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.
Lindsay Meiman, lindsay@350.org, (347) 460-9082
Katie Parrish, kparrish@citizen.org, (239) 537-9507
Following recent reports about the potential renomination of Jerome Powell as the Chair of the Federal Reserve, national organizations including 350.org, Climate Hawks Vote, Oil Change International, Public Citizen, Rainforest Action Network, Revolving Door Project, and Sierra Club are demanding President Joe Biden appoint as Chair a strong climate leader who will implement policies and rules at the scale needed to address the crisis.
Jerome Powell's tenure ends in February, with reappointment or another nomination to be solidified by January 2022. Biden is expected to make an announcement as early as Labor Day.
According to Positive Money's Global Central Bank Scorecard, the Fed got a D-, near the bottom among the G20 Central Banks, when evaluated on its comprehensive climate risk policies related to the Paris Agreement, including financial policy and leading by example.
In a supplement to the scorecard, U.S. climate and financial regulatory advocates detailed how the Federal Reserve had failed to use the powers it has to address the climate crisis.
Last month, 64 environmental and financial advocacy organizations sent a letter to Chair Powell, urging him to act on climate-related risk and investment. U.S. Reps. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) spearheaded a similar letter demanding the Federal Reserve move more rapidly and more boldly on managing climate risks to the financial system.
Today's announcement adds to the growing list of progressive groups demanding a reimagining of the Federal Reserve and a focus on climate, racial and economic justice.
Tracey Lewis, Senior Climate Finance Policy Analyst with 350.org said:
"As Fed Chair, Jerome Powell continues to finance climate destruction. Instead of supporting Black and Brown communities fighting on the frontlines of COVID-19, racial and economic injustice, and climate devastation who need support to rebuild and recover, Powell's Fed bailed-out the planet-killing fossil fuel industry to the tune of billions. This slow motion on climate is a risk not only to banks and markets, to our lives and livelihoods. We demand bold policies that shift power away from fossil fuel billionaires toward our communities, and call on President Biden to nominate a real climate leader who will re-imagine the role of the Fed in climate recovery."
David Arkush, Climate Program Director at Public Citizen said:
"You can't consider Fed leadership without asking how it's doing on the biggest risk to the financial system--the climate crisis. Most of what we hear from the Fed right now is that it's 'early days' on climate, but it's actually the eleventh hour. The Fed should already have begun incorporating climate into guidance on its supervision of the largest banks and issued data calls to get climate-related information from them. It also should be showing leadership within FSOC on how climate should factor into designations of systemically important nonbanks, and it should be working on guidance or rules for how it will supervise designated firms, including on climate."
Ben Cushing, Financial Advocacy Campaign Manager at Sierra Club, said:
"The Chair of the Federal Reserve Board has the opportunity to play a critical role in not only addressing the climate crisis, but to do so in a just and equitable manner. In the past, the Fed has failed to adequately deploy the tools available, but President Biden has the chance to swiftly remedy that. As Biden considers candidates to lead the Fed, he must examine them with the same vision he's taken towards building America back better and ensure that whomever he selects will continue to employ his whole of the government effort in tackling the climate crisis."
RL Miller, Political Director at Climate Hawks Vote, said:
"If the Fed did not begin moving aggressively on Day One of the Biden Administration (if not long before that), then the Fed is contributing to the climate crisis. There is no room any more for baby steps. We demand that President Biden appoint a leader who understands the magnitude of the crisis we face, and will immediately act to build back better."
Jeff Hauser, Executive Director, Revolving Door Project said:
"The Federal Reserve's role on financial regulation, including the potential of compelling financial institutions to account honestly for the financial implications of the climate crisis, doesn't become any less central just because Powell's backers refuse to engage with it. If Joe Biden's executive branch is going to live up to its commendably bold climate commitments, they will need a climate hawk as Chair of the Federal Reserve. Nothing about Powell's record at the Fed or as a Republican private equity titan before then suggests he is such a leader."
Jason Opena Disterhoft, Senior Finance Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network said:
"The Fed oversees the biggest fossil and deforestation bankers, investors and insurers in the world. Lax regulation drives climate change, exacerbating systemic risks to the financial system. The Fed's track record on climate oversight has been bare-minimum action, late in the day. On this crucial issue, the next Fed chair can and must do much better."
