

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.

Tanya Brooks, Senior Communications Specialist at Greenpeace USA, tbrooks@greenpeace.org
Most plastic simply cannot be recycled, a new Greenpeace USA report concludes. Circular Claims Fall Flat Again, released today, finds that U.S. households generated an estimated 51 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, only 2.4 million tons of which was recycled.
The report also finds that no type of plastic packaging in the U.S. meets the definition of recyclable used by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's New Plastic Economy (EMF NPE) Initiative. Plastic recycling was estimated to have declined to about 5-6% in 2021, down from a high of 9.5% in 2014 and 8.7% in 2018. At that time, the U.S. exported millions of tons of plastic waste to China and counted it as recycled even though much of it was burned or dumped.
By EMF NPE standards, an item must have a 30% recycling rate to receive the "recyclable" classification. Two of the most common plastics in the U.S. that are often considered recyclable - PET #1 and HDPE #2, typically bottles and jugs - fall well below the EMF NPE threshold, only achieving reprocessing rates of 20.9% and 10.3%, respectively. For every other type of plastic, the reprocessing rate is less than 5%.
While PET #1 and HDPE #2 were previously thought of as recyclable, this report finds that being accepted by a recycling processing plant does not necessarily result in them being recycled - effectively negating the recyclability claim.
Lisa Ramsden, Greenpeace USA Senior Plastics Campaigner, said: "Corporations like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, and Unilever have worked with industry front groups to promote plastic recycling as the solution to plastic waste for decades. But the data is clear: practically speaking, most plastic is just not recyclable. The real solution is to switch to systems of reuse and refill."
According to the report, which is an update to a 2020 report, mechanical and chemical recycling of plastic waste fails because plastic waste is extremely difficult to collect, virtually impossible to sort for recycling, environmentally harmful to reprocess, often made of and contaminated by toxic materials, and not economical to recycle.
Ramsden said: "Single-use plastics are like trillions of pieces of confetti spewed from retail and fast food stores to over 330 million U.S. residents across more than 3 million square miles each year. It's simply not possible to collect the vast quantity of these small pieces of plastic sold to U.S. consumers annually. More plastic is being produced, and an even smaller percentage of it is being recycled. The crisis just gets worse and worse, and, without drastic change, will continue to worsen as the industry plans to triple plastic production by 2050."
Ramsden continued: "We are at a decision point on plastic pollution. It is time for corporations to turn off the plastic tap. Instead of continuing to greenwash and mislead the American public, industry should stand on the right side of history this November and support an ambitious Global Plastics Treaty that will finally end the age of plastic by significantly decreasing production and increasing refill and reuse."
Over 99 percent of plastic is made from fossil fuels, and as big brands continue their addiction to this harmful material, they are fueling climate impacts and jeopardizing communities in the name of profits. All over the world, communities of color face disproportionate health impacts from the plastics industry, whether through incinerators, landfills, petrochemical facilities, polluted waterways, or the harmful plastic packaging pushed on communities.
The report urges companies to take several additional steps to mitigate the systemic problems associated with plastic recycling, including phasing out single-use plastics, committing to standardized reusable packaging, and adopting a Global Plastics Treaty to help set international standards.
How we conducted this study
The original comprehensive, objective survey of acceptance of plastic items at U.S. residential material recovery facilities for curbside recycling has been continually updated since its creation in October 2019 and was reverified in August 2022. The survey was performed and verified by technically qualified volunteers of The Last Beach Cleanup: two registered professional chemical engineers and a recycling industry expert. The acceptance information was found in the public domain and is publicly shared to promote transparency and establish a traceable account of facts related to "recyclable" claims and labels for plastic products.
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000"Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
On the verge of the longest government shutdown in US history and in the wake of two losses in district courts, President Donald Trump's administration announced Monday that it would only partially fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for 42 million Americans this month.
In response to lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on Friday ruled against the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) refusal to use a contingency fund for at least some of November's $8 billion in SNAP benefits, often called food stamps.
Judge John McConnell, appointed to the District of Rhode Island by former President Barack Obama, gave the USDA two options: Fully cover the November SNAP benefits with the emergency funding and money pulled from other sources by the end of Monday, or make a partial payment of the total amount of the contingency fund by the end of Wednesday.
In a pair of Monday filings, the Trump administration chose the latter, explaining that there is "a total of $4.65 billion in the contingency fund for November SNAP benefits that will all be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households' current allotments."
While the development means millions of low-income families will at least get some benefits this month, a hunger crisis still looms. As one of the filings notes, "This means that no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November disaster assistance, or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely."
