"Beyond its climate impacts, this dependence exposes countries and communities to volatile energy markets, supply disruptions, and economic instability, while undermining energy security and national sovereignty," the document continues. "Continued coal, oil, and gas extraction also causes unnecessary and avoidable harm to people and nature, including driving deforestation and biodiversity loss."
"Fossil fuel expansion continues to threaten ecosystems essential for biodiversity, climate stability, and the cultures and livelihoods of the peoples who protect them," the declaration adds. "Halting this expansion in critical territories such as forests or coral reefs is therefore an immediate, concrete step toward a just, orderly, and equitable transition, alongside plans to phase out existing fossil fuel production within key ecosystems."
The declaration—whose signatories include WWF International, Amazon Watch, the Science Panel for the Amazon, and Parliamentarians for a Fossil Free Future—calls for halting new fossil fuel exploration and expansion while prioritizing the responsible closure of existing projects in areas of climatic, ecological, and cultural importance.
“Fossil Free Zones are where the transition away from fossil fuels stops being a promise and starts happening on the ground," said Earth Insight senior associate for diplomacy Ignacio Arróniz Velasco. "When governments permanently close critical ecosystems and Indigenous territories to oil, gas, and coal extraction, they protect ecosystems, uphold the rights of the peoples who steward nature, and take a concrete first step towards a full, fair phaseout."
"This can be done with existing tools like nature protection laws or land tenure recognition," he stressed. "This is what implementation looks like. COP31 gives governments a real chance to work together on Fossil Free Zones and build them into their national roadmaps, so the just transition starts in the places that matter most for climate, nature, and people.”
Noting that "the Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the globe, and should be the most obvious place to draw the line against new fossil fuel development," Susanne Waage, WWF Norway's fossil fuel transition lead, lamented that "Norway continues to explore aggressively for new oil and gas in one of the world's most vulnerable regions."
Waage added that the European Union, "Norway's largest oil and gas customer, has already said no to new Arctic oil and gas. Norway should listen, stop exploring for new oil and gas resources, and help make the Arctic a Fossil Free Zone."
Pascal Mirindi, Democratic Republic of Congo national coordinator of the group Our Land Without Oil, asserted: "We cannot claim to protect forests, peatlands, and vital ecosystems while opening the door to oil and gas within them. In the DRC, these projects threaten territories and the communities who depend on them for their livelihoods."
"Fossil Free Zones offer a concrete and immediate solution," Mirindi added. "Here at COP31, we are calling on governments to end all new exploration in critical ecosystems, to recognize these zones in their national roadmaps, and to guarantee a just transition centered on the rights of communities."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the CFPB's architect, promised a reckoning when Democrats retake Congress: "If you've been making your profits by cheating American families... you better get ready for some investigations."
The Trump administration has almost entirely abandoned consumer protection lawsuits even as complaints about corporate abuses surge, according to a Guardian analysis published Thursday.
From mid-2012 to the start of 2025, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—created to fight predatory actions by financial institutions in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis—averaged about 30 enforcement actions a year, helping to recoup over $21 billion for consumers illegally ripped off by banks, mortgage lenders, credit card companies, and other entities.
But since January 2025, when President Donald Trump returned to office, it has launched just two enforcement actions. Meanwhile, it has dropped pending cases against at least 23 defendants—including credit card companies like Capital One, banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, and Warren Buffett’s business empire Berkshire Hathaway.
Those cases were not abandoned because consumers no longer have complaints about these companies. On the contrary, complaints have increased against 17 of the 23 companies the bureau stopped pursuing. Overall, the number of complaints filed by consumers with the bureau has shot up from nearly 2.7 million in 2024 to 6.3 million this year.
“Consumers are telling the bureau that there is an emergency, and the bureau is not listening or acting on that information,” Erie Meyer, a former chief technologist at the CFPB who helped oversee the creation of its complaint database, told The Guardian. “People are getting screwed twice: first by the company, second by the agency that’s supposed to stick up for them.”
Austin Hinkle, a former senior counsel and section chief at the CFPB, described Trump’s new regime at the bureau as essentially issuing “corporate pardons” to firms that were being investigated under the Biden administration for alleged flagrant abuses.
“People are getting screwed twice: first by the company, second by the agency that’s supposed to stick up for them.”
In February 2025, just a month after his second term began, Trump’s CFPB dismissed a lawsuit filed under the Biden administration accusing Capital One of cheating millions of customers out of more than $2 billion in interest by deliberately concealing higher-interest savings accounts from them, going as far as directing employees not to inform customers about the accounts unless asked. The company agreed to a $425 million class-action settlement in April, considerably less than the $2 billion in lost interest alleged by the CFPB.