Collin Rees, Senior Campaigner, Oil Change International said:
"The Fed hasn't just been inactive in the face of climate crisis -- it has actively poured fuel on the fire by neglecting to regulate corporations financing oil, gas, and coal projects. We need Federal Reserve leadership that's willing to aggressively confront climate injustice and reimagine the Fed as a powerful force for building a just, equitable, and climate-resilient society."
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.
"People can't afford childcare," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that it is absurd for the Trump administration to demand another $200 billion from Congress for an illegal war on Iran after lawmakers already approved $1 trillion in military spending for the year—and while millions of people across the nation are struggling to afford basic necessities.
"You got people all over this country, 20% of households, spending 50% of their income on housing," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an appearance on MS NOW. "People can't afford healthcare. People can't afford childcare. And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
The senator's remarks came as President Donald Trump, who has not yet formally requested the funds from Congress, suggested another $200 billion would be a "small price to pay" as the US-Israeli war on Iran heads toward its fourth week with no end in sight.
"I think the Trump people are in a bit of panic," Sanders said Thursday. "They're losing ground. Gas prices are soaring. There is massive discontent against this war. It's got to end, and we've got to make sure that Trump is neutered in 2026."
With the Trump administration considering a plan to deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East amid widespread fears of a ground invasion of Iran—which would explode the price tag of an already costly war—the National Priorities Project (NPP) released an analysis highlighting where the $200 billion requested by the Pentagon could be better spent.
The group estimated that $200 billion would be enough for all of the following this year:
"Pete Hegseth would rather the US bomb Iranian families than feed American families," wrote NPP's Lindsay Koshgarian, referring to the Pentagon secretary. "We should remember the lies that led us into war in Iraq a generation ago. That war ultimately cost nearly $3 trillion. We must not go down that path again. Our tax dollars should be helping struggling Americans, not feeding new forever wars."
One advocacy group leader highlighted that "$200 billion is enough to materially change the lives of Americans," from establishing universal pre-K education to building over 100,000 housing units.
As US President Donald Trump on Thursday confirmed reporting that he's seeking $200 billion more from Congress to continue waging his unpopular war of choice on Iran, Rep. Ilhan Omar was among those forcefully pushing back.
"We're told there's no money for universal healthcare or to end hunger in this country. But somehow $200 billion more for war will likely move through Congress without question," said the progressive Minnesota Democrat, who fled civil war in Somalia as a child. "Not another penny for another endless war."
Since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started bombing Iran late last month—creating a spiraling crisis that has now killed and injured thousands of people across the Middle East, plus damaged civilian infrastructure in multiple countries—anti-war lawmakers and organizations have delivered similar messages.
"While they kick 17 million Americans off their healthcare, Republicans want to spend billions on Trump's reckless war of choice," Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in early March. "Hell no."
Last week, shortly after Pentagon officials told Congress that just the first six days cost Americans more than $11.3 billion, over 250 groups collectively told lawmakers on Capitol Hill to "vote against any additional funding for Trump's unconstitutional war."
At the time, the reported figure was a quarter of what it is now: $50 billion. The coalition noted that the funding "would be enough to restore food assistance for 4 million Americans that was taken away in the tax and budget reconciliation bill, establish universal pre-K education, and pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing, among other possible priorities."
After Trump confirmed that he wants four times more than expected, one coalition member, the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, took to social media to highlight other ways the money could be spent to improve the lives of working Americans, from school meals and paid leave to funding all levels of education.
Another coalition member, Public Citizen, released a Thursday statement in which co-president Robert Weissman ripped Trump's spending request as "grotesque beyond words."
According to Weissman:
It should properly be understood not just as a request to replenish supplies, but to expand, escalate, and perpetuate the illegal, unconstitutional, unpopular and devastating war on Iran. Congress should understand that approving any portion of this funding opens the gates for one, two, and potentially many more war funding requests in the future.
How dare the administration propose this gargantuan sum to expand an illegal war of choice at the same time it has rammed through deep cuts in healthcare and food assistance, refuses to spend foreign assistance at a cost of millions of lives, and has cut spending on protecting clean air, maintaining our national parks, investing in health research, protecting consumers from fraud, and so much more.
