

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.

Jackie Fielder, jackie@stopthemoneypipeline.
Today, President Joe Biden announced the re-nomination of Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve Chair, and Lael Branaird as Vice-Chair of Supervision. The White House also said today it plans to fill three more vacant Fed board seats, including the Vice Chair of Supervision role, in early December.
In September, Public Citizen and 350.org groups delivered over 40,000 petition signatures demanding Biden nominate a Federal Reserve Chair who will account for climate risk. In recent months, dozens of progressive organizations sent letters to President Biden calling for Fed nominees that would address climate risk, as well as ensuring a strong economy and combating systemic racism. In late October, activists protested outside Federal Reserve branches calling for Fed Chair Jerome Powell to not be renominated.
Member organizations of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition released the following statements in reaction to the news:
Brooke Harper with 350.org said: "With climate disasters pummeling our communities, the Federal Reserve must account for climate risk. While we're disappointed in Powell's incrementalism on climate, we're making our demands heard: the Federal Reserve must steer the economy away from high-risk fossil fuel investments, incorporate a climate stress test across policies and lending, and prioritize racial justice, including through full employment. Powell's mandate to protect our economy includes protecting our communities from climate catastrophe. We look forward to working with Powell in his continued tenure as Fed Chair, as well as Vice Chair Lael Brainard."
Ben Cushing, Fossil-Free Finance Campaign Manager, Sierra Club said: "The Fed has an obligation to help protect the economy and the financial system from the growing dangers of climate change, and to do so in a just and equitable manner. To date, the Fed has failed to adequately deploy the tools available to address the threat climate change poses to our economy, and this inaction is putting us all at risk. We are encouraged to see Governor Brainard being elevated to the role of Vice Chair, and it is essential that President Biden nominate additional board members, including the Vice Chair of Supervision, that will act to address climate-related threats to our economy. We will also be paying close attention during the confirmation process to see how Chairman Powell intends to use the Fed's authority to protect communities, small businesses, pensions, and families from a climate-driven financial crisis."
Jeff Hauser, Executive Director at Revolving Door Project said; "The country already faces a steep climb to a just transition. With his decision to reappoint Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to another four-year term, President Biden has needlessly added an additional obstacle to that path. Powell has consistently made clear his disinterest in using the Federal Reserve's power to mitigate climate-related financial risk. By renominating Powell as chair, Biden has given him effective veto power over his other picks, who are more closely aligned with Biden on the urgency and severity of the climate crisis. Powell must recognize that he is one of a slate of nominees meant to usher in a new era at the Federal Reserve -- we will be watching closely for any sign that he is instead using his position as Chair to sandbag Biden's other nominees. In the meantime, Senate Democrats must demand two things from Powell: That he step entirely away from the ethics investigation into his own wrongdoing and commit to acceding to all supervision related resource and agenda requests from the Vice Chair for Supervision."
"Now more than ever it is imperative that Chairman Powell steps up and meets expectations and prioritizes bold climate action. Financial policy and regulation is one area where the Fed has a myriad of existing authority that allows it to take the decisive and necessary steps to attenuate further climate chaos. We cannot allow the financial system to operate unchecked and wreak anymore havoc on frontline communities than they already have," said Amy Gray, Senior Climate Finance Strategist at Stand.earth
"By renominating Powell, who has repeatedly minimized central banks' role in addressing the climate crisis, Biden has missed a rare opportunity to appoint diverse and transformational leaders to the Fed. But by now it should be clear that addressing climate-related financial risk falls squarely within the Fed's mandate to promote full employment, and ensure price and financial stability. We hope that Powell and the Fed will heed the warnings of economists, politicians and civil society groups, and start using its toolkit to protect our economy and our communities from a climate-driven financial crisis." said Akiksha Chatterji, Digital Campaigner at Positive Money US
David Arkush, managing director of Public Citizen's Climate Program, said, "President Biden's re-nomination of Chair Powell doubles down on reckless Wall Street deregulation and dangerous dawdling on climate-related threats to the financial system, flouting Biden's own whole-of-government approach to stemming climate threats. As the 2008 financial crisis showed, fecklessness by financial regulators doesn't appear terribly dangerous until catastrophe suddenly materializes. That is the path Powell has put us on. The silver lining is Biden's elevation of Lael Brainard to Vice Chair. Brainard has shown significantly more leadership across the Fed's missions and has influenced Powell for the better. The President has three more seats to fill. He should quickly nominate individuals like Sarah Bloom Raskin and Lisa Cook who will improve the Board's diversity and work to fulfill its full mission. Powell should defer to the leadership of Brainard and others on financial regulation and climate. If he refuses, they should use their majority votes to steer the Fed toward responsible action.
