

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.

David Turnbull, david@priceofoil.org
Laurie van der Burg, laurie@priceofoil.org
Today, 353 organizations from 58 countries released a letter calling on G7 leaders to stop financing fossil fuels; cancel debt payments in global South countries grappling with COVID-19 and climate impacts and pay their fair share of climate finance to global South countries for climate adaptation among other demands.
View the full text of the letter here.
For the latest G7 public fossil fuel finance figures and an overview of commitments made to shift public finance out of fossil fuels and into clean to date, see our Factsheet on G7 fossil fuel finance here.
The letter from CSOs comes as over 100 economists from around the globe released a letter also addressed to G7 leaders, calling for an end to all fossil fuel finance, including oil and gas alongside ending coal finance. That letter, published at the Thomson Reuters Foundation, can be found here.
Representatives from signatories of the CSO letter provided the following comments upon its release:
Nnimmo Bassey, Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), Nigeria:
"Climate debt owed the Global South over years of extreme exploitation and climate abuse must be on the table now. The climate finance smokescreen must be terminated. There is a debt to be recognized and paid. That's the way to build resilience, mitigate impacts and halt continued gross climate misbehaviours. It is time to cancel odious debts and pay the climate debt!"
Elizabeth Bast, Executive Director, Oil Change International:
"This summit should be the final G7 where discussion of fossil fuel finance is even needed. With voices of economists, scientists, global civil society and even the International Energy Agency calling for an end to financing of new fossil fuels, it's time for the G7 to step up. Their leadership on shifting finance entirely out of fossil fuels is long overdue, and our climate and communities are suffering the consequences."
Murray Worthy, Gas Campaign Leader, Global Witness, UK:
"This G7 must move beyond paying lip-service to the climate crisis and implement real climate action that can actually make a difference. This starts with agreeing to no expansion of fossil fuels either at home or through financing abroad. Building back better means working towards a fossil free future."
Nick Dearden, Director, Global Justice Now, UK:
"Despite dozens of countries spending more on debt payments than healthcare and global south leaders calling for debt cancellation to fund climate action, G7 leaders have refused to do what is needed to end the debt crisis. We can't just have warm words or debt suspensions. We need G7 governments to pursue urgent debt cancellation and, if necessary, enact legislation to bring private creditors to the table."
Patricia Lerner, Senior Political Advisor Greenpeace International:
"Humanity is at an existential crossroads, where we can either commit to halving global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 or face climate catastrophe. The G7 has to wean itself off fossil fuels now, and influence other governments to follow suit. To survive the climate crisis we must focus on a just and green transition - that means shutting down the fossil fuel industry while supporting oil, coal and gas workers."
Aroa de la Fuente from the Alianza Mexicana contra el Fracking, Mexico:
"The US has taken advantage of Mexico to receive its over production of gas due to the fracking boom. Now we have pipelines and natural gas power plants all over the country and our dependence on imports is risky. Unfortunately, instead of investing in decentralized, community scale, renewable energy, there are voices calling for us to develop our shale gas potential imitating our neighbor."
Johan Frijns, Director BankTrack, Netherlands:
"The only chance we have of steering the hundreds of billions of dollars in investments by commercial banks away from the fossil fuel industry is if governments set the example and end all bilateral and multilateral financing for new fossil fuel projects. To remain below the already dangerous 1,5 degrees temperature rise, requires a concerted and urgent shift from all financiers, public and private, away from fossil fuels towards a low carbon renewable energy economy."
Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator, Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development, Philippines:
"We call on the G7 to commit to an immediate end of fossil fuel subsidies and chart a concrete course of action for the phaseout. To limit global warming to 1.5, we need a swift and just transition away from coal, gas and oil to zero emissions by 2030 for all G7 countries."
Hassan Mehedi, Coordinator, Coastal Livelihood & Environmental Action Network, Bangladesh:
"G7 countries are the biggest investors in fossil fuel industries. Their companies are supplying equipment for more than 90% of fossil fuel based power plants in Bangladesh. To save humankind, G7 countries must stop financing and promoting fossil fuels in developing countries. These countries have provided illegitimate debt to developing countries for geopolitics, profit and war business. It is time to cancel all illegitimate debt in this time of pandemic."
May Boeve, Executive Director, 350.org:
"We have had enough of world leaders sitting and talking whilst the world burns around them, with COVID-19 and climate impacts continuing to wreak havoc. In order to achieve a truly Just Recovery from both the health pandemic and climate breakdown, we need international collaboration to tackle both crises and ensure that those most affected are being taken care of. We need funds to be redirected towards guaranteeing equal access to vaccines in all developing countries, so that no one is left behind, and to real actions that go beyond net-zero empty promises. The G7 must take a decisive stance, and end all new fossil fuel investments."
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"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza... Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector," said one critic.
A US congressional committee on Thursday rejected an amendment to strip a provision from next year's Pentagon funding bill aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli militaries under the guise of reducing aid.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to strike Section 224—which would establish a formal "United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative"—from the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. The proposed NDAA authorizes $1.15 trillion in baseline military spending, while the Trump administration’s full defense request seeks an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in armed forces and related funding for the coming fiscal year.
Section 224 would require the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology cooperation.
In Thursday's voice vote, members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) from both parties rejected the amendment to remove Section 2024 from the NDAA, with only Khanna and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) backing the measure.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—has called Section 224 "my plan."
While proponents of Section 224 contend that the measure would reduce US taxpayer funding for Israel, Khanna argued that the provision amounts to a blank check for a country that most Americans oppose sending more aid to.
“The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do," the congressman said Thursday while promoting his amendment. "The entire country of Israel has a GDP that is less than a single town in my district, yet somehow Netanyahu thinks he could tell the American people what we should do."
“I am for Team America," Khanna added. "I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that's what [President] Donald Trump ran on. That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”
In a letter to Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)—who is not on the HASC—Netanyahu said he is "heartened" by Section 224's plan to “develop a new Memorandum of Understanding with the United States government” that will reduce “US financial military assistance over the next decade” and replace it with “a new framework of joint defense cooperation, codevelopment, coproduction, and mutual investment."
The US has provided more than $20 billion in armed aid to Israel during the Biden and Trump administrations since Netanyahu launched the genocidal war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. The current 10-year Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel, signed in 2016 during former President Barack Obama's tenure, provided Israel with $38 billion in US military aid and expires in 2028.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—who has partnered with Khanna on introducing or supporting war powers resolutions aimed at curbing Trump's ability to wage unconstitutional wars in countries including Yemen, Venezuela, and Iran—said last month that if Section 224 made it out of committee, he would work with Khanna to "offer an amendment to strip it from the bill on the floor."
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is urging Americans to contact their members of Congress to tell them to reject Section 224.
"This is not 'America First.' It is Israel First," ADC argues on its website. "The resolution language attached to this proposal gives it away: it expresses support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s initiative to transition the US–Israel relationship toward mutual defense cooperation and joint economic investment. This language turns Congress into a vehicle for advancing Netanyahu’s agenda and asks the American people to treat it as their own national security policy."
"Section 224 would move US support for Israel away from the more transparent foreign aid framework and into a maze of Pentagon procurement, licensing, data-sharing, and backdoor deals that are harder for Congress, taxpayers, and future administrations to monitor, cap, condition, or unwind," the group continued. "Concerns of undefined 'network integration' and 'data fusion' should alarm every American who cares about sovereignty, privacy, civil liberties, and democratic oversight."
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, exporting surveillance technologies used against activists and journalists around the world, marketing military technology tested on Palestinians, and carrying out terrorist attacks as seen in the cell phone [bombings] in Lebanon, Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector and making accountability harder than ever," ADC added.
In an opinion piece published this week by Common Dreams, Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote that "lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel’s military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in the region."
"This unprecedented level of US-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of US military assistance," Freeman said.
"Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion."
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries helped Republicans tank Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s war powers resolution to limit US military involvement in Lebanon on Thursday, holding up the effort to curb the conflict for at least another several weeks.
Despite Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushing deeper, with more than 3,500 people killed and 1.2 million displaced since early March, the Michigan Democrat's resolution was defeated in a 324-92 vote, with a large number in her own party joining Jeffries (D-NY) and the Republican majority against it.
In a joint statement shortly ahead of the vote on Tlaib's resolution, House Minority Leader Jeffries of New York, along with Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said: “We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah." The statement included no mention of Israel.
The lawmakers said they’d support a different resolution introduced by Tlaib on Wednesday, which was crafted in tandem with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That resolution likewise required President Donald Trump to remove US forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of passage. But it also added the caveat that it could not be construed to "prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Jeffries, Clark, and Aguilar said, "There are no US servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon."
However, supporters of Tlaib's original measure have noted that the US military is heavily involved in Israel's actions in the country without having boots on the ground.
"The US is actively cooperating with Israel on coordinating strikes, intelligence sharing, and planning, including Trump green-lighting major attacks on Lebanon multiple times," Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams.
While the resolution's passage wouldn't "end US involvement overnight," she said, "it fundamentally changes the landscape of accountability" by giving opponents of US collaboration a legal mechanism to conduct oversight.
And while the resolution would not cut off US military aid to Israel, Abou-Elias said Israel could continue its occupation "only for a limited period of time" without US assistance.
"Israel would be absorbing losses while also draining its broader manpower and firepower reserves," she said. "At some point, the cost-benefit of continuing their occupation without US support would shift."
Because war powers resolutions are privileged, they can be forced to a vote even without approval from the Republican majority.
However, committees are given 15 days to act before a resolution is forced onto the floor, followed by three days for a House vote. This means it could take until June 21 for the new version to pass. The Senate would also have to pass it, and it would then take another week to go into effect.
"The people of Lebanon can't wait another month for Congress to act," Tlaib said on social media following news that the proposal would be voted down. "Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion. Congress must pass today's Lebanon war powers resolution."
Abou-Elias said that despite the setback, Tlaib's introduction of the measure was not a wasted effort.
"Even if the resolution doesn't pass today, the vote forces every representative on record on the US participation in the attacks on Lebanon," she said. "That alone has value."
Though resolution failed, proponents of the measure championed the 92 lawmakers who did vote in favor.
“Congress’s failure to act has thus far enabled multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon and war crimes against Lebanese civilians,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, in a statement. “Tonight’s vote demonstrated that a growing block of members of Congress are beginning to listen to their constituents. Americans don’t want the US involved in atrocities against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, or anyone. This vote is just the beginning, and we will continue to organize until all of Congress acts to end these atrocities.”
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said US Rep. Shontel Brown.
Rep. Shontel Brown on Thursday confronted US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins for her past boasts about kicking millions of Americans off food assistance.
During a House Agriculture Committee hearing, Brown grilled Rollins for saying it was "good news" that 4.5 million fewer people are now enrolled in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) than before President Donald Trump took office last year.
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Brown. "Families and children are not leaving the SNAP program because they are doing better."
Rep. @ShontelMBrown: Recently, you described it as good news that roughly 4.5 million people have been moved off SNAP. The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. They are not doing better--
Rollins: They are. pic.twitter.com/qcB2WlAHLv
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 4, 2026
"They are," Rollins replied, without citing any evidence.
"They are being forced off because of eligibility changes, new administrative barriers, and states preparing for the enormous cost shift that they know is coming," Brown shot back. "And you know this. So I'm really struggling to understand why you think pulling the rug out from under children, seniors, veterans, and families that have fallen on hard times [is] good news."
Rollins then baselessly claimed that all of the people who had been removed from SNAP had been added to the program fraudulently, including "200,000 dead people."
The Associated Press last month published a fact check that examined a similar Rollins claim about the number of people removed from food assistance over the last year, and determined that the most likely culprit were changes made to the program by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a 2025 budget law that slashed funding to SNAP by $186 billion over a decade.
"What we’ve seen in terms of the data is that the trend in participation declines seems to be related to the program being harder to access,” Roger Figueroa, an assistant professor at Cornell University, explained to the AP.