

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.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury must push banks harder on their commitments to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, activists argue in a letter sent today to Treasury officials. The letter, signed by nearly 80 organizations, calls on the Treasury to push financial institutions to transition toward supporting and advancing a green economy.
"The majority of US financial firms are at best paying lip service to climate action, with many reneging their commitments when pressed to actually reduce emissions," said the groups in the letter. "Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the umbrella term of 'net zero' is being used to allow false solutions, such as forest offsets, rather than stopping the expansion of the causes of climate change."
In the letter, which was signed by Positive Money US, Public Citizen, Rainforest Action Network, Port Arthur Community Action Network, and Rise St. James, among others, the groups urge the Treasury Department to provide direction to financial firms to build out transition plans that phase out fossil fuels and end deforestation. Further, the letter requests that Treasury officials meet with key frontline groups that have signed the letter, and not just with the largest banks.
The critical need for Treasury to act is underscored by actions of the Texas attorney general and other Republican attorneys general to target Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup's involvement in the United Nations' Net-Zero Banking Alliance. The move is part of a larger push by these states to pressure financial institutions to abandon their climate commitments and otherwise undermine their attention to environmental and social concerns.
Below are quotes from several of the groups that signed onto the letter:
"Treasury can play a central role in ensuring US banks have science-based plans in place to transition their businesses to net zero," said Deanna Noel, climate campaigns director at Public Citizen. "Despite an escalating climate crisis, big banks continue to flout their climate commitments. As Treasury meets with external stakeholders on the net-zero transition, it must meet with impacted communities-not just bank execs making false promises."
"Frontline/fence line organizations and overburdened communities must be heard and represented in any discussion involving financing industries that are the source of their environmental "in"-justice issues," says John Beard, founder, president, and executive director of Port Arthur Community Action Network (PACAN). "PACAN supports the actions of the Treasury to engage in constructive dialogue regarding its role in the petrochemical buildout. We do not merely want to be heard, but to have a hand in policy making decisions which will address the harm, injustice and disparity impacts; resolution, restoration begins with inclusion. 'Nothing about Us, without Us.'"
"While big banks are making the big bucks financing fossil fuels, our communities in Cancer Alley are suffering financially in a big way from climate change," says Sharon Lavigne, founder of Rise St. James. "The US Treasury Department has taken no public action to stop big bank financing of emissions. It's an injustice we're going to fight.
"As COP27 approaches, financial institutions continue to torch our planet and devastate communities all around the world by pouring billions of dollars into fossil fuels and deforestation, leaving those least responsible for the crisis to pick up the bill. We need an all-hands-on-deck approach to rein in Wall Street's destructive and dangerous behavior," says Akiksha Chatterji, lead campaigner at Positive Money US. "The Treasury must make clear that it expects financial institutions to immediately stop funding oil and gas expansion, and start supporting clean energy and green jobs instead. Treasury must also meaningfully engage with the communities and groups most impacted by the climate crisis and the predatory actions of big finance, and reflect their concerns in policy decisions."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000The lone intent of the new policy, said one watchdog, "would be to protect the administration from the leak of embarrassing, politically damaging, or unlawful information.”
The Trump administration—the self-styled “most transparent administration in history”—plans to require all federal government employees to sign nondisclosure agreements in what it claims is an effort to stop damaging information from leaking, but what critics warn is a cynical effort to subvert accountability and hide malfeasance.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday on a draft notice posted to the Federal Register by the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is expected to be published on Wednesday.
Consistent with the Trump administration’s efforts to squash negative reporting on its endeavors, the new rule contains a sweeping order that would ban federal employees from going to the press with any information deemed “confidential.”
Notably, this is different from the typical designation of "classified" vs. "unclassified." It encompasses “non-public, confidential, or proprietary information” or “any sensitive, pre-decisional or deliberative material that is not currently publicly available and should not be disclosed under applicable law.”
Both current and former employees would need "written permission from an authorized agency official" to speak to the press about matters deemed "confidential" under the draft's terms, or they could be subject to civil and criminal penalties.
It will be up to individual agencies whether they require employees to sign the NDAs, but the document said doing so would "promote consistency across government, better protect confidential information, and better inform federal employees of their rights and obligations regarding confidential information."
Under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon has already enacted a strict NDA that “prohibits the release of non-public information without approval or through a defined process," which it enacted late last year along with random lie-detector testing aimed at finding leakers.
The draft notice reported on Tuesday suggests a similar requirement will become blanket policy across a wide swath of agencies. The notice gives an idea of what sorts of information the administration wants to shield from journalistic scrutiny.
