

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.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's main lobbying arm, is
The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's main lobbying arm, is reportedly requesting a 30 percent tax credit for existing reactors as part of coronavirus aid.
This is the same demand that the nuclear made repeatedly last fall, well before the coronavirus. A recent independent analysis indicated that the proposal would cost the treasury $23 billion in lost revenue. Separately, the indirect cost to ratepayers would be $33 billion over 20 years, as regular consumers shoulder the burden of aging, uneconomic reactors. This proposal was previously opposed by over 60 environmental groups.
Lukas Ross, senior policy analyst with Friends of the Earth, issued the following statement in response:
Demanding a $23 gift from taxpayers during an unprecedented public health crisis sets a new low bar. The nuclear industry begged for a bailout last fall and is now using coronavirus to try and brazenly grab more cash.
This is a proposal that would hurt ratepayers and the climate at a time when immediate need for people must be the first priority. The nuclear lobby should be ashamed. This is disaster capitalism at its worst.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400“Every fraction of a degree means more hunger, displacement, and loss—especially for those least responsible,” said UN Secretary General António Guterres on Thursday. “This is moral failure—and deadly negligence.”
As world leaders gathered in Brazil for this year's global summit on the accelerating climate crisis this week, many took note of the absence of US President Donald Trump.
This year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) summit comes on the tenth anniversary of the Paris Climate agreement, in which nations committed to adopting policies intended to keep global temperature increases below the threshold of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, considered a tipping point at which many of the worst ravages of climate change will become irreversible.
Ten years later, progress has fallen far short of the mark, with leaders scrambling to keep the deal’s goals intact—an aim that is likely untenable without the cooperation of the US, the globe’s largest historical emitter of carbon.
America’s president has not only once again pulled the US out of the Paris agreement, but also sought to turn climate denial into public policy and spent his term in office thus far grinding American investment in renewable energy to a halt—actions viewed as extraordinary abdications of responsibility at a time when the globe is ever more rapidly approaching the point of no return for warming.
Fresh on climate advocates' minds are Trump’s comments at the UN General Assembly in September, when he described climate change as the world’s “greatest con job.”
On Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization found that greenhouse gas emissions had reached a record high. Meanwhile, 2025 is on track to be the third hottest year on record, behind only 2024 and 2023.
“Every fraction of a degree means more hunger, displacement, and loss—especially for those least responsible," said UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Thursday. "This is moral failure—and deadly negligence."
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who has emerged as one of the world's leading climate defenders from the heart of the Amazon rainforest, began the conference by delivering an indirect but unmistakable shot at Trump. He denounced the "extremist forces that fabricate fake news and are condemning future generations to life on a planet altered forever by global warming."
Other Latin American leaders were more direct. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whom Trump recently hit with sanctions and threatened with military action, denounced the US president as "against humanity," as evidenced by "his absence" at the conference.
"The president of the United States at the latest United Nations General Assembly said the climate crisis does not exist," added Chilean President Gabriel Boric. "That is a lie."
In Trump's stead, over 100 other state and local figures from US politics have traveled to Brazil to take part in the conference: Among them are California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers.
Another attendee is Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, chair of the Climate Mayors network, who recently applauded Tuesday night’s elections in the US. More than 40 candidates associated with the network came out victorious, as well as the self-described ecosocialist New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.
“Our climate mayors did very well on the ballot,” Gallego said to applause at a local leaders forum for COP30. “We want to send this message from the US.”
But despite the US delegation, even with officials from the Trump administration absent, climate campaigners fear the White House may still seek to sabotage the conference from afar. Last month, the administration did just that when it used the threat of tariffs to strong-arm countries into killing what would have been a global-first carbon fee on shipping.
Even without Trump present, COP30 is crawling with fossil fuel lobbyists seeking to stymie progress. A report released Friday from the climate advocacy group Kick Big Polluters Out found that over 5,350 fossil fuel lobbyists have attended UN climate negotiations over the past four years. The corporations they represent are responsible for more than 60% of global emissions.
“These companies have defended their fossil interests by watering down climate action for years," said Fiona Hauke of the German environmental group Urgewald. "As we head towards COP30, we demand transparency and accountability: Keep polluters out of climate talks and make them pay for a just energy transition.”
"A military sending armed soldiers into US cities to fight 'the enemy within' at a president's behest is not one to embolden with more funding."