In a Monday statement, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups that sued in Rhode Island, welcomed that McConnell's order "means SNAP beneficiaries—including children and seniors—whose money ran out at the end of last month should be receiving funds for essential nutrition." However, she also called out the Trump administration for "still trying to deprive people of their full benefits," which "will not only prevent people from getting the full sustenance they need but also delay payments going out altogether."
"We are reviewing the administration's submission to the court and considering all legal options to secure payment of full funds," she pledged. "It shouldn't take a court order to force our president to provide essential nutrition that Congress has made clear needs to be provided. But since that is what it takes, we will continue to use the courts to protect the rights of people. For now, we are pleased to have forced the administration to release money it had been withholding from 42 million people in America who rely on their benefits. Rest assured, we will continue to fight so that people have the full benefits they are entitled to under SNAP."
Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell—who co-led the case in her state with over two dozen other AGs—noted Monday that "never in the history of the SNAP program—including during government shutdowns—has SNAP funding ever been suspended or only partially funded."
"While some funding is better than no funding, the federal government has made it clear that they are only willing to do the bare minimum to help our residents, and only after they were required to do so by our lawsuit and the courts," she said. "The Trump administration has the means to fund this program in full, and their decision not to will leave millions of Americans hungry and waiting even longer for relief as government takes the additional steps needed to partially fund this program."
Democrats in Congress—who have refused to vote for the GOP majorities' funding legislation to end the shutdown unless they reverse devastating cuts to Medicaid and extend expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits—also criticized the USDA's plan.
"USDA has the authority to fully fund SNAP and needs to do so immediately. Anything else is unacceptable," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on social media. "Trump's 'decision' to follow the court order and only send partial SNAP benefits to 42 million hungry Americans as Thanksgiving approaches is cruel and callous. Trump should focus less on his ballroom and his bathroom and more on the American people."
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly said: "The letter of the law is as plain as day. Trump should have paid SNAP benefits all along. Just now paying the bare minimum to partially fund SNAP is not enough, and it is not acceptable. Trump should immediately work to fully fund benefits under the law."
Both Senate Democrats from Massachusetts, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, also took aim at the president on Monday. Markey said: "Two federal courts confirm what we already knew: Trump must use contingency funds to fund SNAP this month. But millions will still see their benefits delayed because Trump tried to hold SNAP hostage. No more games. Use all available resources to ensure no one goes hungry."
While it's the Senate where Republicans need some Democratic votes to send a government spending bill to Trump's desk, House Democrats also blasted the administration's decision to only partially fund SNAP benefits in November.
"This is a very temporary Band-Aid," stressed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), adding that "42 million hardworking Americans are trying to figure out how they will keep food on the table. Partial is not good enough. End this Republican shutdown now so we can fully fund SNAP."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) declared: "Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP for 42 million Americans—including 1.4 million Michiganders. Anything less is unacceptable. It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
"These are not random donations," said Public Citizen. "It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
As President Donald Trump has embarked on the $300 million demolition of the East Wing of the White House—a project he insists has been "longed for" for more than a century—he has openly said that he and "some of [his] friends" are paying for the ballroom he is building.
But an analysis on Monday detailed just how "massive, inescapable, and irremediable" the donors' conflicts of interest are, as more than a dozen of the presidents' "friends" have major government contracts and are facing federal enforcement actions.
The White House has denied that corporate donors to Trump's ballroom construction project have any conflicts of interest, but Public Citizen found that 16 out of 24 publicly disclosed contributors—including three identified by CBS News but not by the White House—have government contracts.
The companies, including Amazon, Google, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir Technologies, have received $279 billion in government contracts over the last five years and nearly $43 billion in the last year. Lockheed is by far the biggest recipient, having received $191 billion in defense contracts over the last five years. The amount the companies have each donated to the ballroom construction has not been disclosed, but Lockheed spent more than $76 million in political donations from 2021-25.
The money the corporations have spent to build Trump's ballroom, said Public Citizen, "are not random donations. It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
Lockheed is among at least 14 ballroom contributors that are facing federal enforcement actions, including labor rights cases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement, and antitrust actions.
The National Labor Relations Board has before it cases alleging unfair labor practices by Lockheed as well as Google and Amazon.
The big tech firm Nvidia, another donor, has previously been accused of entering into a "quid pro quo" arrangement with the White House when it said it would give 15% of its revenue from exports to China directly to the Trump administration. The company has spent more than $6 million on political donations since 2021 and more than $4 million on lobbying, and faces a Department of Justice antitrust investigation into whether it abused its market dominance in artificial intelligence computer chips.
While Trump has sought to portray the ballroom fundraising drive as one in which his wealthy "friends" have simply joined the effort to beautify a cherished public building, Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman said the companies are not acting "out of a sense of civic pride."
"They have massive interests before the federal government and they undoubtedly hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration," said Weissman. "Millions to fund Trump’s architectural whims are nothing compared to the billions at stake in procurement, regulatory, and enforcement decisions."
In total, the 24 companies identified as ballroom donors spent more than $960 million in lobbying and political contributions in the last election cycle and $1.6 billion over the last five years.
Weissman said the companies' contributions to the president's pet project amount to corporate America "paying tribute" to the White House in order to stave off unfavorable labor rights and antitrust rulings, energy and financial regulations, and SEC actions and oversight, like an investigation into the cryptocurrency firm Gemini over alleged sales of unregistered securities.
"This is more than everyday corporate influence seeking. Paying tribute is a mark of authoritarianism and in making these payments, these corporations are aiding Trump’s authoritarian project," said Weissman. "They should withdraw their contributions.”
"We’re not just in a low hire, low fire environment anymore," said one economist. "We’re firing."
Several major US corporations in the last month have announced plans to cut thousands of workers as layoffs in the American economy have reached their highest level since 2020, when much of the global economy was shut down due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
As reported by Bloomberg on Monday, major firms including Target, Amazon, Paramount, and Molson Coors in October announced plans to lay off a combined total of more than 17,000 workers for a wide variety of reasons ranging from the impact of artificial intelligence to declining sales.
Taken together, these layoffs point to a significantly weakened labor market, which had already ground to a halt over the summer when the last jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed the economy created just 22,000 jobs in the month of August.
And while the BLS has stopped releasing monthly employment reports during the ongoing shutdown of the federal government, Bloomberg pointed to data collected by outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas showing that there have been "almost 950,000 US job cuts this year through September, the highest year-to-date total since 2020—and that was before the heavy October run of announcements."
Dan North, senior economist at Allianz Trade Americas, told Bloomberg that he has detected a definite shift in the jobs market in recent weeks.
"We’re not just in a low hire, low fire environment anymore," he explained. "We’re firing."
Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM US, said in an interview with Reuters that he also expected the labor market to get worse in the coming months due to "adverse policy shocks emanating from Washington," as well as "the change in behavior among corporates who hoarded labor for the past four to five years," and were thus reluctant to carry out layoffs.
"That was never an indefinite behavior," he said. "We're going to see migration up in the unemployment rate."
John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, told CBS News last week that he didn't think that the layoffs announced over the last month were just a blip.
"These are major layoffs, the kind of which we only see in periods of real change in the economy," he emphasized.
One challenge for economists in assessing the current state of the economy is the vast gulf between the experiences of America's highest-earning households and households at the bottom of the economic ladder.
According to a Monday report from CNBC, recent corporate earnings reports have shown signs of a so-called "K-shaped" economy in which well off consumers are maintaining or increasing their spending while low-income consumers are being forced to cut back.
"Last week, Chipotle reported it’s seeing consumers who make less than $100,000 a year, which represents roughly 40% of the company’s customer base, spending less frequently due to concerns about the economy and inflation," CNBC noted. "Coca-Cola said in its third-quarter earnings that pricier products like Topo Chico sparkling water and Fairlife protein shakes are driving its growth. Procter & Gamble reported similar results, saying wealthier customers are buying more from club retailers, which sell bigger pack sizes, while lower-income shoppers are significantly pulling back."
A Monday report from Fortune similarly picked up on evidence that the US is in the midst of a K-shaped economy, as it found that the percentage of Americans taking on subprime loans in the third quarter of 2025 reached its highest level since 2019.
This is significant, Fortune noted, because an increased reliance on subprime loans "adds to signs that many are facing increased financial pressure" to make ends meet. What's more, Fortune pointed to a recent analysis from Moody's showing that the top 20% of households in the US are now responsible for economic growth, while the bottom 80% have essentially been stagnant.
Lucia Dunn, an economist at Ohio State University, told Fortune that this economic disparity could increase instability if not addressed.
"We are losing the middle class," Dunn said. "And when you get to a society where there are a lot of people at the bottom and then a small group at the top, that's a prescription for real trouble."
The reports of the layoffs in corporate American come as a new analysis released Monday by Oxfam offered the latest look at extreme wealth inequality in the US, with the the 10 wealthiest Americans gaining nearly $700 billion so far this year—and as millions of people have lost crucial federal food assistance due to the government shutdown and the Trump administration's refusal to release full benefits.