Also in February 2025, the bureau dismissed a lawsuit against the mortgage company Vanderbilt, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. Regulators accused the company of knowingly saddling low-income families with mortgages they could not afford in an echo of the lending behavior that spawned the 2008 housing crisis, which in turn led to the CFPB’s creation. In one case, Vanderbilt granted a mortgage to a family that, by the company’s calculations, would have had just over $57 left in income after monthly expenses. In another, it approved a mortgage for two adults who already had 33 debts in collection.
In March 2025, the bureau also dropped a case accusing three of the nation’s largest banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—of failing to prevent widespread fraud using their money transfer system, Zelle. Consumers allegedly lost a combined $870 million after the banks failed to stop repeat scammers from using the app. Regulators also alleged that the banks refused to compensate victims even after they provided evidence that criminals had taken over their accounts.
All of these cases were dismissed with prejudice, meaning that a future CFPB cannot reopen any of them.
The administration also dropped other cases involving payday lenders accused of trapping borrowers in cycles of debt, companies allegedly charging delivery drivers fees to access their own earnings, student loan servicers accused of collecting discharged debts, and banks accused of mistreating elderly and disabled veterans receiving federal benefits. It also canceled a settlement with Navy Federal Credit Union over illegal overdraft fees charged to military service members, veterans, and their families.
In addition, the administration has terminated or weakened another 23 existing enforcement orders, often involving companies that had already agreed to compensate victims for misconduct, according to a report by Democrats on the US Senate Banking Committee. That report estimated that reduced enforcement at the CFPB had cost consumers $19 billion during Trump’s first year in office.
The money transfer company Wise, for instance, had a $2 million fine reduced to just $45,000. Other companies like Apple and US Bank were freed from enhanced oversight years ahead of schedule.
Many consumer protection cases and settlements were dismissed while the bureau was run by Russell Vought, an architect of the Heritage Foundation’s far-right Project 2025, which has functioned as a policy playbook for Trump’s second term. He also leads the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Vought has referred to the CFPB as “a woke and weaponized agency against disfavored industries and individuals” and said his goal was to “close down the agency.”
In April 2025, he attempted to fire about 90% of the CFPB’s workforce—an effort blocked by federal courts. Vought stopped serving as acting director in August. The agency is now led by Mark Paoletta, a former chief legal officer for Vought.
Democrats, who retook both the US House of Representatives and Senate earlier this month in a midterm landslide fueled by grievances about high prices and a lack of accountability for powerful corporations, have vowed to investigate the Trump administration's efforts to "dismantle" the CFPB.
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), who is in line to become the chair of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions beginning in 2027, told The Guardian that he and his colleagues plan to pursue “subpoenas, investigations, hearings, and, ultimately, legislative action to restore consumer protections in this country and hold accountable those who seek to profit off the most vulnerable Americans.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who led the charge to create the CFPB in 2010, is expected to take over as chair of the Senate Banking Committee, where she has promised a reckoning for corporate abuses.
As ranking member, she has already confronted Vought directly about his actions while in charge of the CFPB—including during a hearing in July when she questioned him about the bureau’s decision to terminate a settlement with Toyota Motor Credit after the company donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund. The company had been accused of trapping consumers into paying thousands of dollars in some cases for unwanted insurance and warranties, while making the products extremely difficult to cancel and withholding refunds.
Warren has promised that she will prioritize accountability for the financial institutions that have been allowed to run roughshod under Trump.
“Big Tech CEOs, administration officials, Trump family crypto businesses, Wall Street executives, and giant corporations should preserve their documents and prepare to answer tough questions,” an aide to Warren told Politico Monday.
On CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Warren said, “If you’ve been making your profits by cheating American families and scamming your investors, you better get ready for some investigations, serious ones.”
"The imminence of breaching 1.5°C cannot be an excuse to open the door to defeatism—the focus has to be on accelerating action to limit the magnitude and duration of overshoot."
With world leaders, climate campaigners, scientists, and more gathered in Türkiye for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, an independent project that tracks government action warned Thursday that global warming is headed toward "an irrecoverable overshoot of 1.5°C" unless countries "rapidly reduce emissions to limit both the magnitude and duration of this overshoot."
A series of analyses released in the lead-up to the summit—including the United Nations Environment Program's "Limiting Overshoot" publication from September, the UNEP's "The Emissions Gap Report 2026: The Point of Return" from October, and the World Meteorological Organization's "State of the Climate: Update for COP31" from last week—have all sounded the alarm about at least temporarily surpassing 1.5°C, the Paris Agreement's global temperature rise limit for this century.