$200 billion is enough to materially change the lives of Americans and truly make our country stronger. It would be enough to restore food assistance to the 4 million Americans and Medicaid to the 15 million Americans who will lose those crucial supports under the Republican reconciliation bill; establish universal pre-K education; pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing; double the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency; and expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing.
Weissman argued that "every member of Congress should announce, right now, that they will reject this monstrous war funding proposal, before it is formalized."
Despite rising casualties across the Middle East and polls showing that the US assault on Iran is unpopular, even with Trump voters, a few Democrats voted with nearly all Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives earlier this month to reject war powers resolutions intended to end Trump's Operation Epic Fury. The upper chamber blocked a similar effort late Wednesday.
Berlin says it needs to focus on its defense in a separate ICJ case in which Nicaragua accuses Germany of supporting Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.
Germany said Wednesday that it will drop its planned intervention in the International Court of Justice genocide against Israel so that it can better focus on its own defense in a separate ICJ case filed by Nicaragua accusing Berlin of enabling Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza via arms sales.
Deputy German Foreign Minister Josef Hinterseher said during a press conference in Berlin that his country "will not intervene" on Israel's side in the South Africa v. Israel genocide case filed at the Hague-based tribunal in December 2023.
This is a marked departure from Germany's January 2024 announcement that it would intervene on behalf of Israel in the case, arguing that the genocide allegation made by South Africa had "no basis whatsoever."
Nearly two dozen nations, most recently the Netherlands, Namibia, and Iceland, have either formally intervened on the side of South Africa or announced their intent to do so. The Herero and Nama peoples of modern-day Namibia suffered a genocide during the region's colonization by Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
A handful of countries including the United States, Hungary, and Fiji have also intervened on behalf of Israel.
In 2024, Nicaragua filed a case against Germany at the ICJ, arguing that the European nation “has not only failed to fulfill its obligation to prevent the genocide committed and being committed against the Palestinian people... but has contributed to the commission of genocide in violation" of the Genocide Convention.
Germany has provided financial, military, diplomatic, and political support to Israel. It also temporarily halted financial contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) based on unsubstantiated Israeli claims that a dozen of its worjers were involved in the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
Unlike Germany, the US and Israel are not members of the ICJ. The US quit the tribunal after it ruled against the Reagan administration in Nicaragua v. United States, a 1984 ruling that determined the US illegally supported Contra terrorists and mined Nicaraguan harbors.
However, under the court's territorial jurisdiction powers, countries that are not members of the court can still be brought before it for crimes committed in member states.
Further complicating matters, Germany is one of numerous countries which have intervened in Gambia v. Myanmar, which the African nation filed at the ICJ in 2019 amid the Burmese junta's ongoing genocide against Rohingya Muslims.
The ICJ has issued several provisional orders in South Africa v. Israel, including directives to prevent genocidal acts and allow aid into the besieged Gaza Strip amid a burgeoning famine. Israel has been accused of ignoring these orders.
The US under the Biden and Trump administrations pressured ICJ members to refrain from intervening on behalf of South Africa. The Trump administration has also sanctioned members of the International Criminal Court (ICC)‚ which in 2024 issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
In Germany, as in several other Western nations, authorities have cracked down on pro-Palestine protests, free expression of support for Palestinian rights, and criticism of Israel. Critics say the persistent framing of German national identity around enduring guilt for the Nazis' wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust is driving overzealous policing of dissent and conflation of pro-Palestinian activism with antisemitism.
This perceived moral burden, say observers, risks stifling legitimate political debate, curtailing free speech, and criminalizing solidarity with Palestinians under the pretext of historical responsibility. This has driven German actions from secretly funding Israel's development of nuclear weapons over half a century ago to brutally assaulting and arresting pro-Palestine protesters—including women, elders, minors, and people with disabilities—after the October 2023 attack.
German police punch an anti-genocide woman in front of the cameras.
[image or embed]
— Antifa_Ultras (@antifa-ultras.bsky.social) October 7, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Amnesty International's latest annual human rights report on Germany notes "excessive use of force by police during peaceful protests by climate activists and supporters of Palestinians’ rights," as well as Berlin's "irresponsible arms transfers" to not only Israel but also Saudi Arabia.