Nearly two dozen advocacy groups warned Thursday that a Republican-led effort to give President Donald Trump an additional $32 billion in Pentagon funding for the coming fiscal year would enable his administration to accelerate its lawless use of the military, both in US communities and overseas.
"We are seeing the administration intensify its National Guard domestic deployments, an authoritarian move that is plainly designed to clamp down on dissent and chill Americans' First Amendment expression," Public Citizen, Demand Progress, Peace Action, and other organizations wrote in a letter to the top Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees as lawmakers in both chambers work to hash out differences between their versions of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
"A military sending armed soldiers into US cities to fight 'the enemy within' at a president's behest is not one to embolden with more funding," the groups added.
The letter also notes that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are "unconstitutionally and dangerously" using the US military "to carry out assassinations in the Caribbean."
"Providing additional funding to the Pentagon at such a time would be seen as an implicit endorsement of this reckless activity," the groups wrote.
"Hegseth is a key enabler of Trump's authoritarianism, as Pentagon resources are being used in reckless and illegal actions domestically and internationally."
The House version of the NDAA, approved in September in a mostly party-line vote, would authorize $892.6 billion in military spending for the coming fiscal year.
But the Senate-passed version would increase that top line number by just over $32 billion, even as the Pentagon fails to pass an independent audit and remains rife with fraud and abuse.
In a separate letter also backed by Public Citizen, a coalition of advocacy groups called the proposed $32 billion increase in the Senate legislation "fiscally ill-advised and strategically counterproductive."
"Before this year's increases," the groups observed, "the Pentagon budget had already grown by nearly 50% adjusted for inflation since the turn of the 21st Century."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement that "Hegseth is a key enabler of Trump's authoritarianism, as Pentagon resources are being used in reckless and illegal actions domestically and internationally."
"Under his leadership, the Pentagon is further entrenching military policing in Americans' daily lives via a National Guard 'rapid response force' and actively attacking international vessels without congressional authorization," said Weissman. "Lavishing Hegseth's Pentagon with $32 billion in extra spending will only fuel Trump's authoritarian agenda. It is particularly galling to consider in the wake of dire cuts to the social safety net imposed by the tax and budget reconciliation bill and Trump administration unilateral action."
"Mike Johnson's callousness is appalling," said one healthcare campaigner.
Americans are skipping meals and falling behind on bills, lines at food banks are expanding, and millions are watching with alarm as their health insurance premiums skyrocket, but Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday that he's prepared to "let this process play out" rather than negotiate with Democrats to end the longest government shutdown in US history.
During a news conference, Johnson (R-La.) said he would not agree to hold a vote on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies in exchange for Democratic votes to end the shutdown.
"I am not promising anybody anything," said Johnson, confirming Democrats' warnings that the GOP can't be trusted to uphold what would amount to a pinkie promise for an ACA vote.
"I am going to let this process play out," he added.
Johnson's remarks drew swift backlash. Leslie Dach, chair of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement that "as Trump-GOP policies devastate Americans from coast to coast, and congressional Republicans continue the longest government shutdown in history, Mike Johnson's callousness is appalling."
"He won't even agree to allow a vote in the House to restore the healthcare tax credits that Republicans stripped away from millions of Americans," said Dach. "He'd rather more small businesses be financially annihilated, more hospitals vanish out of thin air, and more Americans—including in his own district—empty out their life savings just to go to a doctor."
"It's unconscionable," Dach added, "and voters, as they demonstrated in the November 4th bellwether elections across the nation, will hold the GOP to account for playing with their lives and selling out the American people—all so Republicans can provide more tax breaks to their billionaire buddies."
On Friday, as shutdown chaos and pain continues to spread nationwide, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is planning to call a vote on a plan that would temporarily fund the government and advance several appropriations bills. The proposal also includes a promise of a future vote on the ACA tax credits, which expire at the end of the year.
It's unlikely that Senate Democrats, who convened for a lengthy meeting Thursday afternoon, will accept the proposal, as they've demanded more concrete concessions from Republicans on the ACA subsidies. Republicans need at least seven Democratic senators to break ranks for the bill to pass.
Politico reported Friday that "Senate Democrats are splintered over how much stock to put into Thune's commitment, given the South Dakota Republican has also said he cannot guarantee an outcome of any such vote."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told the outlet that Democrats shouldn't "proceed without knowing that these healthcare premiums are not going to go up by 200%."