

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.

Jennifer K. Falcon, jennifer@ienearth.org
Cassidy DiPaola, cassidy@fossilfree.media, Abby Grehlinger, abby@team-arc.com
Today, in a major show of force ahead of the State of the Union, over 1,000 organizations representing millions of people in all 50 states including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia released a letter to President Biden urging him to quickly deliver on his campaign promises by declaring a climate emergency and stopping the federal approval of new fossil fuel projects.
"As organizations collectively representing millions of members and supporters, including Indigenous, Black, Brown, and frontline communities, we urge you to use your executive authority to speed the end of the fossil fuel era, protect our communities from the climate emergency, and address the severe harms caused by fossil fuels," the letter reads.
The letter was organized by Build Back Fossil Free, a growing coalition that is dedicated to pushing Biden to use his executive authority to act on climate and fossil fuels.The signatories on the letter include a broad swath of climate, progressive, social justice, faith, and Indigenous rights organizations - exactly the constituencies that Biden needs to energize ahead of the 2022 midterm elections by keeping his climate commitments.
The letter is another sign of the growing and widespread anger at President Biden's failure to deliver on his campaign promises around climate and environmental justice. Today organizers gathered at the White House with an art piece depicting a giant pen and executive order, urging President Biden to act on climate "with the stroke of a pen." Tonight, hundreds of environmental organizations, climate leaders, and grassroot organizers will join a digital rally to collectively pressure President Biden to listen to the demands of BIPOC leaders on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Speakers from fights against pipelines and fossil fuel infrastructure around the country will call on President Biden to make good on his promises and take action.
"Let's be clear-- politeness and pragmatism will be the death of us. Enough is enough. We- Indigenous, Black, Brown, frontline communities, and young voters- put you in that office Joe. We did it because you made big promises about protecting us and our future. We're tired of waiting for you to put people and the planet before fossil fuel corporations. So we're bringing all of our issues straight to your doorstep until you use that pen of yours to end the era of fossil fuels. No more backtracking on promises, no more showing up for you and yours in the midterms or any other election. Do your job Joe!" said Sha Ongelungel, Media Coordinator, Indigenous Environmental Network
The action and rally build on a legal foundation outlined in a new Center for Biological Diversity legal paper detailing the president's explicit emergency powers to phase out fossil fuels, build renewables, create clean jobs and advance environmental justice.
"The president's existing authority to act on climate is extensive, which is why our legal report devoted more than 50 pages to outlining it," said Maya Golden-Krasner of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "Biden can turn around his disappointing climate record and vastly expand his protections of people and the planet, but he has to use the powers he's been given. The State of the Union is the perfect moment for Biden to declare a national climate emergency and kickstart the clean-energy revolution we desperately need."
President Biden's record on climate change has fallen far short of the "all-government approach" he promised on the campaign trail. In spite of a commitment to stop new fossil fuel leases on public lands, the Biden Administration has approved more new leases than Trump in a similar time window. While Biden rejected Keystone XL, saying fossil fuel projects needed to be climate compatible, he then allowed other major pipelines like Line 3 and the Dakota Access Pipeline to move forward. Now, the Build Back Fossil Free coalition is urging him to rapidly act to address these failures by declaring a climate emergency and using the full powers of his presidency to address the crisis.
"The Biden administration cannot pin the blame for its climate failures on Congressional inaction. Since day one, the White House has had the executive authority to take a series of actions that would move us away from fossil fuels," said Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh. "The most important action he must take is to put an end to any and all new fossil fuel infrastructure projects. The science and the politics of the climate crisis are very clear: We cannot build any new fossil fuel projects and still expect to meet the challenge of protecting a livable planet. It's up to President Biden to lead the way."
With his Congressional agenda stalled, the executive actions described in the letter provide Biden a clear way to make serious climate progress and regain the trust of the millions of Americans who are furious at his failure to deliver. Each of the priorities laid out in the letter - banning all new fossil fuel development on federal lands and waters, directing federal agencies to stop approving fossil fuel projects, and declaring a climate emergency - are actions that Biden could accomplish with a simple stroke of the pen.
This lack of action has a direct cost to the predominantly Black, Brown and Indigenous communities on the frontlines of pollution and climate impacts, as well as the millions of other Americans who have been hard hit by climate disasters over the last year. It also has a political cost: according to a recent POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, 80% of left-leaning Americans say Biden has done too little on climate.
