

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.

Gaby Sarri-Tobar, Center for Biological Diversity, (202) 594-7271, gsarritobar@biologicaldiversity.org
Brittany Miller, Friends of the Earth, (202) 222-0746, bmiller@foe.org
Cassidy DiPaola, Fossil Free Media, (401) 441-7196, cassidy@fossilfree.media
Dozens of environmental and labor groups urged House and Senate leaders to increase funding for President Biden's historic executive orders to spur domestic renewable energy production under the Defense Production Act.
The call comes as the country struggles to make progress on climate action. The Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia v EPA weakened the EPA's ability to regulate power plants under the Clean Air Act. A slimmed down version of the Build Back Better Act, Biden's landmark climate legislation, is stalled in Congress.
In June Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to manufacture solar panels, insulation and heat pumps. Biden's plan encourages high labor standards tied to increased manufacturing. It also calls for boosting community-based clean energy and distributed generation.
A House Appropriations subcommittee recently appropriated $100 million toward Biden's clean energy orders. While this is a positive first step, estimates show more than $100 billion is needed to meet the administration's climate and clean electricity goals. That funding can catalyze the country's manufacturing base and transform our energy system into one that is renewable and just.
More than 1,000 organizations support the DPA orders, including the People vs. Fossil Fuels Coalition. Earlier this year U.S. Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Jason Crow (D.-Colo.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the Energy Security and Independence Act to direct $100 billion toward domestic renewable energy production, prioritizing investment in environmental justice and worker communities. The bill has more than 50 cosponsors and support from more than 80 organizations.
"We're at a crisis point for our climate and our energy future, and we need action now," said Gaby Sarri-Tobar, a campaigner with the Center for Biological Diversity's energy justice program. "Biden's clean energy directives add urgency to the climate fight, but Congress must fully fund this to spur the just, renewable future we need. There's no way to ramp up renewable energy production without the money to make it happen."
"President Biden's recent deployment of DPA to create secure, clean energy resources for all communities is sorely needed and we applaud him for these efforts," said Art Terrazas, government affairs advocate for the League of Conservation Voters. "Now it is time for Congress to do its part to meet the moment on climate and provide the funding necessary for clean energy, justice, and jobs through a reconciliation package and strong FY23 appropriations so that we can grow the renewable energy manufacturing industry, deploy these needed resources across the country, and ensure that all communities benefit from lower energy costs today."
"Working in solar in the St. Louis area, we're seeing prices for panels go up every day or suppliers simply out of stock. We need help from Washington to move projects forward right away. There's no time to waste. We need the funding to carry out President Biden's Defense Production Act order to spur renewable energy production," said Brian Tresenriter of SoulShyne Solar, who is a Green Workers Alliance member.
"We are in a climate emergency -- an emergency we can only confront when our government steps up and launches a WWII scale mobilization to justly transition to renewable energy," said Varshini Prakash, executive director of Sunrise Movement. "As climate disasters worsen, oil companies continue to price-gouge consumers, and real investments in renewable energy have stalled, Congress must urgently and robustly fund President Biden's DPA executive order. In a moment when young people are questioning the legitimacy of our institutions, our politicians must act to save our generation and show us what our government can do for us."
"Biden's executive orders on climate can only be meaningful if Congress dedicates the funding to get the job done," said Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh. "Using the Defense Production Act to supercharge America's clean energy production is a critical step towards treating the climate crisis like a true emergency."
"Congress must appropriate funds that match the needs laid out in President Biden's forward-looking executive order," said Karen Orenstein, director of the climate and energy justice program at Friends of the Earth U.S. "The cost of inaction is far more expensive and will be measured in lost lives and livelihoods, in the U.S. and worldwide."
"The dual crises of rising energy prices, along with a cascade of climate impacts, demand immediate action for the health and wellbeing of every American. EOPA is inspired by President Biden's leadership in invoking the DPA, however more investment than $100 million is needed in order to set the United States on a path to a 50-52% reduction in carbon pollution by 2030 -- the goal scientists say is necessary to prevent the worst impacts of climate change," said Dominic Frongillo, executive director and cofounder of Elected Officials to Protect America. "President Biden can leverage DPA funds and the federal procurement budget of $650 billion per year to scale up clean energy technologies deployment. We are in a climate emergency, which is a national security risk. At least $100 billion should and could be allocated by the end of this fiscal year to help ensure the security of our nation and the world through building a clean energy economy."
"The DPA is meant for unusual, even extreme, circumstances like war, pandemics and national emergencies. We have never seen a greater threat to our country, indeed to the world, than the one posed by potentially catastrophic climate change," said Todd Paglia, executive director of Stand.earth. "We need to invest as much as we can, as rapidly as we can, into renewable energy if we want to ensure the safety and security of our country and our planet."
"Inflated energy prices coupled with an over-dependence on Russian fossil fuels threaten to derail global efforts to mitigate the climate crisis. Nations around the globe need to implement bold solutions to accelerate the climate crisis for the security of the world and their own energy independence. We can show the way with a significant investment of at least $100 billion for the DPA," said Alex Cornell du Houx, former Maine state representative, Marine combat veteran, president and cofounder of the Elected Officials to Protect America. "Ukraine underscores how dependency on fossil fuels fills the coffers of tyrants and dictators like Putin, and that a rapid transition to clean and renewable energy is not just necessary for our environment, but critical to our economic, national security and true energy independence."
"Deploying DPA is a crucial tool in this crisis moment, as families struggle due to inflation and skyrocketing utility costs that have saddled them with debt. We urge Congress to fully fund DPA," said Andrea Marpillero-Colomina, sustainable communities program director at GreenLatinos. "Latino/x households spend disproportionate amounts of their income on energy and are unrepresented in green jobs; along with other marginalized communities, we stand to benefit greatly from this investment in our shared energy future."
"It's great to see President Biden stepping up to the challenge of climate change by using his powers to advance renewable energy, create good jobs, and center environmental justice. However, the Defense Production Act is only effective if it is funded," said Joe Uehlein, president of the Labor Network for Sustainability. "Congress must meet this moment and give these presidential orders the funding required to deploy this clean energy technology across the country."
"By invoking the Defense Production Act to support domestic clean energy manufacturing, President Biden demonstrated that we must use every tool at our disposal to address the climate emergency and support job growth," said Odette Mucha, federal liaison at Vote Solar. "Congress must now allocate the funding needed to bring clean energy manufacturing back to America."
"Executive powers like the DPA can be incredibly useful, but only when supported with ample appropriations," said Dorothy Slater, senior researcher with the Revolving Door Project. "We're thankful to President Biden for unlocking this no-brainer tool and we urge Congress to provide the sufficient funding that is so desperately needed to speed the necessary transition to clean, renewable energy. We also emphasize the need for strong, long-term oversight of the use of these funds for environmentally just projects."
"President Biden's DPA clean energy orders have been a cause for celebration for our generation. We're elated to see this administration take a critical step toward a more secure and sustainable future for young people. But now, we need Congress to do its part," said Lisa Giordano, executive director of the Association of Young Americans. "Our elected officials must support this historic effort to actively combat the climate crisis by boldly investing in the DPA in the FY2023 appropriations package."
"Clean energy is national security and I'm heartened to see President Biden use the Defense Production Act in this way to make America less dependent on petro-dictators," said RL Miller, political director of Climate Hawks Vote.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252"His campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for."
Amid calls for ousting Democratic congressional leadership because the party caved in the government shutdown fight over healthcare, a YouGov poll released Monday shows the nationwide popularity of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's economic agenda.
Mamdani beat former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in both the June Democratic primary and last week's general election by campaigning unapologetically as a democratic socialist dedicated to making the nation's largest city more affordable for working people.
Multiple polls have suggested that Mamdani's progressive platform offers Democrats across the United States a roadmap for candidates in next year's midterms and beyond. As NYC's next mayor began assembling his team and the movement that worked to elect him created a group to keep fighting for his ambitious agenda, YouGov surveyed 1,133 US adults after his victory.
While just 31% of those surveyed said they would have voted for Mamdani—more than any other candidate—and the same share said they would vote for a candidate who identified as a "democratic socialist," the policies he ran on garnered far more support.
YouGov found:
Data for Progress similarly surveyed 1,228 likely voters from across the United States about key pieces of Mamdani's platform before his win. The think tank found that large majorities of Americans support efforts to build more affordable housing, higher taxes for corporations as well as millionaires and billionaires, and free childcare, among other policies.

"There's a common refrain from some pundits to dismiss Mamdani's victory as a quirk of New York City politics rather than a sign of something bigger," Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell wrote last week. "But his campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for. The lesson isn't that every candidate should mimic his style—you can't fake authenticity—but that voters everywhere respond when a candidate connects economic populism to clear, actionable goals."
"Candidates closer to the center are running on an affordability message as well," he noted, pointing to Democrat Mikie Sherrill's gubernatorial victory in New Jersey. "When a center-left figure like Sherill is running on taking on corporate power, it underscores how central economic populism has become across the political spectrum. Her message may have been less fiery than Mamdani's, but she drew from a similar well of voter frustration over rising costs and corporate influence. In doing so, Sherrill demonstrated to voters that her administration would play an active role in lowering costs—something that voters nationwide overwhelmingly believe the government should be doing."
"When guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors," said one critic.
Progressive anger and calls for primary challenges followed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' Monday endorsement of top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer—under whose leadership numerous Democratic lawmakers caved to Republicans to pave the way to ending the government shutdown without winning any meaningful concessions.
As progressives demanded the resignation or ouster of Schumer (D-NY), Jeffries (D-NY) was asked during a press conference whether the 74-year-old senator is effective and whether he should remain as the upper chamber's minority leader.
"Yes and yes," replied Jeffries. "As I've indicated, listen, Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats over the last seven weeks have waged a valiant fight on behalf of the American people."
"I don't think that the House Democratic Caucus is prepared to support a promise, a wing and a prayer, from folks who have been devastating the healthcare of the American people for years," he said.
Asked if he thinks Schumer is effective and should keep his job, Hakeem Jeffries replies: "Yes and yes."
[image or embed]
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein.bsky.social) November 10, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Both Schumer and Jeffries say they will vote "no" on the the GOP bill to end the shutdown.
Activist and former Democratic National Committee Co-Vice Chair David Hogg said on social media that Schumer's "number one job is to control his caucus," and "he can't do that."
Eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus—Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), John Fetterman (Pa.), Maggie Hassan (NH), Tim Kaine (Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH)—enabled their Republican colleagues to secure the 60 votes needed for a cloture vote to advance legislation to end the shutdown.
Critics say the proposal does nothing to spare Americans from soaring healthcare premiums unleashed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July.
"Standing up to a tyrant—who is willing to impose pain as leverage to compel loyalty or acquiescence—is hard," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Monday. "You can convince yourself that yielding stops the pain and brings you back to 'normal.' But there is no 'normal.' Submission emboldens the tyrant. The threat grows."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on X: "Sen. Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?"
New York City Councilman Chi Ossé (D-36)—who on Sunday said that Schumer and Senate Democrats "failed Americans" by capitulating to "MAGA fascists"—laughed off Jeffries' ringing endorsement of Schumer's leadership.
Former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner called Jeffries and Schumer "controlled opposition" while demanding that they both "step down."
The progressive political action group Our Revolution published a survey last week showing overwhelming grassroots support for running primary challenges to Schumer and Jeffries. The poll revealed that 90% of respondents want Schumer to step down as leader, while 92% would support a primary challenge against him when he’s next up for reelection in 2028. Meanwhile, 70% of respondents said Jeffries should step aside, with 77% backing a primary challenge.
Turner also called for a ban on corporate money in politics and ousting "corporate politicians."
Left Reckoning podcast host Matt Lech said on X that "when guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors."
In a letter to the British public broadcaster, Trump cited a memo from a Conservative Party-linked former BBC adviser who claimed the network displayed an "anti-Israel" bias, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
The BBC in the United Kingdom is the latest target of US President Donald Trump's attempts to root out all unflattering portrayals of him from media coverage, with the president citing a memo penned by a former BBC adviser reported to have ties to the British Conservative Party.
Trump wrote to the BBC Monday, warning that he would file a lawsuit demanding $1 billion in damages unless the publicly funded broadcaster retracts a documentary film about him from last year, issues a formal apology, and pays him an amount that would “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”
The president gave the network until Friday to act in regard to Trump's complaint about a section of the film Trump: A Second Chance? by the long-running current affairs series Panorama.
The film was broadcast days before the 2024 US election, and included excerpts from the speech Trump gave to his supporters on January 6, 2021 just before thousands of them proceeded to the US Capitol to try to stop the election results from being certified.
It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the speech that were made about 50 minutes apart, making it appear that Trump urged supporters to march with him to the Capitol and called for violence.
"We’re going to walk down to the Capitol... and I’ll be there with you... and we fight. We fight like hell," Trump is shown saying in the edited footage.
In the unedited quote, Trump said, "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
BBC chairman Samir Shah said the network's standards committee had discussed the editing of the clips earlier this year and had expressed concerns to the Panorama team. The film is no longer available online at the BBC's website.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity. It’s a power play... It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
“We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action," said Shah. "The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment.”
Two top executives, director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, also resigned on Sunday under pressure over the documentary.
The uproar comes days after the right-wing Daily Telegraph published details from a memo by former BBC standards committee adviser Michael Prescott, "managing director at PR agency Hanover Communications, whose staff have gone on to work for the Conservative Party," according to Novara Media.
Prescott's memo took aim at the documentary as well as what he claimed was a pro-transgender bias in BBC news coverage and an anti-Israel bias in stories by the BBC's Arabic service.
According to the Guardian, Robbie Gibb, a member of the BBC board who previously worked as a communications official for former Tory Prime Minister Theresa May, "amplified" the criticisms in Prescott's memo in key board meetings ahead of Davie's and Turness' resignations.
Deadline reported Monday that "insiders" at the BBC have alleged that Prescott's memo, the resignations, and Trump's threat of legal action all stem from a right-wing "coup" attempt at the broadcaster.
Journalists including Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo News and Mikey Smith of The Mirror noted that while Panorama's editing of Trump's speech could be seen as misleading, the documentary wasn't responsible for accusations that the president incited violence on January 6, which pre-dated the film.
"To understand how insane it is that the BBC is being accused of ‘making it look like’ Trump was inciting violence with their bad edit, as opposed to Trump actually having incited violence, we know even his own kids that day were desperately trying to get him to call off the mob," said Hasan.
Others suggested the memo cited in Trump's letter to the broadcaster should be discredited entirely for its claim that the BBC has exhibited an anti-Israel bias—an allegation, said author and international relations professor Norrie MacQueen, that amounted to "an entirely new level" of George Orwell's "newspeak."
While the BBC "has been shaken by one of the smallest of its sins," wrote media analyst Faisal Hanif at Middle East Eye, "the greater one—its distortion of Palestinian reality—goes unpunished."
Hanif pointed to a report published in June by the Center for Media Monitoring, which showed that despite Gaza suffering 34 times more casualties than Israel since October 2023, the BBC "gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanizing victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs. 201 Israelis)."
The network also used "emotive terms four times more for Israeli victims" and shut down allegations that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, as well as "making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements," even as Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity," wrote Hanif. "It’s a power play: the disciplining of a public broadcaster that still, nominally, answers to the public rather than the billionaire-owned media. It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
"The BBC is punished for the wrong things. It loses its leaders over an editing error, while escaping accountability for its editorial failures on Gaza," Hanif continued. "The Trump documentary might have been misedited, but the story of Gaza has been mistold for far longer. If the BBC still believes in its own motto—'Nation shall speak peace unto nation'—then peace must begin with honesty."