

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.

Collin Rees, collin@priceofoil.org
Jamie Henn, jamie@jamiehenn.com
The news that major U.S. banks like JPMorgan Chase are preparing to ask regulators to allow them to take direct ownership of oil and gas companies should ring major alarm bells on Capitol Hill and across the nation, according to organizations with the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition.
The news that major U.S. banks like JPMorgan Chase are preparing to ask regulators to allow them to take direct ownership of oil and gas companies should ring major alarm bells on Capitol Hill and across the nation, according to organizations with the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition.
On Thursday evening, Reuters reported that JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo & Co, Bank of America Corp, and Citigroup Inc are each preparing to set up independent companies that could directly own oil and gas assets.
"So Chase and Wells Fargo want to cut out the middleman and go into the oil business, directly destroying the climate? Greed does weird things to your mind and your heart," said Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org.
These plans are in direct contradiction to the banks' stated goals of addressing the climate emergency. The only possible justification for taking an ownership stake in an oil and gas company would be to immediately begin winding down production and retiring existing assets, while taking care of workers by providing full benefits and pension guarantees. According to the Reuters reporting, however, banks seem to be planning to do just the opposite, attempting to move the companies back into profitability, likely by taking advantage of federal bailout money that should go to working families.
"Allowing private banks to start an unholy marriage with bankrupt fossil fuel companies would be a catastrophic mistake for communities and climate," said Collin Rees, Senior Campaigner at Oil Change International. "Any words JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citi have ever said about climate action would be instantly meaningless. The fossil fuel industry needs a just transition for workers and a swift phase-out of production, not a transfer of the keys to predatory financial institutions focused on profits for billionaires."
"This is like a bookie purchasing the track, only the track is a dying industry killing our chance at a future. Clearly these banks' climate commitments aren't worth the 'recycled' paper they were written on," said Tara Houska (Couchiching First Nation), founder of Giniw Collective. "It's our money in their vaults -- hitting 'withdrawal' is long overdue."
There is little reason to believe that the four banks mentioned in the article have any intention of mitigating the climate impact of their actions. JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Bank of America are, in that order, the four largest global bankers of fossil fuels, as detailed in the recently released Banking on Climate Change: Fossil Fuel Finance Report 2020.
"JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citi are the top four fracking banks in the world, and the top four fossil fuel banks in the world. This development exposes the central role of banks in fossil fuels and clearly illustrates the riskiness of fossil finance," said Jason Opena Disterhoft, Senior Campaigner with Rainforest Action Network. "As the COVID recovery goes forward, a common-sense guardrail should be: banks can't take public money without committing to zero out their fossil financing. No bailout without fossil phaseout."
Along with the terrible climate and public health impacts of funding these oil and gas companies to continue to pollute, allowing financial institutions to directly own fossil fuel assets is an open invitation to corruption. In 2013, JPMorgan Chase paid a $410 million fine for manipulating electricity markets in the Midwest. The same year, Goldman Sachs was caught fixing aluminum prices by hoarding it in warehouses owned by the bank. Allowing banks to own companies in an industry already known for its corruption, disregard for public safety, and flagrant violation of environmental laws is a recipe for disaster.
"No way no how should regulators bail out climate-destroying banks like JPMorgan Chase from bankrupt investments by letting them become oil and gas holding corporations," said Pete Sikora, Climate Campaigns Director, New York Communities for Change. "The government should take over bankrupt oil and gas assets in order to rapidly retire them while protecting dependent workers and communities, not bank profits."
Elected officials and regulators have raised the alarm before about financial institutions taking direct ownership of fossil fuel companies. This session in Congress, Reps. Jesus 'Chuy' Garcia (IL-04) and Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) have introduced the Protecting Consumers Against Market Manipulation Act to set stronger limits separating banking and commerce, including by limiting banks' ownership of commodities. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) have also warned of the risks of bank ownership of physical commodities, including fossil fuel assets.
"Particularly at this moment, banks should be using their balance sheets to support small businesses and workers, not trying to spin a profit by propping up a dying industry that's the leading cause of climate change. If the banks are going to own oil and gas companies, the only acceptable outcome is to wind down the companies, retire their polluting assets, and take care of their workers," said Moira Birss, Climate and Finance Director at Amazon Watch.
