SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
BlackRock Must Manage for Climate Risk as it Takes On Fed Debt Buyout Program
Groups urge BlackRock to uphold climate commitments while aiding Fed
WASHINGTON
Today, the Federal Reserve announced that it hired BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, to shepherd several debt-buying programs on behalf of the U.S. central bank as it works to revive the economy from the impacts of the spread of coronavirus.
The programs include purchases of mortgage-backed security purchases, new investment-grade bonds, and already-issued investment-grade bonds including exchange-traded-funds, of which BlackRock is the world's largest purveyor.
Moira Birss, Climate & Finance Director at Amazon Watch, a core partner of the BlackRock's Big Problem campaign, said:
"If BlackRock is going to be managing trillions of dollars for the US government - taxpayers' money - then it must make sure it's not locking us into a future climate-related market crash.
"Just this January, BlackRock announced that it would put climate at the center of its investment strategy moving forward, recognizing the longer-term risk that climate change poses to its clients' portfolio as well as the wider financial system. As recently as last week, BlackRock staff reiterated this commitment. But while economic recovery for everyday Americans is vitally important right now, corporate bond buying programs like these are stealth fossil fuel company bailouts if adequate climate safeguards are not applied."
Diana Best, Senior Finance Strategist with the Sunrise Project, a core partner with the BlackRock's Big Problem campaign, responded:
"Helping our economy get through this global pandemic is vitally important, but in doing so we shouldn't be accelerating climate change, which BlackRock itself has acknowledged poses a direct threat to the global financial system. Companies which continue the expansion and production of fossil fuels are inconsistent with goals to manage the climate crisis; propping them up without clear Paris-compliant transition plans is unacceptable for any prudent fiscal policy.
"BlackRock has said it believes climate change is a core risk to the financial system. If it wouldn't deal with certain climate risky products for its clients, it shouldn't be managing these toxic assets for the Fed either. BlackRock must treat this with the same level of caution, risk management, and due diligence it applies for any of its clients and it should maintain its commitments to centering climate risk."
Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
LATEST NEWS
Cover-Up Feared as Epstein Files Law Lets DOJ Redact Info Sensitive to ‘National Security’
"Not national security that has anything to do with the national defense or harm to the nation," said independent journalist Ken Klippenstein. "But the self-serving kind that protects the system from the people."
Nov 20, 2025
After its near-unanimous approval in Congress and following months of sustained public pressure, President Donald Trump signed a law on Wednesday releasing the files from the FBI's investigation into the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The law is called the "Epstein Files Transparency Act," but critics fear that a key provision could allow the US Department of Justice to keep critical information from coming to light.
The law requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to "make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials" related to the investigations into Epstein and his partner and coconspirator Ghislaine Maxwell within the next 30 days.
But critically, it gives Bondi expansive power to redact large amounts of information, potentially burying material that may be incriminating to the president, whose relationship with the disgraced financier has become the subject of greater speculation with each new set of documents released.
One provision allows Bondi to redact documents to strike information that "would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution." Last week, Trump ordered Bondi to open investigations into Epstein's connections with several prominent Democrats: Among them are former President Bill Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman.
Lawmakers have raised fears that these investigations were enacted to give Bondi greater leeway to scrub information from the record. On Monday, Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), the law's Republican cosponsor, warned that the DOJ "may be trying to use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files."
But another largely overlooked section may give her even more sweeping authority. The law states that information may also be redacted "if the attorney general makes a determination that covered information may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security." It also allows her to redact information deemed "to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."
While the law requires Bondi to issue a written justification for each piece of redacted information and also clarifies that no file shall be "withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary," it does not define the criteria Bondi must use to determine whether something is in the interest of America's "national security," "national defense," or "foreign policy."
"One glaring loophole will prevent full transparency: It’s called national security," wrote independent journalist Ken Klippenstein Monday, as the House moved toward a vote on the files. "Not national security that has anything to do with the national defense or harm to the nation, but the self-serving kind that protects the system from the people by depriving them of information."
