

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.


Dominic Kavakeb, dkavakeb@globalwitness.org, (Global Witness, based in UK)
Tyler Kruse, tkruse@greenpeace.org, (Greenpeace USA, based in US)
Collin Rees, collin@priceofoil.org, (Oil Change International, based in US)
Just eight of the world's biggest energy companies helped enrich Vladimir Putin's war chest to the tune of $95.4 billion (USD) in the seven years after Russia annexed Crimea, according to new analysis by environmental groups Global Witness, Greenpeace USA and Oil Change International.
In those seven years, projects backed by BP were responsible for the highest payments to Russia, totaling $78.4billion. This amount includes payments made as a result of BP's stake in the Russian state-owned oil company Rosneft, although BP denies responsibility for Rosneft payments to the Russian government. Excluding this amount BP's payments were $817 million.
Shell was next highest with payments to Russia at $7.9 billion, whilst Exxon paid $2.8 billion, which includes their Sakhalin-1 project, a joint venture with Rosneft.
Western oil and gas companies have come under sustained pressure to pull out of Russia following Putin's invasion of Ukraine this year. The French firm TotalEnergies has continually ignored the chorus of calls to end its Russian investments, whilst the Austrian firm OMV has said it is still assessing a full divestment. Although other companies like BP and Exxon have recently committed to withdraw from Russian operations, these huge payments since the annexing of Crimea have given Putin both huge revenues and the legitimacy to escalate his designs over Ukraine.
Read the full briefing.
Murray Worthy, Gas Campaign Leader at Global Witness, said:
"BP and other big energy companies are now trumpeting their withdrawals from Russia but do they expect us to forget the almost $100 billion they're responsible for putting into Putin's pockets in recent years? Whilst BP might deny accountability for the consequences of its stake in Rosneft and the payments made to Putin's war chest, it has always been more than happy to benefit from the billions that have flowed from its involvement in the company. The Russian energy industry is Putin's biggest earner and companies like BP that turned a blind eye to the Crimean invasion, continuing to support money pouring into his war chest, should surely be questioning whether they now have Ukrainian blood on their hands."
Lorne Stockman, Research Co-Director at Oil Change International, said:
"Fossil fuels are the currency of despots, dictators, and warmongers. Our global reliance on oil and gas is not only killing our planet, but also making the world a less safe and equal place. Big Western polluters like BP and Shell have been all too happy to work in countries with despicable human rights records for over a century. They must avoid looking to other autocratic regimes to replace the resources they have foregone in Russia. Now is the moment to end the fossil fuel era."
Tim Donaghy, Research Manager at Greenpeace USA, said:
"If we want to build a world based on equity, peace and stability then we must urgently accelerate the move towards renewable energy. This is the single best way to cut off both the money and soft power yielded by the likes of Putin to carry out the sort of atrocities we are now seeing in Ukraine. And when energy companies try to fight this transition, politicians should remember the billions of dollars they have given to Putin."
When asked for comment on these findings, BP disputed the findings in relation to attributing a share of Rosneft's payments to the Russian government to the company. It stated that "we simply do not recognise the numbers you cite or, indeed, any suggestion that bp was somehow "responsible for paying" Russia "an estimated $78.4" billion since 2014".
Trafigura stated that it had made no direct payments to the Russian government as a result of its share in an oil project. Equinor, ExxonMobil, OMV and Total did not dispute the figures provided, Wintershall Dea stated it was not able to verify our findings, and BP, Equinor, OMV and Shell referred to their payments to governments data as part of their annual financial reports. Shell stated that it was unable to provide comment on the figures in this briefing in the timeframe proposed.
Global Witness, Greenpeace USA and Oil Change International are calling on world leaders, particularly those in the United States and Europe, to recognise the huge, direct financial contribution of fossil fuel companies based in their countries to Putin's war efforts, in the years leading up to it. The groups are therefore calling on world leaders to cut those companies out of the conversation on energy transition and to speed up the move towards renewable energy to swiftly deliver a fossil-free world.
Many of the world's worst environmental and human rights abuses are driven by the exploitation of natural resources and corruption in the global political and economic system. Global Witness is campaigning to end this. We carry out hard-hitting investigations, expose these abuses, and campaign for change. We are independent, not-for-profit, and work with partners around the world in our fight for justice.
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029"The most urgent need now is for the DOJ to produce all the documents and electronically stored information required by the act."
The congressmen behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act on Thursday asked a federal judge to appoint a "special master and/or independent monitor" to ensure that the Trump administration actually releases the documents from the trafficking case against deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as required by the new law.
Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) led the monthslong congressional effort to pass the legislation, which Trump—a former friend of Epstein who's repeatedly mentioned in the files—signed in November. Since then, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has published some heavily redacted materials but blown the December 19 deadline to release everything.
"We have offered for six months to meet with the Justice Department to help them get the right documents out, and we're now going to be intervening with the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to ask those judges to appoint a special master and ensure that all the documents are released," Khanna told NPR last week.
Khanna and Massie did so with a Thursday letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, writing to the appointee of former President Barack Obama that "we have urgent and grave concerns about DOJ's failure to comply with the act as well as the department's violations of this court's order."
As MS NOW—which initially reported on the letter—explained, "Engelmayer oversees the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and last month, the Justice Department obtained Engelmayer's permission to release grand jury materials and other evidence provided to Maxwell in discovery that were redacted or sealed per a court order."
On December 24, the DOJ announced that it had received over a million more documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and SDNY "to review them for release, in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, existing statutes, and judicial orders." The department added then that "due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks."
Khanna and Massie noted in their letter that the DOJ's most recent court filing on Monday states the department has only produced "approximately 12,285 documents (compromising approximately 125,575 pages)" and there is still "more than 2 million documents potentially responsive to the act in various phases of review."
As the lawmakers pointed out: "Other reports suggest that the DOJ may be reviewing more than 5 million pages. Because these figures are self-reported and internally inconsistent with prior representations, there is reasonable suspicion that the DOJ has overstated the scope of responsive materials, thereby portraying compliance as unmanageable and effectively delaying disclosure."
According to their letter:
The conduct by the DOJ is not only a flagrant violation of the mandatory disclosure obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but as this court has recognized in its previous rulings, the behavior by the DOJ has caused serious trauma to survivors.
In addition, the DOJ has not complied with Section 3 of the act, which requires the attorney general, within 15 days of the deadline for release, to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary committees identifying the categories of records released and withheld and summarizing all redactions and their legal bases. To date, no such report has been provided. Without it, there is no authoritative accounting of what records exist, what has been withheld, or why, making effective oversight and judicial review far more difficult.
Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the act.
Khanna and Massie added that "while we believe that criminal violations have taken place and must be addressed, the most urgent need now is for the DOJ to produce all the documents and electronically stored information required by the act."
The pair has threatened to bring inherent contempt proceedings against US Attorney General Pam Bondi. Asked about that on Tuesday, Massie told MS NOW that they were assessing the situation and still hoped for DOJ compliance.
"Hopefully, we don't have to do it," the congressman said. "But when we feel like we need to do it, we'll do it."
The vice president's remarks came after analysis by both the New York Times and Washington Post undercut the Trump administration's claims about Good's killing.
Vice President JD Vance on Thursday lashed out at the media and "left-wing" activists whom he blamed for the death of Minneapolis resident Renee Good at the hands of a federal immigration enforcement agent.
During a press conference at the White House, a reporter asked Vance if there was anything he could say to unite America in the wake of Good's killing by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, and Vance responded by immediately attacking the media.
"The reporting over this has been one of the biggest scandals I've ever seen in media," Vance complained. "I've never seen a case so misrepresented and misreported. We have a guy who was defending himself, who is now being treated as some sort of federal assassin by so many of the people in this room."
Vance also described Good as "a woman who aimed her car at a law enforcement officer and pressed on the accelerator."
JD Vance on the killing of Renee Good: "The reporting over this has been one of the biggest scandals I've ever seen in media. I've never seen a case so misrepresented and misreported." pic.twitter.com/GLWad9g2Qt
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2026
In-depth video analyses of Good's killing published by both the New York Times and the Washington Post on Thursday undercut the Trump administration's claims that the she was trying to run over the ICE agent before he fatally shot her.
The Times analyzed footage from three different camera angles and concluded that Good's vehicle "appears to be turning away from a federal officer as he opened fire."
The Post, meanwhile, found that the agent fired "at least two of three shots from the side of the vehicle as it veered past him."
Observers of various footage circulating online have reached similar conclusions.
Elsewhere in the press conference, Vance baselessly asserted that Good had been indoctrinated by left-wing politics.
"There is a part of me that feels very sad for this woman," he said. "And not just because she lost her life, but because I think she is a victim of left-wing ideology. What young mother shows up and decides they're going to throw their car in front of ICE officers who are enforcing law? You've got to be a little brainwashed to get to that point."
Vance also accused unnamed people and institutions of funding violent attacks on ICE agents.