"The world's scientists have made it abundantly clear in the recent IPCC 6th Assessment that the world must transition beyond fossil fuels rapidly - largely in the next decade, to avoid a terrible escalation of climate disasters, which are already hurting Colorado's people and economy," said Micah Parkin, Executive Director of 350 Colorado. "So we are joining other organizations nationwide in calling on the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators and policymakers to stop financing the fossil fuel companies fueling the climate crisis."
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
"The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President Trump’s largest donors,” the lawmakers wrote.
A group of 31 Democratic senators has launched an investigation into a new Trump administration policy that they say allows the Environmental Protection Agency to "disregard" the health impacts of air pollution when passing regulations.
Plans for the policy were first reported on last month by the New York Times, which revealed that the EPA was planning to stop tallying the financial value of health benefits caused by limiting fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone when regulating polluting industries and instead focus exclusively on the costs these regulations pose to industry.
On December 11, the Times reported that the policy change was being justified based on the claim that the exact benefits of curbing these emissions were “uncertain."
"Historically, the EPA’s analytical practices often provided the public with false precision and confidence regarding the monetized impacts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone," said an email written by an EPA supervisor to his employees on December 11. “To rectify this error, the EPA is no longer monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone.”
The group of senators, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), rebuked this idea in a letter sent Thursday to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
"EPA’s new policy is irrational. Even where health benefits are 'uncertain,' what is certain is that they are not zero," they said. "It will lead to perverse outcomes in which EPA will reject actions that would impose relatively minor costs on polluting industries while resulting in massive benefits to public health—including in saved lives."
"It is contrary to Congress’s intent and directive as spelled out in the Clean Air Act. It is legally flawed," they continued. "The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President [Donald] Trump’s largest donors."
Research published in 2023 in the journal Science found that between 1999 and 2020, PM2.5 pollution from coal-fired power plants killed roughly 460,000 people in the United States, making it more than twice as deadly as other kinds of fine particulate emissions.
While this is a staggering loss of life, the senators pointed out that the EPA has also been able to put a dollar value on the loss by noting quantifiable results of increased illness and death—heightened healthcare costs, missed school days, and lost labor productivity, among others.
Pointing to EPA estimates from 2024, they said that by disregarding human health effects, the agency risks costing Americans “between $22 and $46 billion in avoided morbidities and premature deaths in the year 2032."
Comparatively, they said, “the total compliance cost to industry, meanwhile, [would] be $590 million—between one and two one-hundredths of the estimated health benefit value."
They said the plan ran counter to the Clean Air Act's directive to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare,” and to statements made by Zeldin during his confirmation hearing, where he said "the end state of all the conversations that we might have, any regulations that might get passed, any laws that might get passed by Congress” is to “have the cleanest, healthiest air, [and] drinking water.”
The senators requested all documents related to the decision, including any information about cost-benefit modeling and communications with industry representatives.
"That EPA may no longer monetize health benefits when setting new clean air standards does not mean that those health benefits don’t exist," the senators said. "It just means that [EPA] will ignore them and reject safer standards, in favor of protecting corporate interests."
"An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down," wrote the New Republic's editorial director.
Democratic voters overwhelmingly want a leader who will fight the superrich and corporate America, and they believe Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the person to do it, according to a poll released this week.
While Democrats are often portrayed as squabbling and directionless, the poll conducted last month by the New Republic with Embold Research demonstrated a remarkable unity among the more than 2,400 Democratic voters it surveyed.
This was true with respect to policy: More than 9 in 10 want to raise taxes on corporations and on the wealthiest Americans, while more than three-quarters want to break up tech monopolies and believe the government should conduct stronger oversight of business.