There are many cases in recent memory of the US using national security as a justification to withhold information from the public. Earlier this year, the Trump administration used its "state secrets" privilege to deny a judge's request to turn over information related to its extrajudicial deportation flights to El Salvador, arguing that it would compromise its diplomatic relations with that country. Meanwhile, past administrations have used national security to justify keeping the public in the dark about everything from the military's use of torture to the government's mass surveillance of American citizens.
While the primary interest in Epstein surrounds his alleged role in facilitating a sex trafficking ring for the political and economic elite, there are clear cases where the government could attempt to use national security as a justification to keep information hidden.
For example, recent documents have revealed the extent of his involvement with foreign intelligence and dealmaking. Drop Site News has reported extensively on Epstein's long history working as an informal fixer for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to secure deals with several foreign nations that benefited Israel and attempted to shape global politics, including in the United States, to its interests.
Klippenstein has also raised concerns about the inclusion of the word "unclassified" in the bill, which he noted "is an official word that in theory only exists when it comes to national security matters; that is, that the release of such information could cause 'harm' to national security."
He said he asked Massie and the law's Democratic cosponsor, Ro Khanna (Calif.), for comment on why that word was included at all since the law does not relate to national security. Neither responded.
But Massie told journalist Michael Tracey back in September that a similar provision to redact info related to “national defense” was included because, "You have to put that in there if you’re going to get them to sign it."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who fought against the release of the files until the bitter end but ultimately voted for the bill along with all but one member of the House, invoked what he called "national security concerns" in a last-ditch effort to stop the discharge petition that brought the Epstein bill to the House floor.
It echoed what Bondi herself said back in March when asked on Fox News why any information besides victims' names would need to be stricken from the record: "Of course, national security."
"If large sections of the files remain redacted or withheld, the public may face a truncated version of 'transparency,' one that protects many of the powerful rather than exposes them," wrote independent journalist Brian Allen. "This is not just a story about Epstein. It is a stress test of our system of accountability."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump, Who Incited Jan 6 Insurrection, Wants Sedition Charges for Lawmakers Reminding Troops of Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders
"If you're threatening Dems for reminding the military that they are obligated to not follow illegal orders, you're admitting your orders are illegal."
Nov 20, 2025
Nearly five years after inciting an attempted insurrection, President Donald Trump on Thursday called for sedition charges against Democrats in Congress who reminded members of the US military and intelligence services that "you must refuse illegal orders."
"We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now," says Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst, in the 90-second video circulated on social media Tuesday.
Sen. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), a former Navy captain, notes in the video that "like us, you all swore an oath" to the US Constitution
Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.)—all veterans of the US military and intelligence community—join the senators in calling on service members to stand up to any illegal orders from the Trump administration and "don't give up the ship."
Miles Taylor, a former chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security who anonymously spoke out against Trump in a high-profile op-ed and book during his first term, said that it is "pretty insane that we are living in a moment where a video message like this [is] necessary."
Also responding to the video on the platform X, Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, claimed that "Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection."
Kelly hit back, citing the January 6, 2021 attack: "I got shot at serving our country in combat, and I was there when your boss sent a violent mob to attack the Capitol. I know the difference between defending our Constitution and an insurrection, even if you don't."
Slotkin also responded, saying: "This is the law. Passed down from our Founding Fathers, to ensure our military upholds its oath to the Constitution—not a king. Given you're directing much of a military policy, you should buff up on the Uniformed Code of Military Justice."
Trump weighed in on his Truth Social platform just after 9:00 am on Thursday morning, writing: "It's called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand—We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET."
"This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???," Trump continued, linking to the right-wing Washington Examiner's coverage and signing both posts "President DJT."
Just over an hour later, the president added, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"
Responding with a lengthy joint statement, the lawmakers behind the video reiterated their commitment to the oaths they took, and said that "what's most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law."
"Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders," they added. "Every American must unite and condemn the president's calls for our murder and political violence. This is a time for moral clarity."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has for years faced threats from Trump supporters, including Arizona state Rep. John Gillette (R-30) in September—stressed that the president's "calls for political violence are completely unacceptable."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), another frequent target of right-wing threats, similarly took aim at Trump's sedition remarks, saying, "None of this is normal."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber's floor Thursday: "Let's be crystal clear: The president of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials. This is an outright threat, and it's deadly serious. We have already seen what happens when Donald Trump tells his followers that his political opponents are enemies of the state."
"We all remember what January 6th was like. We lived through January 6th. We have lived through the assassinations and attempted assassinations this year. We have members whose families have had to flee their homes," he continued. "When Donald Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen. He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline. Every senator, every representative, every American—regardless of party—should condemn this immediately and without qualification."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, said Thursday: "Trump tried to overthrow our government almost five years ago, and is calling for Dems to be put to death for sedition. If you're threatening Dems for reminding the military that they are obligated to not follow illegal orders, you're admitting your orders are illegal."
The Democrats' video and Trump's outburst come as members of Congress and legal experts lambast the Trump administration's deadly bombings of boats allegedly running drugs in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean. Critics have emphasized that even if the targeted vessels are transporting illicit substances, the strikes are illegal.
Trump is also under fire for his attacks on immigrants in Democrat-led communities. Kelly and Slotkin, along with Democratic Sens. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.), recently introduced the No Troops in Our Streets Act, which would limit the administration's ability to deploy the National Guard and inject $1 billion in new resources to fight crime across the country.
"Our brave military men and women signed up to defend the Constitution and our rights, not to be used as political props or silence dissent," said Duckworth, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who has been especially critical of the administration's operation in the Chicagoland area, including efforts to deploy the National Guard there.
"These un-American, unjustified deployments of troops into our cities do nothing to fight crime—they only serve to intimidate Americans in their own neighborhoods," she added. "I'm introducing this legislation with my colleagues to stop Trump's gross misuse of our military and devote more resources toward efforts that would actually help our local law enforcement—which Trump has actually defunded to the tune of $800 million."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Prosecutors Abruptly Drop Charges Against Woman Shot by Border Patrol Agent in Chicago
US attorneys offered no justification for their sudden decision to dismiss the case.
Nov 20, 2025
Federal prosecutors on Thursday moved to drop criminal charges against Marimar Martinez, a woman who was shot multiple times by a US Border Patrol agent last month in Chicago's Brighton Park neighborhood.
As reported by local news station WTTW, prosecutors filed a one-page motion asking the court to dismiss the indictment against both Martinez and Anthony Ian Santos Ruiz, who had been accused of assaulting a federal immigration officer by intentionally ramming their vehicle into the officer's car.
The US attorneys who filed the motion to dismiss offered no further explanation for their decision to drop the case.
In the indictment, prosecutors alleged that Martinez and Ruiz were part of a larger group of people in cars that was trailing immigration officers' vehicles as they conducted operations in Brighton Park.
Prosecutors said that the Border Patrol agent who shot Martinez had been acting in self-defense, and that he had only opened fire after Martinez's car collided with his vehicle.
However, recently uncovered text messages showed the Border Patrol agent apparently bragging about shooting Martinez, as he boasted that he "fired five rounds and she had seven holes" in a message sent to fellow agents.
An attorney representing Martinez claimed last month that he had seen body camera footage that directly undermined the US Department of Homeland Security's claims about how the shooting unfolded.
Gregory Pratt, an investigative reporter at the Chicago Tribune, said the dismissal of the case was yet more evidence that the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement operations appear to be backfiring.
"This follows several dropped prosecutions against protesters," he wrote on Bluesky. "To say the immigration raids have been all around mess is an understatement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular