

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.

Collin Rees, collin@priceofoil.org
Jamie Henn, jamie@fossilfree.media
More than 650 climate, environmental justice, public health, youth, and progressive organizations sent a letter to Congressional leadership today to oppose the fossil fuel expansion deal proposed by West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin to Democratic leadership in exchange for his support of the Inflation Reduction Act.
More than 650 climate, environmental justice, public health, youth, and progressive organizations sent a letter to Congressional leadership today to oppose the fossil fuel expansion deal proposed by West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin to Democratic leadership in exchange for his support of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The letter was signed by a broad range of environmental and climate groups, including Oil Change International, the Center for Biological Diversity, Food & Water Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network, Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, Oxfam America, the Sierra Club, the Sunrise Movement, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice, along with progressive political organizations Center for Popular Democracy, Indivisible, MoveOn, NAACP, Our Revolution, People's Action, and Public Citizen. The letter was also officially endorsed by the Climate Justice Alliance, Green New Deal Network, and the People vs Fossil Fuels Coalition steering committee.
According to a leaked draft, the proposed dirty infrastructure bill would fast-track fossil fuel projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and undercut basic environmental protections.
"This fossil fuel wish list is a cruel and direct attack on environmental justice communities and the climate," the group's letter said. "This legislation would truncate and hollow-out the environmental review process, weaken Tribal consultations, and make it far harder for frontline communities to have their voices heard by gutting bedrock protections in the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act."
The proposal also requires the president to create a list of at least 25 projects deemed to be of "strategic national importance"; at least five of the priority items "shall be projects to produce, process, transport, or store fossil fuel products, or biofuels, including projects to export or import those products." The United States must reject new fossil fuel projects to meet President Biden's emissions reduction goals and comply with what science says is necessary to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The Mountain Valley Pipeline alone would lead to annual emissions equivalent to over 89 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to analysis by Oil Change International. This is equal to the emissions from 26 coal plants or 19 million passenger vehicles per year.
"Prolonging the fossil fuel era perpetuates environmental racism, is wildly out of step with climate science, and hamstrings our nation's ability to avert a climate disaster," the letter highlights. "Supporting this legislation would represent a profound betrayal of frontline communities and constituents across the country who have called on you to prevent the multitude of harms of fossil fuels and advance a just, renewable energy future."
Reports indicate that Congressional leadership plan to introduce the legislation in September with the hope of a final vote before the end of the month. But some Democratic leaders, including House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rep. Raul Grijalva, have spoken out against the deal and called for it not to be included in the federal spending resolution, which also must pass before the end of September.
Full Text of Letter: https://priceofoil.org/dirty-side-deal-letter
Quotes
"Appalachia is home to many people, but more specifically, the home of my ancestors of the Occaneechee, Monacan and Saponi and many other Indigenous peoples. This is a dirty deal made at the expense of us," said Dr. Crystal Cavalier of 7 Directions of Service. "It is an erasure of my people and ancestors again, with no regard for the water, nature and people. We refuse to be a sacrifice."
"Here in Appalachia, on the frontline of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, we refuse to be sacrificed for Senator Manchin's political gain and to prop up the dying fossil fuel industry," said Russell Chisholm, Mountain Valley Watch Coordinator. "We stand in solidarity with all frontlines to say 'no' to this dirty deal that puts our communities in more danger."
"The so-called 'permitting reform' deal is nothing but a deadly fossil fuel industry wishlist," said Collin Rees, United States Program Manager at Oil Change International. "The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a fracked gas disaster that won't be built, and we won't allow Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer to attack environmental justice communities by removing some of their only tools to oppose destructive projects. Congress must kill this dangerous bill immediately and empower frontline communities to confront the climate crisis."
"In Michigan, no matter our race or zip code, we all want clean and healthy neighborhoods where our families can thrive. But Senators Manchin and Schumer, and the American Petroleum Institute are threatening our rights to clean air and clean water with their 'side-deal,'" said Juan Jhong-Chung, Climate Justice Director at Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition. "This bill would fast track toxic projects in Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor communities. We should not be forced to host more oil pipelines or dirty infrastructure for false solutions like carbon capture, hydrogen, and nuclear power. We demand that our elected officials stop sacrificing our people for the financial gain of polluters."
"I have more than five years of experience in the solar industry and I am passionate about helping people reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. People's lives will change as our world embraces renewables. That is my dream. I am grateful I discovered a passion and purpose in life so our future children may live in a clean and green world," said Serina Morena, a member of the Green Workers Alliance. "Taking away environmental reviews of pipelines and other fossil fuels projects is a terrible idea. Instead we need more renewable energy and the jobs they create."
"It's atrocious that Congress is even considering dismantling bedrock environmental protections just to please one senator," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Democrats must expose this measure for what it is -- a total giveaway to the fossil fuel industry. This backroom deal would sacrifice frontline communities, ensure decades' more toxic extraction and turn up the fossil-fueled broiler that's heating the whole planet. This poisonous plan must be stopped."
"The proposal from Senator Manchin is nothing more than a wish list from Big Oil, whose only goal is more profit at the expense of people and the planet," said Thomas Meyer, national organizing manager at Food & Water Watch. "Members of Congress who fought for clean energy incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act must now speak up strongly and swiftly against this massive rollback of public health and environmental protections that will fast track fossil fuel projects."
"This dirty side deal is nothing short of a wholesale giveaway to the fossil fuel industry to the detriment of frontline communities, Tribal nations, and Mother Earth," said Joye Braun, National Pipelines Organizer of the Indigenous Environmental Network. "The world is on fire and negotiating the amount of fuel for those flames is not acceptable. Congress needs to understand that there is no compromise when it comes to protecting the next seven generations of life and beyond."
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) 518-9029Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."
A group of Democratic lawmakers pushed President Donald Trump on whether he would veto legislation that cuts Social Security.
A group of Democratic US senators warned Monday that congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump could be gearing up for a push for raise the retirement age as part of a broader—and deeply unpopular—effort to slash Social Security benefits after the 2026 midterm elections.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in a letter to Trump that they have "renewed concerns" that his administration is "considering raising the retirement age, cutting the earned benefits of millions of Americans," despite the president's repeated vows to shield the program.
"Republicans have a history of attempting to increase the retirement age, privatize Social Security, or otherwise cut Social Security benefits, and some congressional Republicans have called to raise the retirement age or means-test benefits," the lawmakers wrote, emphasizing that GOP lawmakers "are not alone."
"In an interview this past fall, [Social Security Administration] Commissioner Frank Bisignano said—and later attempted to retract after public outcry—that your administration was considering this idea," the Democratic senators wrote of raising the retirement age, which would cut Social Security benefits across the board.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of a 2024 Republican proposal to raise Social Security's full retirement age found that doing so would cut benefits by an average of 13% for people born after 1971.
The Democratic senators sent their letter to Trump days after Social Security's trustees said in their annual report that the program will be unable to pay out full benefits by the end of 2032—a quarter earlier than projected last year—unless Congress takes action. The finding was seen as evidence of the damage inflicted by Trump's policies, including his tariffs and tax cuts for the rich.
Ahead of the trustees report's release, House Speaker Mike Johnson declared that Social Security needs to be "adjusted and fixed" and said Republicans would release their plan "next year," without specifying what the proposal would entail.
Mike Johnson admits Republicans will cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security next year pic.twitter.com/bgyAb4ppyw
— FactPost (@factpostnews) June 8, 2026
In their letter to Trump on Monday, the trio of Democratic senators demanded to know if the president is aware of "Republican plans to cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits" and whether he would veto GOP legislation that slashes those programs.
"Raising the retirement age—or otherwise cutting benefits—only worsens the looming retirement income crisis," the lawmakers wrote. "Doing so hurts older Americans, cutting monthly benefits and forcing millions into poverty."