The new Climate Action Tracker (CAT) report, "Without Rapid Action, The World Is Heading to Irrecoverable Overshoot," lays out real-world action based on current policies; pledges and targets from the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of countries that have signed on to the Paris Agreement; and the "optimistic scenario" based on all announced ambitions.
"Aggregated climate action has now essentially stalled for five consecutive years, with positive and negative actions canceling each other out," says the CAT briefing. "The warming outlook from current policies is leading to 2.7°C in 2100 (slightly up from 2.6°C) as it stood from 2021-2024."
"Our 2030 and 2035 targets scenario that assumes governments meet all their targets remains unchanged at 2.6°C in 2100," the report details. "The round of 2035 NDCs has closed: And it's clear governments have failed to meaningfully improve the outlook for end-of-century warming."
CAT's scenario that includes 2030 and 2035 NDCs as well as long-term targets projects "warming of 2.1°C in 2100, down from 2.2°C last year," the report continues. "Ambitious near- and long-term targets matter, but without credible policies and immediate implementation, they risk becoming empty promises rather than drivers of real-world emission reductions."
"Our optimistic scenario, assuming full implementation of all announced and net-zero targets, remains at 1.9°C in 2100," it stresses. "Even under our most optimistic assessment, if governments were to implement every single national pledge they have made—including the net-zero targets—we will still permanently overshoot the 1.5°C limit and get close to 2°C."
As both greenhouse gas concentrations and the profits of fossil fuel giants have soared while communities around the world face deadly heatwaves, rapidly intensifying hurricanes, rising sea levels, and destructive wildfires—like those that ravaged COP31 host Türkiye in September—scientists have reiterated warnings about the need for sweeping action to cut emissions.
"Continued warming from greenhouse gases emitted from human activities threatens to feed further warming as permafrost, wetlands, and wildfires destabilize and respond by releasing carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide," Ben Poulter, warming-induced emissions program director at Spark Climate Solutions, said in September, when a study he co-authored was published.
"This study provides a critical look at the magnitude of the temperature response," Poulter added, "and a call to action to accelerate the accounting and monitoring of warming-induced emissions to support pathways that phase out fossil emissions to stabilize the planet’s climate."
But the brutal truth is that the positive developments do not yet add up to bending the curve of emissions fast enough. Increasing energy demand and build-out of new fossil fuel infrastructure have led to still rising emissions.
[image or embed]
— Climate Action Tracker (@climateactiontracker.org) November 12, 2026 at 1:04 AM
Bill Hare, CEO of CAT partner organization Climate Analytics, emphasized Thursday that "the stark choice for governments is to either continue to support the fossil fuel industry, which would consign humanity to insurmountable economic damages, rising mortality from heat, and climate-driven diseases and disasters that they are unable to adapt to—or pivot to the solutions which are available and cheaper than ever."
"The imminence of breaching 1.5°C cannot be an excuse to open the door to defeatism—the focus has to be on accelerating action to limit the magnitude and duration of overshoot," he argued. "Every increment of warming above 1.5°C means even more significant consequences across climate, nature and human systems."
The report outlines "five key levers that could cut emissions at the speed and urgency needed to follow a Paris-aligned pathway, limiting the magnitude and duration of overshoot," which are:
"Governments collectively are simply not moving fast enough to adopt the policies that would enable us to escape from the emerging overshoot trap," said the lead author of CAT's report, Climate Analytics policy analyst Sarah Heck. "Worse, several are taking their foot off the accelerator and slowing their climate action—or in cases such as the USA, Canada, and New Zealand—rolling it back at a staggering level."
So far this week, Climate Action Network International has given its satirical "Fossil of the Day" award—long used to call out bad actors during climate summits—to New Zealand, for "dismantling its own climate commitments" under Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, as well as "absent leaders of wealthy countries," including Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
The stark choice for governments is to either continue to support the fossil fuel industry – or pivot to the solutions which are available and cheaper than ever. The lack of decisive action means that long-term warming is expected to cross the 1.5°C limit around 2030.
[image or embed]
— Climate Action Tracker (@climateactiontracker.org) November 12, 2026 at 1:04 AM
While a key Democratic US senator is attending COP31, President Donald Trump is skipping the summit and has not sent a delegation, even though his country is the world's worst historical climate polluter. UNEP's report from last month highlights the dangers of the pro-fossil fuel agenda that the Republican leader has pursued since returning to power last year, including ditching the Paris Agreement, again.
Trump's ongoing illegal war on Iran has not only led to the deaths of thousands of people but also padded the pockets of those invested in the fossil fuel industry—including himself—while people around the world pay the price at the pump, due to Iran's restrictions on ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
"With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz exposing our vulnerability to geopolitical shocks," said Niklas Höhne of CAT partner organization NewClimate Institute, "the case for renewables and electrification has never been stronger—and it does appear that global emissions could be on the verge of a peak and a much faster decline than we had previously thought."
