

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.

A coalition of leading climate groups are calling on the CEOs of Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn, and TikTok to ban fossil fuel advertising from their platforms.
A coalition of leading climate groups are calling on the CEOs of Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn, and TikTok to ban fossil fuel advertising from their platforms.
"The definition of hypocrisy is social media giants saying they care about environmental impacts while accepting millions of dollars from fossil fuel corporations to peddle their propaganda," said Anusha Narayanan, Greenpeace USA climate campaign manager. "Delay and distraction is the new denial for big oil. Now in the face of widespread public support for climate action, these companies are desperately running to social media to cast themselves as an ally."
The groups sharing the petition include Clean Creatives, Greenpeace US, and Hip Hop Caucus.
"Social media platforms have become the top purveyors of fossil fuel industry misinformation," said Duncan Meisel, the campaign director for Clean Creatives, a campaign bringing together PR and advertising agencies to stop working with fossil fuel corporations. "All of these platforms ban tobacco industry advertising. It's time to extend that commitment to fossil fuels, which cause even greater harm to public health, the environment, and our democracy."
None of the social media and digital platforms being targeted allow tobacco industry advertising, but all of them continue to accept millions of dollars from fossil fuel companies to run ads to greenwash their image, and ads explicitly aimed at blocking climate action. That's despite the well-publicized commitments from all of the social media platforms to support climate action and battle misinformation.
"Energy companies often use expensive advertising campaigns to convince the public of their environmental credibility, while hiding their true activities," said JaRel Clay, digital director of Hip Hop Caucus and former employee of Edelman Public Relations. "We believe that advertising is a powerful tool that should be used to drive the change we want to see, not continue the greenwashing practices of the fossil fuel industry. We urge the leaders of the leading social media platforms to join us on our mission by signing this pledge. "
The full extent of the fossil fuel industry's spending on social media is difficult to track, but a number of independent analyses suggest that the scope is immense.
An October 2019 study by InfluenceMap found that since May 2018, the oil and gas industry and their front groups had spent $17 million on Facebook advertising alone. An In These Times investigation in October 2020 found that ExxonMobil "spent more than any other major corporation on 'social issues, elections, or politics' Facebook ads (outside of Facebook itself), and is the country's ninth-largest buyer of such ads overall: $15.6 million from May 7, 2018, to October 8, 2020." Exxon's ads appeared on Facebook and Instagram users' screens as many as 265 million times during that period.
The industry also uses fake front groups and influencers to spread their messaging across social media. Exxon has set up Facebook pages for made-up local groups to battle environmental measures. Shell is currently running an influencer program across Instagram. The natural gas industry has also turned to Instagram to promote gas stoves and push back against gas bans.
"Fossil fuel companies are increasingly using social media advertising as a key part of their overall strategy to influence government policies on climate. While platforms might have rules to deal with outright climate denial, the fossil fuel industry engages in far more subtle campaigns designed to reinforce the idea that it remains 'part of the solution', while promoting the continued use of fossil fuels," said Faye Holder, Program Manager at InfluenceMap. "The world's scientists are clear that we need to transition away from fossil fuels if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees - a goal publicly supported by many of the same platforms that accept millions of dollars every year from fossil fuel industry ads. That leaves social media companies with an important choice: acting on the science, or continuing to allow advertising that's misaligned with it."
None of the social media platforms currently have protections in place against this sort of advertising. Google allows oil companies to bid on search terms and place advertising next to web pages or news stories about climate change. TikTok brags about running a pro-climate series, #ForClimate, on its corporate website, but currently has no policies in place to stop industry misinformation from spreading across its platform. Twitter's ban on political advertising, while well intentioned, has had the effect of banning environmental groups from running ads about climate change, while allowing fossil fuel companies to keep running ads that can be only understood as political in nature. Facebook recently overruled its own scientific fact checking committee when it tried to flag climate denial on the site, even as it banned actual climate scientists from spreading facts about the crisis.
"The long term health of our communities far outweigh the short term profit made off the back of a dying, destructive industry," said Greenpeace's Narayanan. "Banning advertisements from fossil fuel corporations is a turnkey opportunity for social media companies to show they are serious about protecting our planet. They already reject ads for a number of reasons, it's simply a matter of adding fossil fuels to that list."
