

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.

Mark Morgenstein, Director of Media Relations, markm@publicinterestnetwork.org
Advocates for consumer, public health and environmental issues made great strides in 2019, while simultaneously defending existing policies that protect Americans from regressive changes by the federal government and unsustainable corporate practices.
"Too many of the federal regulations that keep our water, air and bodies clean and healthy -- or that protect consumers and their financial well-being -- came under attack in 2019," said Andre Delattre, the senior vice president and chief operating officer of The Public Interest Network, a transpartisan national advocacy group. "Whether in the Capitol, courts or corporate boardrooms, we have never had more urgency about the need to protect the public interest."
Despite challenges and setbacks, we have been able to accomplish a great deal this past year. Here is a list of 2019 highlights at the national level from The Public Interest Network's two largest groups, U.S. PIRG and Environment America:
A beef about beef (raised with routine use of antibiotics)
We've been building a network of leading health professional advocates, and urging the country's biggest restaurant chains to stop serving meat raised with routine antibiotic usage, to preserve the effectiveness of these life-saving drugs. This year, we started the "Superbugs Unplugged" podcast with George Washington University's Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, and got more major restaurant chains, from Darden (parent of Olive Garden and Longhorn) to Taco Bell to commit to phasing out routine antibiotic use from its chicken supply chain. We have started focusing on beef production, and after a commitment last December from McDonald's to address the issue in its supply chain, we're optimistic other restaurants will follow suit in 2020.
The CFPB complaint database survives
As of mid-January 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's public database had published nearly 1.2 million consumer complaints, including 257,000 in 2018 alone. That's why, when the new CFPB leadership threatened to take the database offline, we fought for continued transparency. The CFPB eventually not only maintained the visibility of the database, but also promised to enhance and upgrade the site.
Clean cars lawsuits to protect our climate
The Trump administration's attempt to revoke California's ability to set its own tough tailpipe emissions standards wasn't just reckless. It was also illegal, according to two lawsuits filed by Environment America. We joined 10 other organizations in filing suits in federal district court, where we're defending states' ability to do all they can under the law to combat climate change.
Credit freeze information for a public beset by data breaches
After significant data breaches at Capital One, Marriott, Facebook and others, our consumer protection team provided Americans with timely, user-friendly and accurate advice. Through our outreach and extensive media coverage, we provided the information people needed to freeze their credit reports at all three major credit bureaus to keep their data safe from identity theft.
Inadequate infant sleeper recall exposed
Just because a dangerous baby product has been recalled, that doesn't mean it's been removed from local child care centers. After PIRG's Consumer Watchdog team alerted the public to the threat of an inclined infant sleeper, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission proposed a new rule to virtually end the sale of all models. The rule, if adopted, would help protect millions of infants while they sleep. Then, right before the holidays, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Safe Sleep for Babies Act of 2019 with bipartisan support. It bans inclined sleepers and crib bumpers known to be potentially deadly threats to infants. The Senate will hopefully act early in 2020.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) permanently reauthorized
By a big bipartisan majority, Congress voted to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, America's most successful conservation and recreation program. Environment America had lobbied to save the program ever since it was allowed to expire in 2017. Now that we know the program's future, as 2019 comes to a close, we're calling on Congress to allocate the maximum amount to the chronically underfunded program.
We won two votes on the House floor to prevent the expansion of oil and gas drilling off our coasts. HR205 from Rep. Francis Rooney (FL) would make a moratorium on oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico permanent. HR1941 from Rep. Joe Cunningham (SC) would block new drilling efforts off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
The Paris Agreement isn't dead yet... and we're working on a Plan B
While President Donald Trump says he'll remove the United States from the multinational Paris climate accords, we've worked with Congress to ensure that Americans do whatever we can to keep mitigating the climate crisis. The first climate bill in a decade passed in the House of Representatives. HR9, the Climate Action Now Act sponsored by Rep. Kathy Castor (FL), would keep the United States in the Paris Agreement. It would defund any effort to withdraw and require the Trump administration to submit a plan to meet the U.S. commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2032.
Rep. Don McEachin (VA) also introduced the 100% Clean Economy Act of 2019, legislation to empower all federal agencies to do everything in their power to put the U.S. on a path to net zero emissions by 2050. A companion Senate bill is expected in 2020.
PFAS -- the "forever chemicals"
As 2019 comes to a close, we are gratified that Congress heeded our call and compelled the military to phase out its use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by 2024. These toxic, carcinogenic chemicals contaminate drinking water sources across the United States. The military has been one of the largest contributors to this widespread drinking water contamination due to its use of toxic firefighting foams; the Pentagon's adoption of safer alternatives will significantly limit pollution going forward. While we had hoped for stronger action to spur cleanup and limit dumping into waterways, we remain hopeful that Congress will pass into law provisions that would utilize the Superfund program and Clean Water Act, respectively.
"Right to Repair" movement takes flight
We testified before federal decision-makers about how manufacturers of cell phones, refrigerators, computers and other products make it hard for consumers to repair the things they own by not sharing the parts and service information required to fix them. We're working with legislators to draft language for state bills, building coalitions and training supporters. In 2019, more than 20 states filed Right to Repair legislation, and we're working to get these bills passed.
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.