

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, Indigenous Environmental Network, Fossil Free Media, 218- 760-9958 , jennifer@ienearth.
Cassidy DiPaola, cassidy@fossilfree.media
Today, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Ed Markey, Cory Booker, Bob Casey, Jack Reed, Michael Bennet and Richard Blumenthal and Representative Ro Khanna introduced new legislation that would levy a tax on the massive windfall profits made by fossil fuel companies because of the war in Ukraine.
In 2021 alone, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron made a combined $75 billion in profits and they're currently raking in billions more. New data released today by Friends of the Earth and BailoutWatch shows that Big Oil CEOs have sold millions of dollars worth of shares, profiting a combined total of almost $99 million, in the weeks since President Biden said that he was certain Russia would invade Ukraine. Instead of using those profits to provide a stable supply of oil and gas or invest in climate solutions, Big Oil has spent a near record amount on billions of dollars worth of stock buybacks designed to enrich wealthy shareholders and their CEOs.
The proposed windfall tax legislation would tax the excess profit from barrels sold over the average Brent crude price between 2015-2019, roughly $66 a barrel. It's estimated this could raise around $35-40 billion a year that would be directly sent to consumers in the form of relief checks to help ease the burden of high fossil fuel prices.
Below are statements from leading climate, social justice, and environmental organizations:
"We applaud Senator Whitehouse and Representative Khanna for their leadership in putting a stop to Big Oil's profiteering at the expense of ordinary Americans" said Zorka Milin, Senior Advisor at Global Witness. "As the US' biggest fossil fuel companies report near-record profits and seek to exploit the war in Ukraine for political and economic gain, America is getting a wake-up call to end its reliance on volatile and destructive fossil fuels."
"As the former Director of Oil and Gas for the State of Alaska, I can assure you that the oil and gas industry must be forced to pay for the transition away from fossil fuels," said Kay Brown, Arctic Policy Director for Pacific Environment. "The federal government must manage the energy transition if we are to solve the climate crisis and stop the industry from price gouging American families - and that should include a windfall profits tax that captures Americans' fair share of revenues to scale clean energy and weather the climate storms to come."
"All-American oil oligarchs are profiteering off the war in Ukraine while sacrificing our communities and climate," said Lukas Ross, Program Manager at Friends of the Earth. "The windfall profits tax will require Big Oil to pay their fair share while putting billions of dollars back into the pockets of taxpayers."
"During the 2021 Winter Storm, the fossil fuel companies gouged Texans while people froze and died, now they are at it again during the war in Ukraine. They should not profit off of human misery! Windfall profits should aid people who are in need and fund new investments in an economy that weans us off of fossil fuels into a brighter, healthier future of reliable, stable clean energy. Three cheers for this legislation!" said Robin Schneider, Executive Director, Texas Campaign for the Environment
"The oil and gas industry got the world into this mess by lobbying and lying to keep us hooked on fossil fuels. Now they're using the war in Ukraine to distract us from the fact that they are ripping off hard working Americans with high gas prices as they reap record earnings" said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. "It's time we stop allowing Big Oil to use its record profits, earned on the backs of hard working American families, to reward wealthy shareholders and CEOs, and instead make them pay a fair share to lower the cost for consumers."
"Reimagining our Biosphere void of environmental violence will take brave spaces and restorative justice with the love and respect our future generations deserve," said Renee Millard-Chacon, Co Founder/Executive Director of Womxn from the Mountain, EJ Action Taskforce CDPHE
"Fossil fuel cartels right here in the United States have been profiting off of calamities they've engendered with impunity for too long. Environmental justice communities from the Gulf South to our Indigenous family in Alaska continue to be inured, dehumanized, and sacrificed by this industry in the same way innocent Ukranians are right now by a slicked up war over gas, oil and petroleum," offered Anthony Karefa Rogers-Wright, Director of Environmental Justice with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. "The Windfall Profits Tax is a key weapon to instigate Big Oil's Waterloo and stop them from using the crisis in Europe to generate more blood money, while also ensuring EJ communities hit first and worst, and suffering from the highest energy burdens are given relief and retribution. We're flipping the script - instead of paying the pipers, we're finally going to make the pipers pay."
"Oil companies have been making record profits off of cascading crises that they are openly exploiting to gouge the public. This windfall tax bill will put that money back into the pockets of hard-working consumers. This is much-needed legislation that will begin to curb the profiteering that has helped drive steep price increases that are crushing American families," said Mitch Jones, Managing Director of Advocacy Programs and Policy, Food & Water Watch
"Silicon Valley applauds our own Representative Ro Khanna for sponsoring a windfall profits tax on oil companies' exploitative gains made at the expense of our future on this planet. Only the oil companies have the resources needed for adaptation, mitigation, and eventual reversal of ongoing harms to health, communities, and the environment. This tax is an essential first step along the long and painful road to recovery from the ravages of the fossil fuel economy," said Janet Cox, Legislation/Policy Director, 350 Silicon Valley
"This legislation will stop Big Oil's war profiteering and deliver much-needed relief to consumers," said Jamie Henn, Fossil Free Media director. "While families are feeling pain at the pump, oil executives are making record profits because of the devastating war in Ukraine. Big Oil doesn't deserve a single penny extra by profiting during a time of war and crisis they helped create - instead, these windfall profits for a handful of executives should be used to help the consumers, especially low-income families, who are paying all the costs. We are glad to see Congress putting families first - now it's time for Congress to pass this legislation that would help make Big Oil pay for a crisis they helped create at home and abroad."