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is calling on Congress and federal regulators to take immediate action to ensure the response to the coronavirus pandemic doesn't worsen the ongoing climate emergency. First, they must prevent all banks from taking ownership stakes in fossil fuel companies and assets. Second, they must ensure that no bailout money goes to banks, asset managers, or insurers unless these institutions commit to phasing out their support for fossil fuels and deforestation. Third, they must pass meaningful regulations that safeguard the financial system and the climate, including by limiting financial institutions' ability to finance fossil fuels and deforestation.
"The Fed should be intervening to make sure that fossil fuel companies are wound down and their workers and environmental obligations taken care of, not passing them off to banks who will look to spin a quick profit at the expense of both people and planet," said Alec Connon with the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition.
Stop the Money Pipeline will be engaging hundreds of thousands of Americans to send this message directly to Congress and Wall Street on April 23 as part of Earth Day Live, three days of online action around the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day.
###
Additional Quotes:
"Over the last decade, US oil and gas producers have racked up more than $200 billion in corporate debt in a failed effort to make fracking profitable and keep expanding production while fossil fuel prices and prospects decline. With demand and revenue projections now collapsing at the precise moment when the bill is coming due, the banks that financed this massive and failed gamble are poised to seize assets to cover their losses. Not content to merely bankroll climate destruction and human rights abuses on a global scale, major banks are now moving to own the climate crisis outright. This is, to put it mildly, a very bad investment," said Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law.
"At a moment when local people and communities need urgent government relief from the global pandemic it is downright criminal that Wall Street wants to buy out failing fossil fuel companies. There should be no bailout for polluters, from either Wall Street or Trump. We demand that government resources go directly to support communities directly." said Liz Butler, Vice President of Organizing and Strategic Alliances at Friends of the Earth.
"This is the exact opposite of what the financial industry needs to be doing at this moment," said Caroline Henderson, Senior Climate Campaigner with Greenpeace USA. "In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, banks should be supporting small businesses and workers, as well as investing in climate resiliency -- not becoming oil and gas corporations. We know we need to shift 90 percent of Wall Street's fossil fuel investments to low-carbon energy and renewables if we're going to keep the Earth's warming under 1.5 C. That means banks must stop financing destructive industries, and should certainly not be purchasing them in order to try and make them profitable again."
"After decades of financing climate destruction, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citigroup got what they paid for: defaulting loans, declining assets, and a dangerously warming climate." said Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, 350.org's North America Director. "Now, in a desperate attempt to recoup what costs they can, these banks are taking ownership over oil and gas companies -- clarifying what many in the climate movement have known all along: our financial institutions are in bed with fossil fuels for short-term gains and long-term destruction. Sadly, it will be the workers, our communities, and those on the frontlines of dangerous fossil fuel projects who will bear the true cost of the damage."
"As Colorado's residents brace for the peak of coronavirus we are faced with increased vulnerability due to pollution from the massive amount of fracking and oil and gas operations such as frontline communities around the Suncor tar sands refinery and fracking operations in neighborhoods throughout the front range, bailing out these companies is a human rights violation of incredible proportions. We demand our government protect our most vulnerable and put a halt to these bail outs immediately," said Amy Gray Volunteer Coordinator with 350 Colorado.
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029"Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," a human rights expert said.
The Trump administration continued its illegal bombing of small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific on Friday, killing two and leaving one survivor in its third such strike in five days.
US Southern Command announced the attack on social media, claiming that "intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations."
"Under [President Donald] Trump's illegal orders, the US military conducted its third boat strike in five days against supposed drug smugglers, killing at least two. Each of these is a murder. Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth wrote on social media Saturday in response to the news.
Friday's strike marks the 57th by the Trump administration and raises the death toll from the boat-strike campaign, which experts say is illegal even if every boat targeted is ferrying drugs, to 192.
"Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States."
"What do you call a US citizen who smuggles drugs, SOUTHCOM? A 'narco-terrorist'?" social media user Andrew Marinelli said in response to the Southern Command announcement. "If a US citizen [allegedly] drove drugs into Canada and they blew him away with a drone strike, would you accept it?"
The administration has also not provided evidence for its claims that the boats belong to drug traffickers, and relatives of the victims say at least some of those killed were simply on the water to fish.
Friday's strike was notable in that it left behind a survivor and that US Southern Command said it had activated the US Coast Guard to conduct a search and rescue operation.
The announcement may reflect a response to backlash after news broke last year that, in the administration's first such strike, commanders had ordered a vessel bombed twice when it became clear there were survivors, in keeping with Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth's directive to "kill everybody."
Despite scrutiny, the campaign has continued and even escalated in the past few weeks. There have been three such bombings since the beginning of May, according to The Intercept: One on May 4 in the Caribbean that killed two, one on May 5 in the Pacific that killed three, and the Pacific strike on May 8 that killed two. The reported survivor remains missing.