“The patients in the department were all surgical patients waiting to undergo operations. The bombing happened at a time when they should have been asleep," said one doctor.
American-made bombs appeared to have been used in an Israeli strike on Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, Gaza on Thursday, in which at least six people, including a surgeon and at least one child, were killed and at least 28 more were injured.
Trevor Ball, an analyst with Armament Research Services, told The New York Times that Associated Press footage of the aftermath of the bombing showed two 250-pound precision-guided aerial bombs that were manufactured in the US.
"Arms embargo now," said Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Center for International Policy, in response to the latest attack on the hospital, which has been struck numerous times since Israel began attacking Gaza more than three years ago in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack.
The US has passed legislation providing Israel with at least $16.3 billion in direct military aid since October 2023, on top of the $3.8 billion the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) receive from the US annually, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
Both the Trump and the Biden administrations have also vehemently defended Israel's attacks on Gaza even as they have targeted hospitals, journalists, aid workers, and children—repeating Israel's claims that medical facilities are used as military outposts by Hamas and are therefore legitimate targets, and that Israel is targeting the Palestinian group it labels a terrorist organization and is taking steps to protect civilians.
In the case of Nasser Hospital this week, Dr. Ayman Abu Ubaid, a surgical specialist who was wounded in the attack that occurred around midnight, told The Guardian that the IDF provided no warning that could have allowed staff to remove patients and medical providers from harm's way.
“The patients in the department were all surgical patients waiting to undergo operations. The bombing happened at a time when they should have been asleep," Abu Ubaid told The Guardian.
The doctor added that "the bombing caused thick smoke to fill the rooms and fires to break out, amid the groans of [the] wounded and people’s screams. There were many casualties and blood everywhere... Most of us sustained injuries to our limbs, as well as shrapnel wounds in different parts of our bodies.”
Hadja Lahbib, the European commissioner for equality, preparedness, and crisis management, emphasized that "hospitals are protected under international humanitarian law and must never be targets.
"Civilians must be protected," said Lahbib. "I urge a prompt, independent, and impartial investigation to ensure accountability."
Israel said it had targeted and struck Hamas commanders and fighters who were operating out of the hospital, but did not provide evidence.
One confirmed death was that of Dr. Rizk Abu Shaaira, 52, who was featured in the documentary film "American Doctor," working alongside physicians from the US who traveled to Gaza to provide medical aid.
"My colleague and friend Dr. Rizk Abu Shaaira was killed yesterday at work when Israel, backed by the US as always, bombed the surgical recovery room at Nasser Medical Complex," said Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, a trauma surgeon from California who was also featured in the film.
"Dr. Rizk's shocking murder is yet another reminder of why we must get control of our country," said Sidhwa. "Our government has no right to force us to subsidize the mass murder of doctors and children, not in Palestine and not anywhere."
Dr. Thaer Ahmad, a Palestinian-American emergency doctor, also paid tribute to the surgeon, saying he had been seen in the documentary "operating and serving his people."
"He lost his life doing that, he lost his life because he was doing that," said Ahmad.
Abu Shaaira died alongside a patient he had operated on, The Guardian reported.
A 13-year-old boy named Jihad Naeem Muhammad Abu Tilikh was also among those killed, according to the hospital.
Several floors of the hospital were heavily damaged, and part of the surgery department was destroyed. The radiology, laboratory, surgical operations, and inpatient surgical departments were forced to suspend operations.
Nasser Hospital was also struck in August 2025 in a double-tap strike that killed at least 20 people, including journalists and healthcare workers.
United Nations experts have accused Israel of "medicide" due to its destruction of about 90% of Gaza's health infrastructure, which has left just two hospitals operational. More than 1,700 healthcare workers in Gaza have been killed since October 2023.
More than 74,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks, including about 1,600 who have been killed since a ceasefire was reached in October 2025.
"How can this still be called a ceasefire?" said Philippe Lazzarini, former commissioner-general of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. "A real one is needed and overdue."
"If all we do is kind of go back to what we've been doing in a moment where we've been given a mandate, I worry that we may not earn our mandate."
Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed said an interview published by NPR on Thursday that now is the time for Democrats in the US Senate to take bold action and deliver progressive change.
During the interview, the Michigan Democrat explained why he would like to see Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) replace current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as head of the caucus when the party takes the majority in the upper congressional chamber next year.
