

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.

Ahead of today's Senate Budget Committee hearing on "The Cost of Inaction on Climate Change," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to close tax loopholes and eliminate federal subsidies for the oil, gas, and coal industries.
Ahead of today's Senate Budget Committee hearing on "The Cost of Inaction on Climate Change," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to close tax loopholes and eliminate federal subsidies for the oil, gas, and coal industries.
While the 20 largest fossil fuel companies account for more than a third of global greenhouse gas emissions in the modern era, all while raking in absurd profits, American taxpayers today pay $15 billion per year in direct federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. In 2020, the oil, gas, and coal industry spent more than $115 million lobbying Congress in defense of these giveaways for an over 13,000% return on investment.
The End Polluter Welfare Act, cosponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragan (D-Calif.), would eliminate these absurd corporate handouts and save American taxpayers up to $150 billion over the next ten years.
"The conduct of oil and gas companies, toward American taxpayers and the distortion of the truth about climate change, is one of the biggest scandals of our lifetime," said Sen. Sanders. "At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, and when fossil fuel companies are making billions of dollars in profit every year, we have a fiscal and moral responsibility to stop forcing working families to pad the profits of an industry that is destroying our planet."
"Providing corporate giveaways during a time of widespread suffering to fossil-fuel companies is unconscionable," said Rep. Omar. "Our resources should go to helping the American people get through this crisis--not providing giveaways to the very people responsible for polluting our water and lands. We should be fighting for a greener, more equitable future for all instead of making the fossil fuel industry more profitable. I'm proud to be in this fight to end the welfare system for fossil fuel companies and invest those resources back to the American people."
"It is ridiculous that the federal government continues to hand out massive giveaways to antiquated fossil fuel industries that are not only financially risky, but are also a driving force for climate chaos' devastating wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, floods, and extreme winter storms," said Sen. Merkley. "Those giveaways are even more egregious at a time when working families and small businesses across America - who pay their fair share in taxes - are fighting to get through this pandemic. Enough. It's time to put the health of the American people and our economy above the wish lists of powerful special interests, close these loopholes, and put an end to taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels."
"Our workers, families and children are more in need than ever before, and the polluters that have contributed to these dire circumstances should not receive a single handout from our government," said Sen. Markey. "For too long, companies that polluted our planet turned massive profits, while people have been left to face the health, climate, and economic consequences. That time must come to an end. From closing the 'tar sands loophole' to ensuring companies pay their fair share of taxes, this bill takes significant steps to ending fossil fuel welfare and saving our planet."
"As we work to tackle the climate crisis, our nation must invest its resources in creating jobs through clean energy and infrastructure modernization --not providing public handouts to Big Oil, gas, and coal corporations," Sen. Van Hollen. "This legislation will stop these backwards, taxpayer-funded giveaways to large corporations so we can invest these dollars in initiatives to promote prosperity for everyday Americans."
"Our government is by and for the people, not by and for big polluters," said Congresswoman Nanette Diaz Barragan. "It's unconscionable that the federal government continues to offer tax loopholes, subsidies and handouts to big oil and gas corporations while American families, workers and small businesses struggle to survive this global pandemic and widespread economic challenges. We need to end fossil fuel giveaways. Legislation like the End Polluter Welfare Act will refocus government priorities on people not polluters and make bold investments in the fight against climate change."
While the country is facing an unprecedented health and economic crisis, corporate handouts to the fossil fuel industry are helping to drive the unprecedented expansion of fossil fuel development in the United States. Left unchecked, the U.S. is on track to be responsible for 60% of global growth in oil and gas production over the next 10 years.
President Biden recently called for the elimination of tax preferences and loopholes for the fossil fuel industry in his newly released American Jobs Plan.
The End Polluter Welfare Act would do just that by abolishing dozens of tax loopholes, subsidies, and other special interest giveaways littered throughout the federal tax code - eliminating absurd corporate handouts and saving American taxpayers up to $150 billion over the next ten years.
This legislation would prohibit taxpayer-funded fossil fuel research and development; update below-market royalty rates for oil and gas production on federal lands; recoup royalties from offshore drilling in public waters; and ensure competitive bidding and leasing practices for coal development on federal lands.
In addition to ending domestic polluter welfare, this bill would end federal support for international oil, gas, and coal projects as a step toward fulfilling our responsibility to help the international community move away from dirty fossil fuels to clean sources of power.
This bill also guarantees the solvency of the Black Lung Disability Fund, ensuring continued medical care for tens of thousands of working-class Americans who have worked for decades to provide energy to this nation.
The top 20 fossil fuel companies are responsible for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions since 1965. Exxon Mobile, BP, Chevron, and Shell have accounted for nearly a tenth of global emissions in that same period.
Additionally, 2019 set the record for global carbon pollution, and from 2000 to 2019, global emissions have increased by 45%, with more than 20% of humanity's total emissions occurring over the past 10 years.
Inaction leaves the burdens of the fossil fuel industry on American taxpayers as well as future generations living with the effects of climate change. Without concerted action, climate change will eventually cost the U.S. $34.5 trillion in economic activity by the end of the century, up to 295,000 avoidable deaths by 2030, and 1 million avoidable deaths by 2050.
The End Polluter Welfare Act is endorsed by 85 organizations, including Oxfam, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Earthjustice, Indivisible, Sunrise Movement, Interfaith Power & Light, Environment America, Clean Water Action, Our Revolution, Center for Popular Democracy, Oil Change International, 350.org, Public Citizen, Americans for Tax Fairness, and the National Parks Conservation Association.
Read the bill summary here.
Read a section-by-section summary here.
Read the legislative text here.
Read the letter of support signed by 85 organizations here.
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."