While the Trump administration claims the strikes have dramatically reduced the flow of illegal drugs into the US, evidence reveals this is not the case, according to an Intercept analysis published May 4.
For example, Trump claimed that drugs entering the US by sea had decreased by 97%, but the administration's own data contradicts this claim, retired Rear Adm. William Baumgartner told The Intercept.
Adam Isacson, the director for defense oversight at human rights group Washington Office on Latin America, said, "Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States,” noting that Customs and Border Protection seized 6,000 pounds more cocaine at all US borders in the seven months following the strikes than in the seven months before.
As Sanho Tree, who directs the Institute for Policy Studies' Drug Policy Project, put it, "It wouldn’t be the first time this administration just made up something out of whole cloth."
"Across the South, states are rushing to suppress Black voting power now that they mistakenly believe they can get away with it," one advocate said.
In the latest fallout from the Supreme Court's further weakening of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, Alabama and South Carolina on Friday both took steps to further gerrymandering plans that would reduce representation for Black and Democratic voters in their states.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation on Friday that would ignore the results of May 19 primaries and hold a new election if federal courts agree to rescind the creation of a second near-Black majority congressional district in the state.
At the same time, the South Carolina legislature held a meeting to consider creating new maps that could grant the Republican Party the chance to win all of the state's seven seats in the US House of Representatives by redrawing the state's only majority-Black district.
“I was out there in 1965 marching for the right to vote, and now we are back here in 2026 doing the same thing,” Betty White Boynton, who joined a protest outside the Alabama Statehouse on Friday, told The Associated Press.
“What happened here today is that we were set back as a people to the days of Reconstruction.”
The moves, with risk eroding the gains of the civil rights movement, also come in the midst of a redistricting battle set off when President Donald Trump called on GOP-led states to redraw their maps to help his party retain control of the House in the 2026 midterm elections
In Alabama, the Supreme Court case Allen v. Milligan led to the creation of a second district with close to a Black majority and the election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures. The new map would leave Black voters with a chance to elect a representative in just 1 of the state's 7 districts, despite the fact that they make up 30% of the population.
“Despite remaining under a court order that bars Alabama from redrawing its congressional map and that voters have already cast ballots in the state’s congressional primary elections, Alabama Republicans are desperately and shamelessly moving to pave the way for reversion to a map that robs Black voters of equal access to representation in the US House," John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in a statement.
Bisognano continued: "What is happening in Alabama is not happening in a vacuum. Across the South, states are rushing to suppress Black voting power now that they mistakenly believe they can get away with it. The Alabama legislature’s fevered rush to diminish Black voting power in their state is clear proof that protections once afforded under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remain vital still today. Alabamians across the state are rising up in protest to this immoral power grab—their voices must not be silenced.”
After the Republican-majority Alabama legislature passed the bill on Friday, state Sen. Rodger Smitherman (D-18) said, “What happened here today is that we were set back as a people to the days of Reconstruction,” according to AP.
However, it is unclear how successful the Republican effort will be in Alabama, given that the Supreme Court explicitly said in Louisiana v. Callais that its decision did not apply to Alabama, as Figures pointed out at a town hall Friday evening. Also on Friday, a three-judge panel refused to lift an injunction on changing the state's maps, meaning the decision will rest with the Supreme Court on Monday, May 11.
"I feel pretty confident that the lines will stay the same in the immediate future, but it has not changed the efforts of Republicans here in the state of Alabama and across the country," Figures said, as Alabama Reflector reported.
In South Carolina on Friday, legislators held a meeting that would be the first step toward redrawing their districts to eliminate the one currently represented by Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn. While lawmakers agreed that the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais would allow for the redistricting, some questioned the wisdom and morality of the act.
“I agree if the law allows us to do it, then we can do It,” state Rep. Justin Bamberg (D-90) said. “But I can slap somebody’s mama and it’s not the right thing to do.”
Bisognano also linked the South Carolina plan to Louisiana v. Callais:
Following the Supreme Court’s shameful decision to gut the Voting Rights Act, South Carolina Republicans are now racing to be second to push through an immoral gerrymander that would demolish the lone congressional district that gives South Carolina’s Black voters a meaningful opportunity for representation in the US House.