"I deeply appreciate Senator Schumer," El-Sayed said. "But this is about leadership from the American public, and if all we do is kind of go back to what we've been doing in a moment where we've been given a mandate, I worry that we may not earn our mandate."
El-Sayed said he was particularly impressed by Van Hollen in 2025 when he took up the cause of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was unlawfully deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration.
"He's willing to take risks when it matters—flying down to see Kilmar Abrego Garcia was a real risk," El-Sayed explained. "I want folks to sort of think about what it means to earn that mandate that we just got. To me, it means taking righteous risks and righteous fights."
Van Hollen has not formally stated that he will run against Schumer to be Senate Democrats' leader, but he said earlier this week that he has not ruled it out.
Two polls of progressive activists released in the last week show an overwhelming demand to find an alternative to Schumer as Senate Democratic leader.
Elswhere in the interview, El-Sayed outlined an agenda he'd like to see Senate Democrats pursue, including ending President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, passing Medicare for All, and abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
El-Sayed said he'd even be willing to name the Medicare for All program after Trump if the president agreed to sign off on its passage.
"Put his name on it," El-Sayed said. "He'll probably pass it. I'm not above doing that. I don't care what it's called."
While it's unlikely that Trump would sign Medicare for All into law should it pass, El-Sayed said it would still be worth passing just to get the president on the record vetoing it.
"I dare Donald Trump to veto," he said. "I dare him, because if you want to make the argument that Democrats want to deliver for you, do that. Make him veto it."
"If every Democrat was talking like Chris Van Hollen," said one peace advocate, "we'd be just weeks away from ending this war."
As leading Democrats express hesitation about using an upcoming fight over government funding to cut off money for President Donald Trump's illegal Iran war, Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Ro Khanna are pushing their party to act boldly against a conflict that spurred massive backlash against the GOP at the ballot box last week.
The Washington Sun reported Wednesday that Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Khanna's (D-Calif.) call for Democrats to withhold their support for any government funding package unless it excludes money for the Iran war is "hitting resistance from senior members of the party." The outlet cited several top Democrats, including Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, and other lawmakers who have voiced skepticism about potentially sparking a government shutdown over war funding just weeks after the midterms.
But Van Hollen, who is considering a run for Senate majority leader in the upcoming Congress, has countered that any blame for a shutdown would fall on Trump and his Republican Party.
"If the president wants to tell the country that he’s prepared to shut down the United States government in order to conduct an illegal and senseless war in Iran, that will be his choice," said Van Hollen.
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), echoed Van Hollen, writing to Democrats: "You wouldn’t be shutting down the government. You’d be offering a bill that funds the government but prohibits any funds for the war."
"If Republicans oppose that," Duss added, "they would be choosing to continue the war and shut down the government."
Trump launched the war on Iran without congressional authorization in late February and has funded the conflict with existing Pentagon appropriations. The Pentagon has put the Iran war's price tag at $47 billion—an estimate that outside experts say is a dramatic undercount.
The White House has called on Congress to approve a supplemental funding package that includes tens of billions of dollars for the war, which Trump administration officials previously said would be over in a matter of weeks.
Van Hollen told The Washington Sun last week that he is "not planning to vote for anything that provides any funding to fuel the war in Iran."
“I think this is a really important moment for Democratic leadership,” said Van Hollen. “Are the Democrats, including the Democratic leadership, going to listen to the verdict of the American people and vote to end this war?”
Erik Sperling, executive director of the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, said Wednesday that "if every Democrat was talking like Chris Van Hollen, we'd be just weeks away from ending this war."
"Instead, too many AIPAC-backed Dems are acting powerless to stop one of the most unpopular wars and lame-duck presidents in history," Sperling added.
Current government funding is set to expire on December 11.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who is vying to become House speaker in the upcoming Congress, would not commit to supporting efforts to cut off Iran war money in the upcoming government funding package and said the details are in the hands of Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democratic appropriators.
DeLauro said in a statement to Politico last week that "Democrats will absolutely not fund Trump’s war of choice with Iran that has increased costs on American families and made us less safe." But The Washington Sun reported on Wednesday that neither DeLauro nor Murray "would commit to demanding Iran war restrictions as a condition of supporting a December funding extension, with Murray saying Democrats are examining their options."
Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, tells me Democrats will “explore every option” to end the Iran war, but wouldn’t commit to opposing Schumer should he refuse to block any government funding bill with dollars for it. Murray has the power to stop war funding in the CR.
— Julian Andreone (@JulianAndreone) November 10, 2026
In a social media post earlier this week, Khanna—a possible 2028 presidential candidate—argued that the midterm results were "a cry for help by Americans who are in pain." A tracker maintained by Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs estimates that the Iran war has cost US consumers over $157 billion in extra gasoline and diesel costs.
"Democrats must stop the war in Iran to bring down the cost of gas, food, and diesel," Khanna wrote. "We can do this by insisting on no funding for Iran combat activities in the continuing resolution."
This election was a cry for help by Americans who are in pain.This November, Democrats must stop the war in Iran to bring down the cost of gas, food, and diesel. We can do this by insisting on no funding for Iran combat activities in the continuing resolution. https://t.co/o7IrzGJlcY
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) November 9, 2026
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has joined Van Hollen and Khanna in demanding specific provisions in any government funding bill to ensure that no more money goes toward continuing the Iran war.
“I think we should come up with a funding bill that does things like replenishes munitions... all the stuff that we need to do as a nation, but say, ‘The war is illegal, until you get [congressional] authorization,'" Kaine told Jewish Insider earlier this week. "I think we should put in a provision that says, ‘No funding for a war in Iran unless you get an authorization from Congress.'"
"It’s obscene that the very corporations which have created the climate crisis are demanding eye-watering payouts when governments take much needed climate action."
Ahead of an official side event at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Antalya, Türkiye, campaigners on Thursday released an analysis of UN data regarding secretive deals within trade agreements aimed at protecting the profits of corporations, including fossil fuel giants, which have now claimed at least $443 billion from the legal provisions.
Investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS), which allow corporations to sue governments over their investments and profit losses as the result of laws and regulations, have increasingly been used by the fossil fuel industry as countries have started taking action to regulate planet-heating oil and gas emissions, according to data from the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
The data was analyzed by the British campaign group Global Justice Now and the German research organization PowerShift, which found that based on 987 publicly disclosed ISDS cases, corporate investors have demanded a total of $1.177 trillion up to 2025.
That represents a 37.5% increase, or $321 billion more, from the amount investors were attempting to claim at the end of 2023.
$1.177 trillion is nearly equivalent to the total global climate finance needs, including mitigation costs, for 2021-22, said the campaigners.
The total compensation demanded by fossil fuel investors, $443.8 billion, "is equivalent to the estimated minimum amount of economic losses developing countries will face due to climate change in 2030," said Global Justice Now and PowerShift.
In fossil fuel cases, the amount demanded rose by $80 billion, or 22%, compared to 2023.
Fabian Flues, investment policy lead at PowerShift, pointed out that by "weaponizing" ISDS, fossil fuel giants are siphoning "money from public budgets that are already stretched," and Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, compared the ISDS payouts to "the owners of enslaved people being compensated for their grotesque harms following abolition in the early 19th century.”
“We know fossil fuel corporations are making a fortune out of global crises, hitting ordinary people hard," said Dearden. "But they are also using obscure international agreements to bully governments out of responding and drain money from the public sector. It’s obscene that the very corporations which have created the climate crisis are demanding eye-watering payouts when governments take much needed climate action."
This week, US company ExxonMobil launched a legal challenge to the European Union's Net Zero Industry Act, under which the company is required to pay for carbon storage.
“We know fossil fuel corporations are making a fortune out of global crises, hitting ordinary people hard. But they are also using obscure international agreements to bully governments out of responding and drain money from the public sector."
The law would saddle Exxon with "unrealistic timelines," the company said in a statement.
A UK-based mining company and its Singapore-based majority shareholder also sued the UK government last year for £300 million ($398 million) after officials blocked their "unviable" coal mine planned for Cumbria.
“This legal challenge is a last, desperate attempt by investors to make some money out of a project which belonged in the last century," Niall Toru, a senior lawyer at Friends of the Earth, told Land and Climate Review in May.
According to Global Justice Now and PowerShift, the total amount of compensation awarded to corporate investors through ISDS cases reached $123 billion last year, with fossil fuel investors receiving "the lion’s share of $85.9 billion, representing almost 70% of all payouts to investors."
$123 billion is "equivalent to the entire bilateral development aid given by [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries in 2025," said the campaigners.
The groups are among those calling on leaders at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP31) to agree to a coordinated phase-out of ISDS.
Next Monday, Global Justice Now and the Netherlands-based group Both ENDS are organizing an official side event in Antalya featuring Vanuatu Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu, representatives from communities at the center of ISDS disputes, and a senior government official from Australia, which announced a new policy in 2022 of excluding ISDS mechanisms from future trade deals.
"Governments need to stop this heist and cancel the international agreements that enable fossil fuel investors to sue over climate policies," said Flues. "Countries like Australia, South Africa, and Indonesia have taken significant steps to free themselves from ISDS, and others should follow suit.”
"If this is what Southern organizers and candidates can accomplish with limited investment, imagine what is possible when we meet their leadership and labor with the resources they deserve."
Local district attorney Scott Colom was declared the winner of a closely contested US Senate race in deep-red Mississippi on Wednesday after more than a week of ballot counting, a historic upset victory for grassroots organizing in a state that Republicans have dominated for decades.
"I had the courage to believe in Mississippi," said Colom, who will become the first Black senator from Mississippi since Reconstruction. Colom is also the first Democrat to win a US Senate election in Mississippi since 1982, succeeding despite ongoing attacks on voting rights across the state.
Incumbent Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), who in 2023 blocked Colom's nomination to serve as a federal district judge, conceded the race on Wednesday and congratulated the Democratic senator-elect.
Colom said in his victory speech at Tougaloo College, a historically Black college in Jackson, that he sometimes "couldn't get donors to answer the phone" when fundraising for his campaign, a jab at Democratic higher-ups' lack of investment in Mississippi and the South more broadly.
Senate Democrats' campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), excluded Mississippi from a $40 million investment in battleground states across the country in July. The DSCC ultimately intervened in the final days of the race with a $500,000 ad buy for Colom, who campaigned on fighting the affordability crisis, raising wages and tying them to living costs, and reversing GOP cuts to federal healthcare programs.
Colom drew widespread attention with viral ad campaigns spotlighting Hyde-Smith's comments downplaying the rising cost of beef.
"You know, you have so many proteins to choose from," the Republican senator said in February.
"Pick another protein?" a Mississippi resident responds in one Colom campaign ad. "I'd rather pick another senator instead."
Britney Whaley, Southeast regional director of the Working Families Party, celebrated Colom's win as a challenge to "everything conventional wisdom tells us about Southern politics."
"This historic win in Mississippi should serve as a clarion call for the political establishment: It’s time to redraw the entire political map, reevaluate polling methods, and conduct a serious audit of investment portfolios. The South is in play, and it’s time to start acting like it," said Whaley. "This win belongs to the countless Black leaders and grassroots organizers who envisioned a future for Mississippi that much of the country could not imagine and spent years organizing, building, and fighting to bring that vision to life. And it belongs to the Mississippi voters who refused to have their voices silenced, showing up in the face of archaic and suppressive voting laws to make their voices heard."
"If this is what Southern organizers and candidates can accomplish with limited investment," Whaley added, "imagine what is possible when we meet their leadership and labor with the resources they deserve."
Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP, said in a statement that "Mississippi voters made history because they refused to be intimidated, discouraged, or counted out."
"Even in the face of efforts to remove voters from the rolls, attempts to intimidate voters and election officials, and bids to create fear around the electoral process, Mississippi voters showed up," said Johnson. "They showed up for their communities, for their families, and for the future of their state. They reminded the nation that we the people have the power."
With Colom's victory, Democrats are set to hold at least 55 seats in the US Senate come January. Alaska's Senate race, where Democratic candidate Mary Peltola is narrowly leading Republican Dan Sullivan, has yet to be called.
The targeting of Abdullahi Mohamed amounts to the "blatant weaponization of the full federal government to intimidate political opponents,” said a spokesperson for Omar.
"The country is run by a criminal syndicate," one progressive organizer said Wednesday in response to the news that the Trump administration, as part of its effort to build a criminal case against US Rep. Ilhan Omar, had tried to obtain incriminating information from her former bodyguard—even offering to protect him from deportation in exchange for the information.
As The New York Times reported, Abdullahi Mohamed briefly worked as a bodyguard for Omar (D-Minn.) during an overseas trip, and drew an unusual amount of attention of federal prosecutors when he interviewed with an immigration official for a green card application in October 2025.
Mohamed, who has Somali and British citizenship, was seeking to become a permanent resident after marrying an American citizen in Minnesota.
But his interview included questions that were not routine, including whether he had "any interactions with any government officials or politicians in the United States.”
Mohamed, did not understand the question due to his lack of fluency in English, his lawyer, Bruce Rivers, told the Times, and he answered no despite having worked for Omar.
His green card application was denied—a frequent occurrence if officials believe an applicant has lied or misrepresented themselves. But in a development that one immigration judge told the Times was "deeply unusual," Mohamed received a letter from the US Department of Justice several months later, in February, saying he was under criminal investigation for lying to a government official under oath—a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
At a meeting with prosecutors the following month, the Times reported, it became clear why Mohamed had been targeted and why his case had been assigned to top officials in the US attorney's office in Minnesota who oversaw the criminal division and fraud and public corruption cases.
"The main focus of the meeting was Ms. Omar," according to the Times.