But it was also reflected in sentiments that a more confrontational governing philosophy should prevail and general agreement that the party in its current form is not doing enough to take on its enemies.
Three-quarters said they wanted Democrats to "be more aggressive in calling out Republicans," while nearly 7 in 10 said it was appropriate to describe their party as "weak."
This appears to have translated to support for a more muscular view of government. Where the label once helped to sink Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) two runs for president, nearly three-quarters of Democrats now say they are either unconcerned with the label of "socialist" or view it as an asset.
Meanwhile, 46% said they want to see a "progressive" at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2028, higher than the number who said they wanted a "liberal" or a "moderate."
It's an environment that appears to be fertile ground for Ocasio-Cortez, who pitched her vision for a "working-class-centered politics" at this week's Munich summit in what many suspected was a soft-launch of her presidential candidacy in 2028.
With 85% favorability, Bronx congresswoman had the highest approval rating of any Democratic figure in the country among the voters surveyed.
It's a higher mark than either of the figures who head-to-head polls have shown to be presumptive favorites for the nomination: Former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Early polls show AOC lagging considerably behind these top two. However, there are signs in the New Republic's poll that may give her supporters cause for hope.
While Harris is also well-liked, 66% of Democrats surveyed said they believe she's "had her shot" at the presidency and should not run again after losing to President Donald Trump in 2024.
Newsom does not have a similar electoral history holding him back and is riding high from the passage of Proposition 50, which will allow Democrats to add potentially five more US House seats this November.
But his policy approach may prove an ill fit at a time when Democrats overwhelmingly say their party is "too timid" about taxing the rich and corporations and taking on tech oligarchs.
As labor unions in California have pushed for a popular proposal to introduce a billionaire's tax, Newsom has made himself the chiseled face of the resistance to this idea, joining with right-wing Silicon Valley barons in an aggressive campaign to kill it.
While polls can tell us little two years out about what voters will do in 2028, New Republic editorial director Emily Cooke said her magazine's survey shows an unmistakable pattern.
"It’s impossible to come away from these results without concluding that economic populism is a winning message for loyal Democrats," she wrote. "This was true across those who identify as liberals, moderates, or progressives: An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down."
In some cases, the administration has kept immigrants locked up even after a judge has ordered their release, according to an investigation by Reuters.
Judges across the country have ruled more than 4,400 times since the start of October that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has illegally detained immigrants, according to a Reuters investigation published Saturday.
As President Donald Trump carries out his unprecedented "mass deportation" crusade, the number of people in ICE custody ballooned to 68,000 this month, up 75% from when he took office.
Midway through 2025, the administration had begun pushing for a daily quota of 3,000 arrests per day, with the goal of reaching 1 million per year. This has led to the targeting of mostly people with no criminal records rather than the "worst of the worst," as the administration often claims.
Reuters' reporting suggests chasing this number has also resulted in a staggering number of arrests that judges have later found to be illegal.
Since the beginning of Trump's term, immigrants have filed more than 20,200 habeas corpus petitions, claiming they were held indefinitely without trial in violation of the Constitution.
In at least 4,421 cases, more than 400 federal judges have ruled that their detentions were illegal.
Last month, more than 6,000 habeas petitions were filed. Prior to the second Trump administration, no other month dating back to 2010 had seen even 500.

In part due to the sheer volume of legal challenges, the Trump administration has often failed to comply with court rulings, leaving people locked up even after judges ordered them to be released.
Reuters' new report is the most comprehensive examination to date of the administration's routine violation of the law with respect to immigration enforcement. But the extent to which federal immigration agencies have violated the law under Trump is hardly new information.
In a ruling last month, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the US District Court in Minnesota—a conservative jurist appointed by former President George W. Bush—provided a list of nearly 100 court orders ICE had violated just that month while deployed as part of Trump's Operation Metro Surge.
The report of ICE's systemic violation of the law comes as the agency faces heightened scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with leaders of the agency called to testify and Democrats attempting to hold up funding in order to force reforms to ICE's conduct, which resulted in a partial shutdown beginning Saturday.
Following the release of Reuters' report, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) directed a pointed question over social media to Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE.
"Why do your out-of-control agents keep violating federal law?" he said. "I look forward to seeing you testify under oath at the House Judiciary Committee in early March."