October, 01 2020, 12:00am EDT
Cambridge University Makes Historic Break With the Fossil Fuel Industry and Commits to Full Divestment
The University of Cambridge has agreed to divest from fossil fuels following a five-year student and staff campaign.
Cambridge, UK
After a five-year battle over its response to the climate crisis, the University of Cambridge has committed to remove all direct and indirect investments in the fossil fuel industry from its PS3.5bn endowment fund by 2030. The Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF) is the largest of any higher education institution in Europe.
Cambridge has also outlined plans to divest from any public equity managers focused on "conventional energy" by December 2020, and to "allocate significant capital" to renewable energy by 2025.
During his start of term livestream address on October 1st, the Vice Chancellor announced that Cambridge will be divesting from fossil fuels and not accept funding from sources that are incompatible with its sustainability ambitions.
The decision marks a major break with the energy sector; Cambridge has held close financial and research ties with BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and other fossil fuel companies for at least 20 years.
In March 2019, members of the student-led divestment campaign, Cambridge Zero Carbon, coordinated a democratic motion backed by 324 Cambridge academics calling on the University to produce fully-costed strategies for divestment. In response, the University commissioned a report authored by Dr Ellen Quigley, Emily Bugden, and Cambridge Chief Financial Officer Anthony Odgers.
As a result of the divestment report, Cambridge's Investment Office has come to the decision to remove their investments from fossil fuels across all asset classes by 2030.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
Rights Defenders Denounce Trump-DeSantis Alligator Alcatraz as 'Direct Assault on Humanity'
"This facility echoes some of our nation's darkest history," said a civil liberties advocate.
Jul 02, 2025
Civil liberties advocates expressed horror on Tuesday after President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis held a joint press event at a massive new detention facility in the Florida Everglades known as "Alligator Alcatraz."
The facility was first announced last month when Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier unveiled a plan to renovate the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport and transform it into a mass detention center for immigrants. During a press event touting the new facility, DeSantis boasted that detainees being held at the facility had little hope of ever escaping given that it was surrounded by miles of alligator-infested swamps.
"What'll happen is you'll bring people in there, they ain't going anywhere once they're there unless you want them to go somewhere, because, good luck getting to civilization," he explained. "So the security is amazing—natural and otherwise."
Civil liberties advocates were appalled by the new facility, which is lined with razor-wire fence and is projected at least initially to house 5,000 beds for immigrants awaiting deportation. Bacardi Jackson, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, accused Trump and DeSantis of engaging in wanton cruelty with their touting of the new facility and said it harkened back to dark chapters in American history.
"Building a prison-like facility on sacred indigenous land in the middle of the Everglades is a direct assault on humanity, dignity, indigenous sovereignty, and the constitutional protections we all share," she said. “Our laws—both U.S. and Florida—prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. Yet, this facility echoes some of our nation's darkest history, all while trampling the very land that indigenous communities have long fought to protect."
She added that "the facility's opening also comes as Congress is poised to authorize $45 billion in funding to expand the harmful mass immigration detention machine, right on the heels of multiple deaths in detention facilities" and further said that the project "dehumanizes people, strips them of their rights, and diverts public dollars from the services our communities need."
Guardian correspondent Robert Tait, meanwhile, described the press event surrounding the facility's opening as a "calculatedly provocative celebration of the dystopian" in a place that was designed to be "a location of dread to those lacking documentary proof of their right to be in the U.S."
Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta delivered an even more scathing denunciation of the facility on his Substack page, labeling it a "gulag in the swamp" that was intended to distract Trump supporters from the Republican Party's efforts to take an axe to Medicaid spending in their budget bill.
"Trump knows he can salvage a bad news cycle in conservative media if he can find new and, in this case, medieval ways to torment immigrants," Acosta explained. "Distract the base from Medicaid coverage they're going to lose or the skyrocketing deficits plaguing future generations by conjuring up the fantasy of terrified migrants being eaten by alligators—a prospect that seemed to delight Trump when speaking with reporters Tuesday morning."
Amid growing condemnation of the facility, Trump adviser Stephen Miller encouraged other states to pitch their own ideas for migrant detention facilities during a Tuesday night Fox News appearance. What's more, Miller said that accepted proposals from states would receive funding from the very same GOP budget bill that is projected to slash Medicaid spending by over $1 trillion over a 10-year period.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump CFPB Cancels $95 Million Settlement With Credit Union Accused of Charging Illegal 'Junk Fees'
"How many millions did this CFPB just take from servicemembers?" wrote one consumer financial protection advocate.
Jul 02, 2025
According to an order published Tuesday, the country's top financial protection watchdog nixed a $95 million settlement reached in 2024 with Navy Federal Credit Union, which serves military servicemembers, veterans, Department of Defense employees, and their families. The President Joe Biden-led Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last year accused the bank of illegally charging overdraft fees to customers and ordered the credit union to refund consumers and pay a civil penalty.
Multiple observers, including a former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) employee, said that the move appears to run counter to the CFPB's stated priority of focusing "its enforcement and supervision resources on pressing threats to consumers, particularly service members and their families, and veterans."
The Tuesday order means that Navy Federal will not have to pay $80 million to impacted customers, or a $15 million civil penalty.
In November 2024, the CFPB under then-President Joe Biden said that from 2017 to 2022, the credit union charged customers "surprise overdraft fees on certain ATM withdrawals and debit card purchases, even when their accounts showed sufficient funds at the time of the transactions," in a statement announcing the $80 million refund and the civil penalty.
Then-CFPB Director Rohit Chopra accused the credit union of "illegally harvested tens of millions of dollars in junk fees, including from active duty servicemembers and veterans."
The order on Tuesday is not the first time the Trump administration has canceled enforcement actions brought under the Biden-led CFPB. The Trump administration has sought to drastically cut personnel at the CFPB, which is currently led by Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought.
Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, a non-profit association of pro-consumer organizations, wrote on X on Tuesday that "it doesn't square when the CFPB gives a free pass to Navy Federal for charging illegal overdraft fees AND claims it cares about servicemembers."
"How many millions did this CFPB just take from servicemembers?" he asked.
Allison Preiss, a former senior advisor to the director at the CFPB, reacted to the news by writing on X that "for months, Trump's CFPB has insisted it is focusing its efforts on protecting servicemembers and veterans," and included some screenshots of statements from the CFPB, such as a statement from May 2025 announcing that the bureau will not prioritize enforcement action related to Buy Now, Pay Later loans.
"The bureau takes this step in the interest of focusing resources on supporting hard-working American taxpayers, servicemen, veterans, and small businesses," according to that statement.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Spineless Capitulation to Extortion': Paramount Caves to Trump With $16 Million Settlement
Critics characterized the payment as a bribe in exchange for federal approval of Paramount's pending merger with Skydance.
Jul 02, 2025
The parent company of CBS News, Paramount Global, announced Tuesday that it has agreed to pay U.S. President Donald Trump $16 million to settle what legal experts called an entirely meritless lawsuit over the media organization's handling of a pre-election "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris.
Under the reported terms of the settlement, the money will go toward Trump's legal fees and his future presidential library. Paramount said the settlement deal does not include a formal apology, but the company agreed to release written transcripts of future "60 Minutes" interviews with presidential candidates.
Critics responded with outrage to news of the settlement, which one observer characterized as "spineless capitulation to extortion." Some posted screenshots to social media showing they canceled their Paramount+ subscriptions in response.
As Paramount engaged in talks with Trump's legal team over the lawsuit in recent weeks, press freedom advocates and members of Congress implored the organization not to settle, warning that caving to the president would reward and embolden his attacks on media outlets he views as his political enemies.
"If you settle cases, you're going to send a message to your news team to not push the envelope for fear of people being sued," media attorney Edward Klaris toldThe Washington Post, "and you're going to court more cases against your company because they might think that if they sue you they're going to collect."
"A line is being drawn between the owners of American news media who are willing to stand up for press freedom and those who capitulate to the demands of the president."
Paramount's controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, supported a settlement with Trump in the hope that it would "clear the way" for federal approval of the company's merger with the entertainment company Skydance, according to The Wall Street Journal, which cited sources familiar with the internal discussions. Bloombergreported that Redstone could reap $180 million in "severance and other benefits on top of hundreds of millions from the sale of her stock" if the merger goes through.
In May, the Freedom of the Press Foundation—a Paramount shareholder—cautioned that a settlement with Trump "could amount to a bribe" to the Trump administration in exchange for approval of the merger. The advocacy group said it would sue Paramount if the company caved to the president, arguing that "a settlement of Trump's meritless lawsuit may well be a thinly veiled effort to launder bribes through the court system."
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) similarly warned Paramount that a settlement with Trump could run afoul of federal anti-bribery laws.
"Paramount appears to be attempting to appease the administration in order to secure merger approval," the senators wrote in a May 19 letter to Redstone.
Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders USA, said in a statement Wednesday that the settlement was "a shameful decision by Paramount."
"Shari Redstone and Paramount's board should have stood by CBS journalists and the integrity of press freedom," said Weimers. "Instead, they chose to reward Donald Trump for his petty legal assault against both. A line is being drawn between the owners of American news media who are willing to stand up for press freedom and those who capitulate to the demands of the president."
"Paramount's leaders chose to be on the wrong side of that dividing line, but they'd be mistaken to believe appeasing Trump today will stop his attacks in the future," Weimers added. "News media owners are much better off standing strong than acquiescing."
This story has been updated to include a statement from Reporters Without Borders USA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular