

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.

Sophie Richmond, srichmond [at] climatenetwork.org
Bronwen Tucker, bronwen [at] priceofoil.org
Shaye Skiff, kskiff [at[ foe.org
Climate change organizations under the Big Shift Coalition have called on the World Bank to fire its President David Malpass. In a panel discussion at a New York Times event yesterday, Malpass refused to back climate science and was labeled a "climate denier" by former US Vice President Al Gore.
Climate change organizations under the Big Shift Coalition have called on the World Bank to fire its President David Malpass. In a panel discussion at a New York Times event yesterday, Malpass refused to back climate science and was labeled a "climate denier" by former US Vice President Al Gore. Malpass was asked three times to state whether he believed man-made fossil fuel emissions contributed to climate change and after trying to evade the questions multiple times, ultimately answered with: "I am not a scientist".
Last year, over 70 groups from around the world sent a letter to World Bank Governors and Executive Directors calling on David Malpass to be fired over his failure on climate action. A staffer at the World Bank wrote in a scathing opinion piece that Malpass "has neither the vision nor credibility to make the World Bank a climate leader". The climate adviser to the UN Secretary General singled out the World Bank for "underperforming on climate". Al Gore said in an interview to the Financial Times that the WB is "missing in action" and "needs new climate leadership". According to insider reports reviewed by the Financial Times, Malpass played a direct role in blocking the ambition of the joint MDB announcement on climate finance at COP26.
Notes:
Member groups of the Big Shift Coalition issued the following quotes in response:
Bronwen Tucker of Oil Change International: "The World Bank Group still funds more fossil fuels than any other MDB, and they continue to lock Global South countries into expensive and volatile fossil fuel contracts through their heavy-handed policy lending programs. Now we know why. With Malpass at the top, the World Bank Group cannot be trusted as a partner in sustainable development."
Dean Bhekumuzi Bhebhe of Power Shift Africa: "The investments by the World Bank in Africa continue to fuel the impacts of the climate crisis experienced by communities across the continent. There is no time for climate denialism. The World Bank must act now to end all fossil fuel finance and invest in sustainable, renewable energy for all. It is critical Africa attracts increased investments to leapfrog dirty energy and become a green leader and not just a victim of the climate emergency."
"The World Bank must not be led by a climate denier and President Biden should call on the Bank's Board to fire him immediately," said Luisa Galvao of Friends of the Earth US. "The ancient agreement where the United States nominates Bank Presidents also needs to end. We need democratic and globally equitable governance."
Fran Witt of Recourse: "Our partners around the world are suffering the catastrophic results of climate change". "Scientists agree that climate change has been caused by the unfettered burning of fossil fuels, and it is universally agreed that climate action means dramatically cutting carbon emissions. But the World Bank Group cannot align its portfolio with the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global warming below 1.5C with a climate change denier at its helm! Malpass must go!"
Sonia Dunlop, Programme Lead on MDBs and Public Banks and climate change think tank E3G: "This is a step too far. It is time for the White House and governments all over the world to think hard as to who they want at the helm of the World Bank. The World Bank is critical to the global fight against climate change. You don't need to be a scientist to understand climate science. The facts are clear, and there's no alternative but to act."
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network: "A self-pronounced climate denier at the helm of the World Bank at this stage of the climate emergency is inexcusable! The World Bank continues to use public money to finance fossil fuel projects in Global South countries where people are already suffering the worst impacts of climate change. For the World Bank to maintain any shred of decency Malpass cannot remain as President."
Heike Mainhardt, Senior Advisor with Urgewald: "Given Malpass' climate crisis denial stance, it is no wonder the World Bank provides more finance, tax breaks, and higher tariffs to benefit fossil fuels than any other public development bank. We stand with UN leadership and call on the World Bank's shareholders to step in - to stop the World Bank's public funding of fossil fuels."
Elaine Zuckerman, Gender Action: "While civil society pressured the World Bank to acknowledge climate change's harmful impacts on all humanity including its non-uniform gender, geographical and class differences, eliminate direct but not indirect fossil-fuel financing and fund some renewable energy projects, Malpass's persistent denial that climate change is manmade undermines saving our planet from climate destruction."
David Ryfisch, Team Leader for International Climate Policy at Germanwatch: We urgently need more climate action by the World Bank. This can only happen if the leadership is on board. This is clearly not the case. There is no time to convince president Malpass of climate science, if he hasn't understood it by now. Shareholders - including Germany - have to make it clear that denying man-made climate change is unacceptable for the president of the World Bank.
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"This is a massive and unprecedented presidential plunder of the American people," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday accused US President Donald Trump of "orchestrating a $1,700,000,000 fraud on the American taxpayer to line the pockets of his MAGA political allies" amid new reporting on the terms Trump is seeking in talks to settle his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
ABC News reported late Thursday that Trump is expected to drop his lawsuit in the coming days "in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration." The money would come from the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, which pays out court judgments and settlements against the federal government.
The president is also expected to receive a public apology from the IRS for the leak of his tax returns during his first White House term.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said in a statement that the reported settlement terms represent "another installment" in Trump's "ongoing effort to turn the federal government into a personal cash machine for his unpopular extremist movement."
"This is a massive and unprecedented presidential plunder of the American people," said Raskin. "Worse still, this is only the beginning—a declaration that the prior payouts were just a down payment, and that he now intends to earmark billions more in taxpayer dollars for his political allies, sycophants, and private militia of unemployed insurrectionists."
“The president has no authority to conjure up billion-dollar compensation schemes or raid the Judgment Fund, which exists to settle valid lawsuits. Trump is systematically converting neutral government mechanisms into a presidential slush fund to build his army of political dependents," Raskin continued. "Congress must act immediately to reassert the power of the purse and stop this brazen looting of taxpayer funds before this ‘pilot program’ for corruption becomes the permanent operating system of our government."
According to ABC, which cited unnamed sources who emphasized that the settlement's terms should not be considered final until officially announced, the deal is "expected to prohibit Trump from directly receiving payments related to those three legal claims; however, entities associated with Trump are not explicitly barred from filing additional claims."
"The arrangement would be an unprecedented use of taxpayer dollars with little oversight," ABC noted. "Under the terms of the potential settlement agreement, President Trump would have the authority to remove members of the commission running the fund without cause, and the commission would be under no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making process for awarding more than a billion dollars."
ABC's story came on the heels of reports earlier this week revealing internal Justice Department discussions on settling Trump's lawsuit, which he filed in late January. Last month, a federal judge questioned the constitutionality of Trump's suit, noting that "he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction."
"Real story: Judge was about to throw out the case because Trump controls both parties," Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) wrote late Thursday. "Before it’s dismissed, Trump tells both parties to reach a 'settlement.' Settlement shields Trump from any future audit and creates a secret slush fund that can dole out money to anyone with no transparency."
"Mind-boggling corruption," Goldman added.
"We are relieved that access to mifepristone remains protected for now, but this should never have been on the table in the first place," said one campaigner.
While welcoming that the US Supreme Court on Thursday blocked restrictions on dispensing mifepristone—a medication commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care—as a legal battle over it moves forward, rights advocates also continued to sound the alarm about attacks on reproductive freedom and argue that "temporary relief isn't enough."
At issue is the 2023 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision to permanently lift mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement, which has enabled doctors to serve patients nationwide via telehealth and the mail, as forced pregnancy advocates have intensified the fight for state laws cutting off access to abortion care since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Louisiana sued over the FDA's move, and early this month, the notoriously right-wing US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit halted the agency's rule easing restrictions. Drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro appealed, and Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the high court's right-wing supermajority, issued a one-week stay, which he then extended to Thursday evening.
With that deadline looming, the court ultimately blocked the 5th Circuit's ruling. Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, another right-winger, dissented.
"While it is good news that, for now, patients can continue to get this safe medication by mail and at pharmacies as they have for more than five years, we all know abortion opponents are continuing their unpopular and baseless attacks," Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement.
"And let's be clear about the Trump administration's role here: When nationwide access to a critical abortion and miscarriage medication was on the line, the Trump administration refused to defend the FDA's action and threw patients under the bus," Kaye noted. "The American people have made clear time and again that they oppose political efforts to interfere with their ability to make their own healthcare decisions—and the ACLU will keep fighting with them every step of the way."
Advocates stressed that the fight is far from over. Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong: Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, said that her organization "is relieved that the Supreme Court granted the emergency appeal to keep mifepristone accessible through telehealth and mail nationwide."
"This decision ensures that people, especially Black, brown, queer, trans, immigrant, poor, and people living in rural communities who already face barriers to healthcare, can continue accessing essential reproductive care," she noted. "While today's decision prevents immediate harm, people's lives shouldn't hang in the balance between back-and-forth litigation."
"Attacks on mifepristone have never been about safety or medicine," Simpson added. "They are about power and control—about who gets to make decisions about their body, their family, and their future."
All* Above All president Nourbese Flint also welcomed the decision while arguing that "the fact that patients and providers were forced to endure the confusion and disruption of care because of yet another court ruling on whether basic healthcare would remain available is unacceptable."
"This legal whiplash is exhausting, dangerous, and completely disconnected from science," Flint continued. "We know that mifepristone is safe and effective, and has been for over 25 years. People should not have to navigate a week-to-week roller coaster just to find out if they can still access basic healthcare and medication they need."
Serra Sippel, executive director of the Brigid Alliance, which helps people forced to travel for abortion care, similarly said that "we are relieved that access to mifepristone remains protected for now, but this should never have been on the table in the first place. Patients and providers should not be forced to wait on court rulings to know whether people can access critical healthcare."
"The back-and-forth of this case does have a cost. Confusion and uncertainty can delay care, and every day makes a difference. When people are pushed later into pregnancy, care becomes harder to access, more expensive, and many more miles further from home," Sippel explained. "We're seeing this firsthand. Last year, the Brigid Alliance helped 1,879 people travel for abortion care—a 35% increase from the year before—and those numbers will continue to rise as state abortion restrictions force more people to cross state lines for care."
"Those who consider waving the flag of a state to be 'inciting hatred' have either lost their judgment or been blinded by their own ignominy."
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez hit back Thursday after senior Israeli officials condemned FC Barcelona star Lamine Yamal for waving a Palestinian flag during a parade celebrating the soccer team's La Liga championship.
The 18-year-old winger—who has established himself as one of the world's best soccer players—waved the flag from atop an open team bus during Monday's celebration in Barcelona. Yamal also shared a photo of him holding the flag with his 42.5 million Instagram followers. The post had nearly 7 million "likes" as of Thursday afternoon.
The display of solidarity with Palestine—whose people have endured 31 months of genocide in Gaza and generations of illegal occupation, settler colonization, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank—drew predictably baseless claims of "antisemitism" and "supporting terrorism" from numerous Israelis, including Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who in 2007 was convicted of supporting a Jewish terror group.
"He is raising the flag of a nonexistent entity," Ben-Gvir said of Yamal in a Facebook post. Numerous Israeli officials including Ben-Gvir deny the existence of the Palestinian people and nation.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on X Thursday that Yamal "chose to incite against Israel and foment hatred while our soldiers are fighting the terrorist organization Hamas, an organization that massacred, raped, burned, and murdered Jewish children, women, and elderly" during the October 7, 2023 attack.
"Whoever supports this type of message should ask themselves: Does he consider this humanitarian? Is this moral?" added Katz, who oversees military forces that have killed or wounded more than 250,000 Palestinians in Gaza in a war that United Nations experts and many others, including prominent Israeli Holocaust scholars, have called a genocide.
Responding to the criticism, Sánchez wrote on X: "Those who consider waving the flag of a state to be 'inciting hatred' have either lost their judgment or been blinded by their own ignominy. Lamine has only expressed the solidarity with Palestine felt by millions of Spaniards. Another reason to be proud of him."
The Spanish government's support for Palestine includes intervention in the International Court of Justice genocide case against Israel, backing the International Criminal Court's effort to bring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to justice for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, promotion of United Nations Gaza ceasefire resolutions, an arms embargo against Israel, and formal recognition of Palestinian statehood.
Katz also said on X that he expects "a great and respected club like FC Barcelona to distance itself" from Yamal's display of solidarity "and make it unequivocally clear that there is no place for incitement or for support of terrorism."
FC Barcelona coach Hansi Flick said Tuesday that if Yamal wants to show support for Palestine, "it is his decision. He is old enough. He's 18 years old."
Yamal's display came just weeks before the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Men's World Cup kicks off in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Yamal is a member of the Spanish national team. Some observers have voiced concerns about possible backlash from the Trump administration, which has revoked and denied visas for people who publicly support Palestine.