

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.
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."