This gerrymander is a deliberate attempt by South Carolina Republicans to tear apart a long-standing Black-opportunity district and diminish their vote by spreading Black voters into six districts that stretch over a hundred miles in every direction. On this gerrymander, all South Carolinians would lose. South Carolinians deserve maps that respect communities of interest and protect the fundamental right to vote.
Rep. Clyburn, meanwhile, stood up for his district and criticized state Republicans for prioritizing loyalty to Trump over loyalty to voters.
"Republicans are trying to break apart South Carolina’s 6th District. Not because voters demanded it, but because Donald Trump requested it," Clyburn wrote on social media Thursday.
He continued: "This fight is bigger than one district. It’s about whether our democracy belongs to the people, or to politicians who change the rules when they don’t like the results. We cannot let them succeed."
The Alabama and South Carolina developments capped a dramatic week for national redistricting battles. On Thursday, the Tennessee House voted to break up the state's only Black congressional district. The Senate followed suit, and Gov. Bill Lee promptly signed the new map into law.
On Friday, the Virginia state Supreme Court dealt a blow to Democratic efforts to counteract the new Republican maps, striking down a voter-approved redistricting in Virginia that would favor Democrats.
They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance," Mahmoud Khalil said.
An immigration court decision that could hasten the deportation of Palestinian rights activist Mahmoud Khalil was marked by irregularities, including unusual speed and the recusals of several judges, The New York Times reported Friday.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is housed in the Department of Justice (DOJ) but is legally enjoined to make independent decisions, ruled on April 9 that Khalil could be deported from the US. However, documents obtained by the Times show that the case was fast-tracked in a manner that experts say is unusual.
"This is the due process the administration is offering me, corrupt and unprecedented," Khalil posted on social media Friday in response to the Times' reporting.
Khalil, a student leader of Columbia University protests against the Gaza genocide, was an early target of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech when he was abducted by Department of Homeland Security agents while returning to his New York home in March 2025. Despite being a permanent resident married to a US citizen, Khalil was detained in Louisiana for over three months, where he missed the birth of his son.
“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision."
Despite the BIA's ruling, Khalil cannot be deported while his separate habeas corpus case proceeds through federal courts. However, the Times' reporting raises questions about how fairly he is being treated by the Trump administration and how quickly he could face removal if the federal case falls through.
"This story proves that the Trump administration's treatment of my case has always been corrupt and retaliatory. They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance," Khalil wrote.
According to the Times:
The case was considered high priority even before the board officially received it. A note from an internal case-tracking file from June said that, even though Mr. Khalil had been released several days earlier, the case was to be handled as if he were still in detention, which would speed it along.
"Please process as quickly as possible,” said another note, from October. Another document shows that the court’s chair—its highest ranking member—oversaw the case from early on.
The decision was made nine days after all the paperwork was submitted, a timeline that Biden BIA appointee Homero López called "unprecedented," as the board often takes years to decide similar cases.
“It’s an insane turnaround, particularly for such a high-profile case on a novel legal issue,” López, who was fired under President Donald Trump, told the Times.
At the same time, people familiar with the situation told the Times that at least three judges had recused themselves from the case, one before it was decided and the others once it became clear it would be published, meaning it would be considered precedent setting.
Former board judge Andrea Sáenz, also fired by Trump, told the Times that judges often recuse themselves because they have somehow been involved with the case before it is appealed.
“How many people touched this case when the immigration judge was handling it the first time?” Sáenz asked.
Former DOJ official David McConnell, who has experience with the immigration appeals process, said that both the quick processing and the recusals were "very unusual." However, he added this did not mean the board necessarily did anything wrong.
However, the BIA's decision was heavily criticized by Khalil's legal team in April, as it upholds Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination that Khalil could be deported because his activism posed a threat to US foreign policy, which a federal judge in New Jersey said was "likely" unconstitutional and could not be the basis for his detention or deportation. It also justified removal on the grounds that Khalil omitted certain details on green card paperwork, but the government only added those charges after Rubio's foreign policy gambit was challenged.
“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision. The BIA's decision has absolutely no support in the record, violates a federal court order, and we’ll be fighting it until the end,” Khalil's lead lawyer Marc Van Der Hout said in a statement when the decision was first issued. “Federal courts have already agreed that Mahmoud was targeted for his speech, and there is likely much more evidence of the government’s unlawful retaliation that has yet to come to light. This is a clear continuation of the administration’s retaliation against Mahmoud for exercising his First Amendment rights.”
Responding to the new reporting on Friday, Van Der Hout told the Times that the case's handling suggests it “has been controlled from Day 1 by higher-ups in the administration.”