The signatories include major environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch, and Greenpeace; leading Indigenous organizations like the Indigenous Environmental Network and Sovereign Inupiat For A Living Arctic; youth climate groups like Sunrise Movement, Zero Hour, and Future Coalition; social justice organizations like the Action Center on Race and the Economy; progressive groups like Indivisible and Center for Popular Democracy; and faith organizations across the religious spectrum.
Established in 1990 within the United States, IEN was formed by grassroots Indigenous peoples and individuals to address environmental and economic justice issues (EJ). IEN's activities include building the capacity of Indigenous communities and tribal governments to develop mechanisms to protect our sacred sites, land, water, air, natural resources, health of both our people and all living things, and to build economically sustainable communities.
While Missouri's 1% would get major tax breaks, one tax policy expert said, "working families and seniors would be asked to make up the difference."
Tax policy experts warned Tuesday that passing Amendment 5 in Missouri next month could lead to middle-income residents paying hundreds of dollars more each year as wealthy households enjoy a tax cut worth tens of thousands.
If approved by voters on August 4, the legislatively referred constitutional amendment would: reduce Missouri's individual income tax, based on revenue growth, until it is eliminated; prohibit future state individual income taxes; decrease personal property and other local taxes when local revenues increase, but bar funding cuts to public schools; and limit expansions of sales and use taxes, unless they are used to lower income tax.
As The Kansas City Star detailed last week, Amendment 5 is a "top priority for Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe," and Missouri Promise PAC, the main campaign supporting it, received "$9.6 million from six organizations or groups that do not have to disclose their donors," also known as dark money.
While some of the campaign backers remain unknown to voters, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) in Washington, DC aimed to shed light on the specifics of the amendment's anticipated impact with its new policy brief.
"Amendment 5 asks Missouri voters to approve a tax shift without telling them which purchases will be taxed or how high sales taxes will rise," said ITEP analyst and brief author Eli Byerly-Duke. "What is clear is who would benefit: the wealthiest Missourians. Working families and seniors would be asked to make up the difference."
Missouri's individual income tax "makes up about 64% of the state's general fund and is the major funding source for state investments in infrastructure, schools, healthcare, public safety, and other services," the brief explains. "Low- and middle-income Missourians already pay a disproportionate share of the taxes to fund public services," and swapping income taxes for higher sales taxes "would shift even more of this responsibility from the state's highest-income individuals to teachers, farmers, truck drivers, and other middle-income Missourians."
Specifically, Byerly-Duke found that "middle-class Missourians with incomes of about $50,000 to $80,000 will pay $535 more in taxes if the personal income tax is eliminated and the sales tax expanded," all while Missouri's top 1%—or those with incomes of $689,300 and above—see an average tax break of $39,978.

The brief also highlights that "neither the Missouri Legislature nor governor has explained exactly how they will expand sales taxes if it passes. They might increase the sales tax rate, or they might expand the sales tax to include purchases of services that are not currently taxed, such as home repair and insurance, car repair and financing, personal care services such as hair or nail care, or medical services. Taxing these items will cost middle-income households a larger share of their incomes than higher-income households, but middle-income families will not get a commensurate benefit from the income tax elimination."
"For senior citizens, active-duty military families, and military retirees, the impact would be even worse," the report continues. "That's because Social Security benefits, active-duty military pay, and military pensions are already exempt from Missouri income tax, so households for whom those are the sole source of income would get no benefit from Amendment 5. For a middle-class Missourian earning between $49,100 and $79,700, this would mean an increase of $1,600 in taxes every year. Overall, seniors alone would see a net tax increase of about $335 million and each pay $365 more, on average, each year."
The brief bolsters the case for voters to say "No on 5," as Protect MO Taxpayers encourages. The "no" campaign's website warns that the amendment "hits seniors, retirees, veterans, and disabled persons hardest. Those on tight fixed incomes may not pay income tax on their limited income, but they will certainly be hurt by higher sales taxes on goods they buy every day, such as groceries, medicine, and gas, and services they use every day, from haircuts to car repairs to healthcare and housing."
"Amendment 5 hits working families hardest of all, with higher sales and use taxes estimated by the nonpartisan Missouri Budget Project to cost the average Missouri family about $500 more in taxes per year overall," Protect MO Taxpayers' site says, also pointing to concerns that it will "increase the tough economic times in rural Missouri" and "make the economic struggle even harder for small businesses."