"When it comes to Big Oil, our pain is their gain. This vital legislation exposes the fossil fuel industry's inherent greed problem and begins to make sure our government is working for the people, not the polluters," said Carla Skandier, Climate Program Manager, The Democracy Collaborative.
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.
“Jeff Bezos is spending $200 billion on AI and robotics. Jeff Bezos is replacing hundreds of thousands of his workers at Amazon with robots. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.”
The Washington Post editorial board went to the trouble of marking what it called "Bernie Sanders' worst idea yet" on Wednesday, but the progressive US senator shrugged at the label and didn't appear likely to end his push for a moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers.
The conservative-leaning editors wrote glowingly of the "mind-blowing amounts of information" that AI data centers can process and dismissively said that businesses that have invested billions of dollars in AI have erroneously been cast as the "villain in the socialist imagination."
They decried "AI doomerism" by politicians and accused lawmakers like Sanders (I-Vt.) of "fearmongering" about the data centers' water consumption and environmental harms—but neglected to mention that the rapid expansion of the massive centers has sparked grassroots outrage, with communities in states including Michigan and Wisconsin demanding that tech giants stay out of their towns, fearing skyrocketing electricity bills among other impacts.
Sanders emphasized that the Post and its owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, have a vested interest in dismissing efforts to stop the AI build-out that President Donald Trump has demanded with his executive order aimed at stopping states from regulating the industry.
Bezos, one of the richest people on the planet, created an AI startup last year with $6.2 billion in funding, some of it from his personal fortune, and Amazon—where Bezos is still the primary shareholder—has announced plans to invest $200 billion in AI and robotics.
"What a surprise," said Sanders sardonically. "The Washington Post doesn't want a moratorium on AI data centers."
Ben Inskeep, a program director for Citizens Action Coalition in Indiana, suggested the editorial board couldn't express its opposition to Sanders' proposal for a moratorium without including "an admission that it is a paid attack dog for Jeff Bezos," pointing to its required disclosure that Bezos' company is in fact investing billions of dollars in AI.
On social media, Sanders followed his response to the Post's attack with a video in which he doubled down on his objections to AI, despite the editorial board's accusation that he and others "grandstand" on the issue and its insistence that he should "be ecstatic about how much AI can help workers."
Sanders said in the video that "AI and robotics are a huge threat to the working class of this country."
"We have got to be prepared to say as loud and clear as we can that this technology is not just going to benefit the billionaires who own it," he said, "but it's going to work for the working families of our country."
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has said that videotaping officers on the job is a form of "doxing" and "violence."
The US Department of Homeland Security has claimed for months that filming immigration agents on the job constitutes a criminal offense. But under oath during a Senate Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing on Thursday, the leaders of immigration agencies under the department’s umbrella admitted this is not true.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, interrogated Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Rodney Scott, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); and Joseph Edlow, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) about the recent surge of agents in Minnesota, which has resulted in the killing of two US citizens since January.
He zeroed in on the case of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse who was shot by a pair of immigration agents on January 24, showing footage of the incident leading up to Pretti's killing, which DHS claimed was justified prior to any investigation taking place.
"So what we see is the beginning of the encounter with Alexander Pretti. He's filming in the middle of the street," Paul explained after rolling the tape.
The senator then asked Scott and Lyons, "Is filming of ICE or Border Patrol either an assault or a crime in any way?"
They both responded flatly, "No."
Courts have generally affirmed that filming law enforcement agents is protected by the First Amendment. But this admission by Lyons and Scott is a major deviation from what their parent agency has claimed.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, stated during a July press briefing that “violence” against DHS agents includes “doxing them” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.”
Even in the wake of last month's shootings, DHS has held to this line, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claiming that “videoing our officers in an effort to dox them and reveal their identities is a federal crime and a felony.”
Agents have been directed to treat those who film ICE as criminals—a DHS bulletin from June described filming at protests as "unlawful civil unrest" tactics and "threats."
Several videos out of Minnesota, Maine, and other places flooded by ICE have documented federal agents telling bystanders to stop recording and issuing threats against them or detaining them.
In one case, a bystander was told that because she was filming, she was going to be put in a "nice little database" and was now "considered a domestic terrorist."
Last month, a federal judge sided with a group of journalists in California who cited the June bulletin to argue that Noem had "established, sanctioned, and ratified an agency policy of treating video recording of DHS agents in public as a threat that may be responded to with force and addressed as a crime," in violation of the First Amendment.