The campaign targeting social media platforms is part of a growing effort to combat fossil fuel industry disinformation. Lawsuits from state Attorneys General are targeting oil companies for false advertising. Congressional committees are beginning to look at climate disinformation. Campaigns like Clean Creatives are pressuring PR and advertising agencies to drop fossil fuel industry clients.
"For decades, the fossil fuel industry has polluted our airwaves and social media feeds in order to keep polluting our atmosphere," said Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, the organization behind the Clean Creatives campaign. "It's time to clear things up."
Fossil Free Media is a nonprofit media lab that supports the movement to end fossil fuels and address the climate emergency.
Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Democratic US Senate candidate Platner said in an ad that aired on the New England Sports Network.
Maine Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner on Saturday said that a campaign ad that aired during a Boston Red Sox game was "taken down" after it took aim at the team's ownership.
The ad in question features Platner discussing the role that private equity firms play in the US economy, including sports teams.
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Platner says at the start of the ad. "Private equity is buying up our homes, our sports, and our lives. I will reverse the private equity curse."
Private equity is taking our homes. It's taking our hospitals. It's taking beloved local businesses and stripping them for parts.
And now private equity is running the Red Sox into the ground.
Our new ad ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/w7LapElpdA
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 22, 2026
Platner concludes the ad by saying that he approves this message "because I miss Mookie Betts," the star player whom the Red Sox traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2020 in a deal that was widely decried by local fans as a salary dump.
According to Platner, his campaign began airing the ad Friday on the New England Sports Network (NESN), the cable TV station owned partially by Fenway Sports Group, the conglomerate that owns the Red Sox.
However, he said that "midway through the game the ad was taken down" by NESN, after which the Red Sox proceeded to blow a 4-0 lead, losing to the Minnesota Twins by a final score of 8-6.
Platner, an oyster farmer and upstart candidate who has never before held political office, became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the 2026 US Senate race in Maine last month after his top rival, Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills, dropped out of the race.
In recent weeks, Platner has pivoted to challenging incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has held the seat since 1996 and is now running for her sixth term in office.
The policy change means "we could have families separated for months or years," said one expert.
Critics are slamming the Trump administration for implementing a new rule that foreigners who apply for green cards must do so from abroad.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Friday announced that foreigners currently in the US who want to establish permanent legal residency must first return to their countries of origin to apply for a green card.
This announcement broke with decades of US immigration policy, which made it possible for immigrants in the US to obtain green cards without having to leave the country.
Doug Rand, a former senior advisor at USCIS under President Joe Biden, said in an interview with The Associated Press that "the goal of this policy is very explicit," which is to block a path to citizenship "for as many people as possible."
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS policy analyst, told The New York Times that the rule change could have particularly dire consequences to foreigners who are married to US citizens and will now have to apply for permanent residency from overseas.
"Our consular processing system through which they would have to apply is already overburdened," Pierce explained. "So that means we could have families separated for months or years."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, similarly noted that the new policy "could force people to leave their jobs, homes, and families for weeks or months, all at their own expense" just to stay in a country where they have already established roots.
Reichlin-Melnick said that the full scope of the policy isn't yet clear because there are several unknown details about how broadly it will be applied, but added that "in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of immigrants now have to worry about upending their lives to get a legal status that they are entitled to under our laws."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim argued that the new policy rips the mask off Trump administration claims that they aren't opposed to all immigration, they simply want to reduce undocumented immigration.
"The talking point that we do want legal immigration, we just want people to get in line and follow the rules, is BS," Grim commented. "This is an attempt to blow up the line, blow up the rules, and make it insanely difficult to immigrate legally."
Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) echoed Grim's comments by pointing out that the new policy shows the Trump administration's disdain for immigration overall.
"This new policy will force thousands of LEGAL immigrants, including spouses of US citizens, to leave their homes, families, and jobs for weeks or even months to get their green card outside the US," said García. "This is an absurd and cruel policy."
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, condemned the new policy for targeting "students, scientists, entrepreneurs, spouses of US citizens, and other individuals following legal immigration processes."
"Aspiring lawful permanent residents are valued members of our communities, workforce, and economy," Espaillat emphasized. "I will continue fighting to protect the rights of aspiring green card holders and immigrant families."