The proposal "is a severe hit for renters who are already struggling to make ends meet," and "crushes the dreams of Missourians who want to buy or sell a home," the site adds. "Amendment 5 hits active-duty military, who do not pay state income tax but will face higher prices off the base with sales taxes that could roughly triple. This will mean less retail business and economic harm in our neighboring military host communities."
"What a complete clown show," said one critic of Hegseth's new initiative.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday elicited instant ridicule after he unveiled a new plan to offer military personnel testosterone injections.
In a video announcement, Hegseth said he was authorizing a screening program to ensure US soldiers "have the right testosterone levels" to perform at their "absolute best."
"It's well established science that, as we age, testosterone levels often drop," the US defense secretary explained. "Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters aged 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment."
The High-T Department of War. pic.twitter.com/hlAUq3j2cD
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) July 15, 2026
Personnel who are found lacking in testosterone, Hegseth continued, would get recommendations for hormone injections, though he emphasized that this would be entirely optional.
"This initiative, it's not about artificial enhancement," Hegseth emphasized. "It's about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities."
Critics on social media responded to Hegseth's new testosterone injection plan with mockery.
Journalist Amanda Katz joked that Hegseth's plan was "literally gender-affirming care" of the kind that Hegseth halted for transgender service members last year.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) similarly asked Hegseth if the new program means that "now y’all support gender-affirming care?"
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that the Hegseth initiative "is gender affirming care and it completely debunks all of Republicans’ attacks on trans people."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Missouri and a veteran of the US Army, called Hegseth's initiative "the absolute dumbest thing imaginable for the secretary of defense to be focused on."
"We are literally at war and this idiot is in his office doing two camera make up videos on testosterone," Wellman added. "What a complete clown show. I’m so sorry for our poor service members who have to deal with this ridiculous man."
Attorney Bradley Moss likened the Hegseth plan to the plot of Soldier, a 1998 movie starring Kurt Russell that bombed with both critics and audiences.
Moss added, however, that Hegseth's idea appeared even "stupider" than the movie.
Attorney Will Stancil wondered if Hegseth's testosterone program might finally push some military personnel over the edge.
"Without a hint of sarcasm I think he might get himself fragged eventually," Stancil wrote.
The lone Democrat on the FCC said Brendan Carr's plan would "destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families."
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr announced Wednesday that his agency will soon vote to repeal a decades-old rule aimed at limiting consolidation among television broadcasters, a move that press freedom organizations say would be disastrous for journalism and American democracy.
Carr, a loyalist of President Donald Trump, outlined his proposal in an op-ed for the far-right online publication Breitbart, claiming his plan would "restore balance to the broadcast airwaves." But Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, warned in a fiery statement that "this unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families who depend on local stations for news and emergency alerts."
Carr said the FCC will vote on August 6 on his proposal to eliminate a rule barring any single TV broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of US households—a limit designed to constrain television conglomerates. The FCC, which has a two-to-one Republican majority, is likely to approve the plan.
But Gomez argued in her statement on Wednesday that Carr's proposal is illegal, noting that "Congress wrote that specific [39%] number into federal law in 2004, and it did so on purpose."
"This is not the first time the FCC has tried to move on this issue," said Gomez. "In 2003, the commission raised the cap to 45% under its own authority. Congress stepped in within months, rewrote the law to set the cap at 39%, and made clear the FCC did not have the authority to change it. An FCC vote to raise the cap now would be unlawful, as it would mean doing the exact thing Congress has already said the commission cannot do."
Politico noted that Carr's proposal "marks a likely victory for the National Association of Broadcasters and its members such as Nexstar and Sinclair, which would be freer to pursue mergers that would breach the cap."
Earlier this year, the FCC approved Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of rival TV company Tegna. A federal judge blocked the merger deal in April pending resolution of a legal challenge. If the merger is finalized, the new media conglomerate would reach roughly 80% of US households, blowing past the statutory 39% limit that Carr is now working to remove.
"Just as the FCC had no power to waive a congressional statute to grease the skids for Nexstar’s merger with Tegna, it has no power now to completely obliterate the limit Congress set," Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press, said in a statement on Wednesday. "The national cap remains good policy. It promotes competition, localism, and diversity in broadcasting, incentivizing stations to preserve local newsrooms and local-journalism jobs instead of duplicating stories nationwide and passing that off as local news."
"But whatever the law’s merits may be," Wood added, "the key point is that Brendan Carr cannot undo the limit that Congress set just because he feels like it.”