JD Vance on Renee Good: "I think she's a victim of left-wing ideology. What young mother shows up and decides they're gonna throw their car in front of ICE officers who are enforcing law? You've got to be a little brainwashed." pic.twitter.com/7sdh0WT69Y
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2026
"If you are funding violence against our law enforcement officers... my guess is that's not the sort of thing that earns capital punishment, but it should sure as hell earn you a few years in prison," Vance said.
JD Vance: "If you are funding violence against our law enforcement officers, I'm not a prosecutor, my guess is that's not the sort of thing that earns capital punishment. But it should sure as hell earn you a few years in prison." pic.twitter.com/2AklZQtKFh
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2026
The vice president's remarks about organizations purportedly "funding" attacks on law enforcement come just weeks after it was revealed that US Attorney General Pam Bondi had written a memo directing the US Department of Justice to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”
The memo identified the “domestic terrorism threat” as organizations that use “violence or the threat of violence” to advance political goals such as “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality.”
"New York just got a lot more livable for thousands of families."
Thousands of parents in New York City will have access to free childcare after Gov. Kathy Hochul joined forces with Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Thursday to roll out the first steps of his campaign promise to make childcare universal throughout the city.
The governor announced $1.7 billion in this year's budget that will seek to create childcare access for 100,000 more children, part of a plan to spend $4.5 billion on childcare across the state during this fiscal year.
She said she is committed to “fully fund the first two years of the city’s implementation" of Mamdani's program, which he hopes will one day provide free childcare to kids between 6 weeks and 5 years old.
According to the childcare marketplace website TrustedCare, the average cost of daycare for children in New York City ranges from $2,000 to $4,200 per month, depending on the child's age and schedule.
"This is something every family can agree on," Hochul said at a press conference Thursday at a YMCA in the Flatbush neighborhood of Brooklyn. "The cost of childcare is too damn high."
The governor and mayor will begin by increasing funding for the city's existing 3K program, created under former Mayor Bill de Blasio, which extended free pre-K, which was already available to all 4-year-olds, to 3-year-olds when spots are available. Hochul said she and Mamdani will seek to "fix" the program and make it truly universal.
After initially promising to make it available to all 3-year-olds, Mamdani's predecessor, former Mayor Eric Adams, instead slashed funding for it and other early childhood education programs, which children's advocates said drove kids out of the public school system and left many unable to find seats in nearby areas.
"We stand here today because of the young New Yorkers who were no longer willing to accept that the joy of beginning a family had to be paired with the heartbreak of moving away from a city that they have always loved," Mamdani said.
In addition to making that program universal, Hochul and Mamdani are rolling out a program offering childcare for 2-year-olds, known as "2 Care," which will first be available in "high-need areas" before being rolled out to all parents by 2029.
Mamdani has estimated that the plan to make pre-K fully universal will cost about $6 billion per year, with funding made more challenging by the fact that President Donald Trump recently cut off federal childcare subsidies to states, including $3 billion to New York, amid a manufactured panic about rampant fraud. Hochul has said the state is mulling its legal options to fight the funding freeze.
In the meantime, she plans to spend $73 million in the first year to cover the cost and creation of 2 Care, and $425 million in the second year as more children enroll.
While the source of the funds was not immediately clear, Hochul has said that money for the initial phase of the rollout will come from revenue already allocated by the legislature and not from any tax hikes in the coming year.
"We’re barely six months away from people dismissing Zohran Mamdani for running on universal childcare," said Rebecca Katz, an adviser to the new mayor's campaign. "And now here we are. Incredible. New York just got a lot more livable for thousands of families."
Some New Yorkers who supported Mamdani's campaign expressed excitement on social media about having one of their highest costs lifted.
"Universal 3K is the major reason we could afford to stay in our apartment in NYC," said Jordan Zakarin, a producer at the labor-focused media company More Perfect Union. "Making care free for 2-year-olds will be a game-changer for so many families and keep so many of them in NYC."
Andrei Berman, a father of three children, said that "this will save me 40 grand and eliminate my biggest expense a year early."
The high cost of childcare is an issue that has brought Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, together with the centrist Hochul. The endorsement of New York's "first mom governor," a leading Democratic power-broker in the state and the country, proved a critical stepping stone for Mamdani on his unlikely ascent to the city's highest office last year.
"To the cynics who insist that politics is too broken to deliver meaningful change, to those who think that the promises of a campaign cannot survive once confronted with the realities of government, today is your answer," Mamdani said. "This is a day that so many believed would never come, but it is a day that working people across our city have delivered through the sheer power of their hard work and their unwavering belief that a better future was within their grasp."