

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 Citigroup launched its initial roadmap to achieve net-zero in its energy and power portfolios. With these targets, Citigroup becomes the first major US bank to set an absolute emissions target for its energy portfolio.
Climate advocates have repeatedly criticized other banks' intensity-only targets, which are compatible with increases in absolute emissions.
However, the policy still allows their biggest fossil fuel clients such as Exxon, Saudi Aramco, and Chevron to lag in 2022 and 2023-leaving just six years for the company to slash its financed emissions by 2030.
"Citi's new climate plan is a small step forward, but there is much more to be done," said Jackie Fielder, Stop the Money Pipeline Coalition Co-Director. "Failure to immediately end the bank's support for fossil fuel companies that are ignoring climate science and expanding their operations is the most glaring gap. As the second-largest funder of the fossil fuel industry since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, it is a gap that Citi should fill without delay."
The unprecedented: Citigroup's climate plan uses absolute emissions rather than carbon intensity metrics to judge progress in the energy sector. By measuring financed (absolute) emissions to measure its progress in its energy portfolio, Citi breaks rank with three other major US banks (JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) that have used carbon intensity metrics in their 2030 net zero plans. The carbon intensity metric is a cheap accounting trick that enables banks to appear as if they are decarbonizing, even as they continue to expand their support of the fossil fuel industry and corporations driving deforestation around the globe. Additionally, Citi is the first US bank to publish its baseline energy sector financed emissions in absolute terms, broken down by scope.
However, the plan still allows for fossil fuel expansion, in direct contrast to the International Energy Agency's assessment. Last year, the International Energy Agency's special report, Net Zero by 2050, concluded that there must be "no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects" starting from 2021 if the world is to avert catastrophic climate change. Instead, Citi's 2030 climate goals include a two year grace period of engaging with their biggest fossil fuel clients to assess their alignment with net zero. Citigroup says:
We will also encourage the responsible retirement of carbon-intensive assets rather than divestment as part of these transition plans. We will continue to assess our client relationships -- a regular part of how we manage our business -- and prioritize partnering on transition strategies before turning to client exits as a last resort.
Stop the Money Pipeline coalition maintains its demand of an immediate start to a fossil fuel financing phaseout, including our demand of Citigroup to stop financing fossil fuel companies that have plans to expand their operations.
SEE THE DATA: Check out the Global Oil & Gas Exit List (GOGEL), an extensive public database that enables users to readily identify the largest oil and gas expansion companies, as well as those which are responsible for the dirtiest and most controversial forms of oil and gas production.
Member organizations of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition released the following statements in reaction to the news:
"With these new commitments, Citigroup has surpassed the low bar set so far by its peers and taken an important first step toward aligning its lending practices with a climate-stable future," said Sierra Club Fossil-Free Finance Campaign Manager Ben Cushing. "The targets Citi has laid out aren't achievable if it continues to fund the expansion of fossil fuel development, and we are hopeful that this assessment period over the next two years will lead to cutting ties with polluters that are failing to change their practices accordingly."
"While an absolute target for energy represents a step forward, Citi has not ruled out expansion of fossil fuels -- sidestepping the headline requirement of the IEA net-zero scenario that Citi's energy target is based on," said Rainforest Action Network Climate and Energy Senior Campaigner Jason Opena Disterhoft. "The bank should require companies to end fossil fuel expansion and deforestation as explicit criteria in its client assessment, in line with climate science. This should also apply to power, where an intensity-only target leaves the door open for new fossil gas -- when the IEA has underlined the need for decarbonized power by 2035 in the rich world and 2040 worldwide."
"While it's great that Citi is breaking rank with other fossil fuel funding giants by setting absolute emissions targets for its portfolio, they simply cannot continue to allow fossil fuel expansion," said Amy Gray, Senior Climate Finance Strategist at Stand.earth. "Our planet just cannot afford anymore stalling tactics, frontline communities just can't wait for these banks to appease the fossil fuel industry while our homes burn and flood, while our bodies are polluted and our children's futures are destroyed for profit. It's time to set the standard for the banking industry and Citi should step up to the plate and lead the way."
"Citi cannot call itself a climate leader as it continues to pour financing into oil and gas expansion projects in critical biomes like the Amazon," said Pendle Marshall-Hallmark, Climate and Finance Campaigner at Amazon Watch, "Without a clear commitment to end financing for fossil fuels, Citi's new targets fall short. If Citi is serious about aligning its portfolio with its stated values, it must commit to end fossil fuel expansion immediately, in line with IPCC and IEA science."
"With these new 'targets,' Citi is likely expecting praise from the environmental community, but we can't praise any plan that still allows for funding fossil fuel expansion," said Erika Thi Patterson, Campaign Director for Climate and Environmental Justice with the Action Center on Race and the Economy. "Citi is straight up ignoring the demands of frontline Black, Brown and Indigenous communities that have been targeted by fossil fuel corporations for generations to end the fossil fuel era. We need to see Citi align its commitments with the demands of frontline communities by ending fossil fuel expansion immediately."
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
Despite denials of being involved in the Texas state senate special election, Trump endorsed the losing candidate on three separate occasions over the last three days.
Hours after the Republican Party suffered an upset defeat in a special election in a deep-red district in Texas, President Donald Trump falsely claimed he had nothing to do with the race.
While speaking to reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort on Sunday, Trump was asked what he made of the GOP losing a Texas state senate election in a district that he carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.
"I'm not involved in that, that's a local Texas race," Trump replied.
Reporter: A Democrat won a special election in Texas in an area that you won by 17 points
Trump: I’m not involved in that. That’s a local race. I don’t know anything about it. I had nothing to do with it. pic.twitter.com/MfWU1DZkar
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 1, 2026
In fact, Trump endorsed losing Republican candidate Leigh Wambsganss on three separate occasions in just the last three days, including a Saturday post on Truth Social where he called her "a phenomenal Candidate" and "an incredible supporter of our Movement to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN."
Trump's attempt to distance himself from someone whom he enthusiastically endorsed just one day ago elicited instant ridicule from many of his critics on social media.
"Two days ago, the president used his social media platform to endorse this 'phenomenal candidate' and to urge 'all America First Patriots' in the district to get out and vote for her," remarked Princeton historian Kevin Kruse. "Today, he says he doesn't know anything about it and had nothing to do with it. He's lying or demented or both."
Zak Williams, a political consultant at Zenith Strategies and a native Texan, wrote that Trump was "intimately involved" in the campaign, noting that Republicans outspent Democrats in the race by a margin of 10 to 1.
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who left the GOP over his disgust with Trump, expressed astonishment at the president's blatant dishonesty.
"He’s such a horrible person," wrote Walsh. "And such a dishonest person. Yes, he was involved in that race. He endorsed the losing candidate, and she lost 100% because of him. She lost 100% because of this past year of his chaos, his cruelty, and his incompetence. Her loss was a total rejection of him."
Journalist James Barragán of TX Capital Tonight, argued that the Wambsganss loss calls into question just how effective Trump's endorsements will be in moving voters in the 2026 midterm elections.
"President Trump says he’s 'not involved' in SD 9 race where his endorsed candidate (who he boosted multiple times in the runup) lost a +17 Trump district," wrote Barragán. "He’s either not being truthful or it makes you question how much stock people should put into his social media endorsements."
"This was a bribe," said one critic.
A bombshell Saturday report from the Wall Street Journal revealed that a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family secretly backed a massive $500 million investment into the Trump family's cryptocurrency venture months before the Trump administration gave the United Arab Emirates access to highly sensitive artificial intelligence chip technology.
According to the Journal's sources, lieutenants of Abu Dhabi royal Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan signed a deal in early 2025 to buy a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial, the startup founded by members of the Trump family and the family of Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Documents reviewed by the Journal showed that the buyers in the deal agreed to "pay half up front, steering $187 million to Trump family entities," while "at least $31 million was also slated to flow to entities affiliated with" the Witkoff family.
Weeks after green lighting the investment into the Trump crypto venture, Tahnoon met directly with President Donald Trump and Witkoff in the White House, where he reportedly expressed interest in working with the US on AI-related technology.
Two months after this, the Journal noted, "the administration committed to give the tiny Gulf monarchy access to around 500,000 of the most advanced AI chips a year—enough to build one of the world’s biggest AI data center clusters."
Tahnoon in the past had tried to get US officials to give the UAE access to the chips, but was rebuffed on concerns that the cutting-edge technology could be passed along to top US geopolitical rival China, wrote the Journal.
