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.

Ventura County announced that consistent environmental requirements for oil and gas drilling would return to the ballot this year in the form of measures A and B. Both measures would eliminate the use of "antiquated" permits in Ventura County. In some cases, these permits are nearly one hundred years old. They never expire and do not require environmental review as mandated by modern permits.
Such protections had been in effect after a Ventura County Board of Supervisors vote that required consistent permitting for all oil and gas wells. Immediately after it was passed, the oil industry spent nearly one million dollars to overturn Ventura County's decision by paying signature gathers to qualify a referendum. This paused the newly won protections and sent it to the June 7th ballot to be voted on.
In response to the ballot measure announcement, Food & Water Watch Central Coast Organizing Manager and a VC-SAFE campaign leader Tomas Morales Rebecchi issued the following statement:
"For too long the oil and gas industry has used antiquated permits as loopholes to drill wherever they want with no environmental review, even on top of our precious groundwater resources or right next to our homes. Measures A and B will solidify the protections already approved by our Board of Supervisors in 2020. Once again the fossil fuel industry is fighting these protections because of their bottom line, but California's direct democracy is meant to empower citizens and not corporate interests who prioritize profit over people. Ventura County must vote yes on Measures A and B to ensure consistent permitting for the oil and gas industry and the basic environmental regulations to protect public health."
Led by grassroots groups, community members and environmental nonprofits, the VC-SAFE (Ventura County Save Agriculture and Freshwater for Everyone) coalition will officially launch a campaign in support of Measures A and B on February 17.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500Sen. Jon Ossoff questioned how Iran could pose an "imminent nuclear threat" despite the purported "obliteration" of its nuclear program.
Sen. Jon Ossoff on Wednesday cornered Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard over President Donald Trump's false claims that he launched a war with Iran because it was an "imminent" threat to US national security.
During a Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing, Ossoff (D-Ga.) questioned Gabbard about how any purported threat from Iran could possibly be deemed "imminent" given past administration statements about the state of its nuclear weapons program.
Ossoff began by noting that Gabbard's opening statement given to the committee ahead of the meeting claimed that "Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated" as a result of airstrikes launched last year by the US.
"So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes?" he asked.
"Yes," replied Gabbard, who prior to joining the Trump administration had a long history of advocating against launching a regime change war against Iran.
OSSOFF: Your opening statement stated that as a result of last summer's airstrikes, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was 'obliterated.' Correct?
GABBARD: That's right
OSSOFF: The WH stated on March 1 that this war was launched to 'eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by… pic.twitter.com/3rPVnmZVTb
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 18, 2026
"The opening statement you submitted to the community last night also stated, 'There has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,' correct?" Ossoff continued.
"That's right," Gabbard replied.
"The White House stated on March 4 of this year that this war... was a 'military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime,'" Ossoff said. "That's a statement from the White House: 'The imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?"
Gabbard briefly paused and then responded that "the intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capabilities."
At this point, Ossoff interjected.
"Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an 'imminent nuclear threat' posted by the Iranian regime, yes or no?" he pressed.
"Senator, the only person who can determine what is or is not an imminent threat is the president," Gabbard said.
"False," Ossoff shot back. "This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence... you've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was 'obliterated,' and that there 'had been no efforts since then to try to enrich their capability.'"
Ossoff then asked Gabbard if the intelligence community believed Iran posed an "imminent nuclear threat" despite the purported "obliteration" of its nuclear program.
"It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determined what is and is not an imminent threat," Gabbard said.
"It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States," Ossoff countered. "This is the worldwide threats hearing."
“Trump’s war of choice in Iran is not just a moral mistake but an economic blunder that is skyrocketing gas prices for working Americans," said Rep. Ro Khanna.
With Big Oil poised to profit from a price spike driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran, congressional Democrats on Wednesday revived an excise tax that proponents say would put money back in the pockets of struggling American workers.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act "to curb profiteering by oil companies and provide Americans relief at the gas pump."
The legislation—which only applies to large oil companies—would impose a per-barrel tax "equal to 50% of the difference between the current price per barrel of oil and the average price per barrel last year, when big oil companies were already earning large profits."
As Democrats on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works explained: "Revenue raised from the windfall profits of Big Oil companies will be returned to consumers in the form of a quarterly rebate, which would phase out for single filers who earn more than $75,000 in annual income and joint filers who earn more than $150,000. At $100 per barrel of oil, the levy would raise approximately $33 billion per year. At that price, single filers would receive approximately $216 annually and joint filers would receive roughly $324 annually.”
The committee Democrats noted:
The price of a gallon of gas is up 80 cents just weeks after the onset of war in Iran, and the price of a barrel of oil has increased 50% from what it was at the start of the year. President [Donald] Trump’s war in Iran has further disrupted an already volatile global oil market by reducing supply and choking key shipping lanes. Qatar has warned that oil prices could surpass $150 per barrel in the coming weeks, far above 2022 highs seen following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Trump—who promised gas under $2 a gallon and no new wars—said last week that "when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money."
As in Venezuela—another oil-rich country attacked by a president who has bombed 10 nations, more than any other US leader in history—Big Oil revenue is projected to surge due to the rising volatility and prices the war on Iran is bringing. The Financial Times reported Tuesday that US oil companies could reap $60 billion in additional revenue this year alone if crude prices remain high.
As one oil industry financial analyst told The New York Times earlier this week, “The oil and gas industry’s financial strategy has been ‘pray for war,’ because those are the conditions under which they make money."
Critics said that while fossil fuel interests—which spent close to half a billion dollars to get Trump and other Republicans elected in 2024—rake in profits, ordinary Americans suffer.