Around the same time, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance were heavily focused on an anti-fraud task force led by Vance, and a social services fraud scandal in Minnesota. The administration pointed fingers at Somali American communities across Minnesota and the country, and Trump claimed Omar was “one of the ringleaders" of fraudulent activity in the US.
Vance also told a conservative podcaster that he hoped to hold the congresswoman accountable for immigration fraud.
“They asked him if he knew who she was married to and that kind of stuff. He didn’t know any information about that stuff.”
In October, agents with the Department of Homeland Security raided Omar's Washington, DC home as part of its investigation into her immigration history. Officials have said the White House aims to deport the progressive congresswoman.
At the meeting with Mohamed in March, the prosecutors asked him about Omar's immigration from Somalia to the US when she was a child and her 2009 marriage, which some right-wing politicians and commentators have claimed was a ploy to help a man suspected of being her brother to obtain a green card.
Rivers told the Times that several times during the meeting, prosecutors told him and Mohamed that the investigation into Omar was "100% being run by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue"—the White House.
In an indication that the administration was also investigating Omar's financial records, the prosecutors also asked Mohamed if he knew anything about a $10,000 payment involving Omar and Mohamed's brother. The prosecutors called the payment a potential bribe; his brother later told Mohamed that the payment had settled a loan.
“They asked him if he knew who she was married to and that kind of stuff,” Rivers told the Times. “He didn’t know any information about that stuff.”
The prosecutors also offered to intervene in potential deportation proceedings against Mohamed if they provided the information they were looking for.
Jackie Rogers, a spokesperson for Omar, told the Times that the prosecutors' offer to Mohamed after his green card application had been denied was "outrageous."
“This is a staggering abuse of presidential power and a blatant weaponization of the full federal government to intimidate political opponents,” Rogers said.
The prosecutors then secured a grand jury indictment against Mohamed after their gambit to use him as a witness against Omar failed.
But in September, after Mohamed once again said he had no information about Omar's immigration history as part of testimony before a grand jury, prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against the former bodyguard, because he had been placed in deportation proceedings.
“There is no longer a federal interest in continuing prosecution in light of his anticipated removal from the United States,” said the prosecutors.
Mohamed is now in Nairobi, Kenya, while his wife remains in the US.
Despite the administration's attacks on Omar, the congresswoman easily won her reelection campaign last week, with more than 76% of the vote.
"A couple of weeks ago when they decided that they were going to come for me, they thought that they were going to find someone who was going to cower," said Omar on election night. "They thought that if you attacked me and you silenced me, that my community wouldn't show up and vote."
"In this moment in American history, Chuck's views are way out of touch with where the American people are at."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday offered a blistering assessment of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's leadership, saying his approach to everything from Israel and artificial intelligence to economic inequality demonstrates why Democrats need new leadership.
"I think, in this moment in American history, Chuck's views are way out of touch with where the American people are at—and especially with where [the base of] the Democratic Party is," Sanders (I-Vt.) told John Nichols, executive director of The Nation.
"On issue after issue, I think he is just not in tune with where his constituents are at," he said of the New York Democrat.
Sanders—who acknowledges that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza as determined by a UN commission of inquiry and many other experts—took particular aim at Schumer's continued support for US military aid to the country. Sanders argued that the United States should not provide "another nickel" in weapons assistance to an ally that the International Court of Justice and others say is an apartheid state, and whose prime minister is a fugitive from the International Criminal Court, wanted for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The two-time social democratic presidential candidate also questioned whether Schumer would fight for a billionaire wealth tax to fund universal childcare, tuition-free public colleges, and affordable housing.
"And I think that basically on other issues Chuck is a guy who wants to tinker around the edges," Sanders said.
Schumer's decision last year to help advance a Republican government funding bill sparked intense backlash from progressives, who accused him of surrendering Democrats' leverage and called on him to resign.
Sanders also criticized Schumer for failing to meaningfully address the power of the technology industry's billionaire executives and the rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence and data centers.
The criticism comes amid mounting progressive dissatisfaction with the party's congressional leadership following Democrats' sweeping midterm victories. As Common Dreams has reported, progressive organizers have argued that the electoral results represent a mandate for transformative change, not simply a return to business as usual under establishment Democrats.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has emerged as a potential alternative to Schumer—and one who Sanders said he would support.
"It's not a time for incrementalism," Van Hollen recently said. "It's a time to move forward a very bold kitchen table agenda."
Van Hollen has urged colleagues not to give Schumer a "blank check" without commitments to an ambitious economic program.
Schumer has sounded confident that he will be elected majority leader after Democrats retake control of Congress in January.
"I am going to be elected leader, OK, and we're united on the issues," Schumer told The Washington Sun on Wednesday. "We're united. We're united on costs and chaos."