Many observers expressed shock at the Journal's report, with some critics saying that it showed Trump and his associates were engaging in a criminal bribery scheme.
"This was a bribe," wrote Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, in a social media post. "UAE royals gave the Trump family $500 million, and Trump, in his presidential capacity, gave them access to tightly guarded American AI chips. The most powerful person on the planet, also happens to be the most shamelessly corrupt."
Jesse Eisinger, reporter and editor at ProPublica, argued that the Abu Dhabi investment into the Trump cypto firm "should rank among the greatest US scandals ever."
Democratic strategist David Axelrod also said that the scope of the Trump crypto investment scandal was historic in nature.
"In any other time or presidency, this story... would be an earthquake of a scandal," he wrote. "The size, scope and implications of it are unprecedented and mind-boggling."
Tommy Vietor, co-host of "Pod Save America," struggled to wrap his head around the scale of corruption on display.
"How do you add up the cost of corruption this massive?" he wondered. "It's not just that Trump is selling advanced AI tech to the highest bidder, national security be damned. Its that he's tapped that doofus Steve Witkoff as an international emissary so his son Zach Witkoff can mop up bribes."
Former Rep. Tom Malinkowski (D-NJ) warned the Trump and his associates that they could wind up paying a severe price for their deal with the UAE.
"If a future administration finds that such payments to the Trump family were acts of corruption," he wrote, "these people could be sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act, and the assets in the US could potentially be frozen."
In a speech before cheering supporters, Democrat Taylor Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people."
Democrats scored a major upset on Saturday, as machinist union leader Taylor Rehmet easily defeated Republican opponent Leigh Wambsganss in a state senate special election held in a deep-red district that President Donald Trump carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.
With nearly all votes counted, Rehmet holds a 14-point lead in Texas' Senate District 9, which covers a large portion of Tarrant County.
In a speech before cheering supporters, Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people" whom he credited with putting his campaign over the top.
This win goes to everyday, working people.
I’ll see you out there! pic.twitter.com/kPWzjn2LhW
— Taylor Rehmet (@TaylorRehmetTX) February 1, 2026
Republican opponent Wambsganss conceded defeat in the race but vowed to win an upcoming rematch in November.
“The dynamics of a special election are fundamentally different from a November general election,” Wambsganss said. “I believe the voters of Senate District 9 and Tarrant County Republicans will answer the call in November.”
Republican Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick reacted somberly to the news of Rehmet's victory, warning in a social media post that the result was "a wake-up call for Republicans across Texas."
"Our voters cannot take anything for granted," Patrick emphasized.
Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico, on the other hand, cheered Rehmet's victory, which he hinted was a sign of things to come in the Lone Star State in the 2026 midterm elections.
"Trump won this district by 17 points," he wrote. "Democrat Taylor Rehmet just flipped it—despite Big Money outspending him 10:1. Something is happening in Texas."
Steven Monacelli, special correspondent for the Texas Observer, described Rehmet's victory as "an earthquake of Biblical proportions."
"Tarrant County is the largest red county in the nation," Monacelli explained. "I cannot emphasize enough how big this is."
Adam Carlson, founding partner of polling firm Zenith Research, noted that Rehmet's victory was truly remarkable given the district's past voting record.
"The recent high water mark for Dems in the district was 43.6% (Beto 2018)," he wrote, referring to Democrat Beto O'Rourke's failed 2018 US Senate campaign. "Rehmet’s likely to exceed 55%. The heavily Latino parts of the district shifted sharply to the left from 2024."
Polling analyst Lakshya Jain said that the big upset in Texas makes more sense when considering recent polling data on voter enthusiasm.
"Our last poll's generic ballot was D+4," he explained. "Among the most enthusiastic voters (a.k.a., those who said they would 'definitely' vote in 2026)? D+12. Foreseeable and horrible for the GOP."
Bud Kennedy, a columnist for the Forth Worth Star-Telegram, argued that Rehmet's victory shows that "Democrats can win almost anywhere in Texas" in 2026.
Kennedy also credited Rehmet with having "the perfect résumé for a District 9 Democrat" as "a Lockheed Martin leader running against a Republican who had lost suburban public school voters, particularly in staunch-red Republican north Fort Worth."