“American consumers are once again getting squeezed at the gas pump as President Trump’s war of choice in Iran sends gas prices soaring and money flowing to his Big Oil donors,” Whitehouse said Tuesday. “We should send any big windfall for Big Oil back to the hardworking people who paid for it at the gas pump."
"Over the longer term, accelerating our transition to clean energy will lower energy costs, insulate consumers from these kinds of price spikes, and reduce America’s dependence on foreign despots and greedy fossil fuel companies," he added.
Khanna said: “Trump’s war of choice in Iran is not just a moral mistake but an economic blunder that is skyrocketing gas prices for working Americans. I’m proud to reintroduce the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act alongside Sen. Whitehouse to stop Big Oil from profiteering off of foreign wars at Americans’ expense and deliver real relief at the pump."
The President shouldn't be a cheerleader for Big Oil companies making fatter profits while Americans pay higher gas prices.We should tax windfall oil profits from Trump's war against Iran and give relief to American families instead.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) March 15, 2026 at 10:38 AM
Green groups and economic justice advocates were among those applauding the reintroduction of the bill, which one 2022 nationwide poll found is supported by 80% of Americans.
“Let’s be crystal clear that when Trump said ‘when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money’, he was talking about billionaire Big Oil executives while ‘we the people’ are stuck paying higher costs," said League of Conservation Voters (LCV) senior federal advocacy campaigns director Leah Donahey.
"A recent analysis estimates the oil industry could rake in over $60 billion in additional profits this year, which would all be paid by consumers struggling with higher energy costs," Donahey added. "Congress should pass this bill as soon as possible to make sure they are putting people over oil CEO profits.”
Mitch Jones, who directs policy and litigation at the watchdog group Food & Water Watch (FWW), said Wednesday that "historical evidence could not be any clearer: Big Oil will undoubtedly leverage the current crisis in the Middle East to maximize profit margins, pinching American families and enriching their executives and Wall Street speculators."
"This demands a policy response—namely, a windfall profits tax... which would recover much of these egregious, opportunistic gains and return them to everyday Americans," Jones added. "At a time when many families are already struggling with skyrocketing energy bills caused by money-driven AI schemes from the tech industry, fossil fuel companies must be held accountable for the profiteering they are orchestrating as we speak.”
LCV and FWW are among the more than 70 groups urging Congress to pass the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act.
“As instability in the Middle East once again drives up oil prices, American families are being asked to pay more for gasoline and other basic necessities,” the groups wrote Wednesday in a letter to congressional leaders. “Meanwhile, the largest fossil fuel companies stand to collect billions in additional profits. A windfall profits tax would ensure that when oil companies benefit from crisis-driven price spikes, some of those gains are returned to the households paying the cost.”
"For the 22 million Americans whose premiums have doubled, and the millions more who stand to lose coverage, a $56 discount on a fertility drug is not 'immediate relief.'"
US President Donald Trump launched TrumpRx last month with a bold promise to the American public: "dramatically lower prices on dozens of common, high-cost, brand-name prescription drugs."
But an analysis released Tuesday by the Center for American Progress (CAP) found that of the 54 medications listed on TrumpRx.gov as of March 16, "exactly one" drug—the fertility medication Cetrotide—is available at a "genuinely new lower price" not available elsewhere.
The CAP analysis emphasized that TrumpRx—touted by the administration as a path to "immediate relief" for consumers in the country with the highest drug prices in the world—is extremely limited by design, listing just 0.2% of all federally approved medications in the US.
Additionally, the terms that site users must accept before gaining access to coupons for discounted prices state that beneficiaries cannot be "enrolled in insurance from any government, state, or federally funded medical or prescription benefit programs."
Patients also must have a prescription to use TrumpRx for discounts. "According to a KFF analysis," CAP noted, "nearly half (46.6%) of uninsured adults ages 18 to 64 reported not seeing a doctor or other health professional in 2023."
"Applied to the estimated 27.9 million adults without insurance in 2026, this means that approximately 13 million Americans will never reach the most basic prerequisite for using TrumpRx: a visit with a clinician who can write a prescription," CAP added.
The think tank's analysis found that 17 of the drugs on TrumpRx—or over 30% of them—have genetic equivalents that are available at a lower cost elsewhere, something that the Trump-branded platform doesn't tell users.
"Among the remaining 37 drugs without lower-cost generics, GoodRx offers comparable or lower prices for 20," CAP found. "That leaves 17 drugs where TrumpRx appears to offer a better deal. But in 16 of those cases, the same or lower prices were already available through manufacturer coupons and patient assistance programs. After accounting for all existing discount channels, just one drug—Cetrotide, a fertility medication—offers a price that was not previously available to cash-paying patients."
Neda Ashtari, associate director of health policy at CAP and author of the new analysis, said in a statement that the Trump administration is "undermining the most powerful tool for lowering patients’ costs at the pharmacy counter—health insurance coverage—and replacing it with a government-branded coupon book."
“For the 22 million Americans whose premiums have doubled, and the millions more who stand to lose coverage," due to Trump and the GOP's refusal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, "a $56 discount on a fertility drug is not 'immediate relief,'" Ashtari added.
CAP's analysis was released a day before The New York Times and the German news organizations Süddeutsche Zeitung, NDR, and WDR debunked Trump's claim last month to have delivered the lowest drug prices "in the entire world"—which would be news to the 1 in 3 US adults who say they've rationed medications, skipped meals, or made other painful tradeoffs over the past year to afford healthcare expenses.
"The drugs listed on TrumpRx can cost American patients up to hundreds or thousands of dollars, while a patient walking into a German pharmacy pays next to nothing," the Times observed on Wednesday. "The German health system foots the bill, and records show that, more often than not, it pays less than what the Trump administration negotiated for Americans."