The document cites the unauthorized leak in February 2025 of information about the Department of Homeland Security's mass deportation targets in Los Angeles and Aurora, Colorado, which led then-Secretary Kristi Noem to start subjecting employees to polygraph tests to root out leakers.
Another whistleblower in January published identifying information for about 4,500 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol employees.
The draft also pointed to disclosures to the New York Times and Washington Post, giving the outlets advanced notice of the planned US raid on Venezuela to kidnap President Nicolás Maduro in January, which the outlets waited to publish until after the illegal operation was complete.
The NDA proposal is the latest attack on critical journalism by the Trump administration, part of a pattern to assert stricter control over the flow of information to the public.
The Pentagon has sought to strip credentials from outlets unless they agree to only publish approved information. Trump and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr have threatened the broadcast licenses of networks that give Trump negative coverage and opened investigations into them. Trump, meanwhile, has personally launched unprecedented multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against media outlets, many of which judges have thrown out of court due to lack of merit.
In a statement sent to Common Dreams on Tuesday, Lauren Harper, the Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, called the proposed NDA requirement "not just absurd" but "unnecessary and dangerously secretive."
“This policy, from a president who has previously attempted to impose oppressive, corporate-style confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements on federal employees," Harper said, "would kneecap whistleblower protections, undermine the First Amendment, and wrongly inhibit the public’s right to know.”
OPM Director Scott Kupor defended the requirement. “In much of the private sector," he told the Post, "employees handling sensitive business or customer information are routinely required to sign confidentiality agreements, and the federal government should not be held to a lower standard.”
But critics argue that the federal government doing the same poses potential First Amendment violations. Although federal whistleblower laws protect employees’ ability to go to the press about waste, fraud, and abuse, experts told the Post that the NDA proposal could, in practice, be used as a “catchall gag order” that could lead employees to feel their jobs are in danger if they speak out.
“Trying to force the entire federal government to adopt the Trump organization’s aggressive use of NDAs won’t make anybody safer and won’t improve agency processes," Harper said. "Its sole intent would be to protect the administration from the leak of embarrassing, politically damaging, or unlawful information.”
Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), said the NDA proposal shows the Trump administration is continuing "its efforts to silence federal employees.”
“This proposed rule," said Kelley, "sweeps in an extraordinarily broad category of information, extending restrictions to the very material the public relies on to learn when an administration is causing harm. Federal employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they accept federal employment."
"OPM claims the form will be ‘optional’ for agencies to use and merely restates existing law," Kelley added. "We know that will not be true. OPM will pressure agencies to make the NDA mandatory and then fire employees who refuse to sign it."
He said the rule change was unnecessary because there are already "extensive policies and procedures" to prevent classified and privileged info from being leaked.
Kelley said, "This proposed rule sweeps in an extraordinarily broad category of information, extending restrictions to the very material the public relies on to learn when an administration is causing harm."
"We’re excited to work with Abdul to win Medicare for All, create good union jobs, and end the influence of big money in politics," said the progressive party.
Following the victories of Working Families Party-endorsed progressive candidates like Rep. Analilia Mejia in New Jersey and Pennsylvania state lawmaker Chris Rabb, who won a Democratic US House primary last week, the organization announced Tuesday that it is "all in" on former public health official Abdul El-Sayed's primary campaign in the key state of Michigan.
“Abdul has dedicated his career to making government work for regular people and fighting to improve our broken healthcare system,” Maurice Mitchell, WFP’s national director, said in a statement. “He’s not afraid to stand up to Donald Trump, Elon Musk, or any of the greedy billionaires screwing over our communities."
El-Sayed's race for the August 4 primary has been contentious, with his two opponents—Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (8) elevating attacks on their opponent's decision to campaign with left-wing streamer and commentator Hasan Piker, an outspoken critic of Israel and US military support for the country.
Following those attacks, El-Sayed was shown to gain momentum in polls; he was 10 points ahead of Stevens and 11 points ahead of McMorrow in a survey by Mitchell Research and Communications earlier this month, and 80% ahead among voters under the age of 45.
El-Sayed is a strong supporter of Palestinian rights—differentiating him from Stevens, who has received donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and McMorrow, who has criticized Israel's assault on Gaza but also reportedly wrote a position paper for the influential pro-Israel lobby group.
But the push for Medicare for All, which he published a book about, has been an even more central focus of his political career.
Stevens and McMorrow both reportedly support a public option, and the latter candidate asserted in a recent interview that "the support for a true single payer system isn't there yet"—despite the fact that Medicare for All had the support of 78% of Democrats and 65% of overall American voters in a Data for Progress poll late last year, and has been found to have broad support in other surveys in recent years.
"We’re excited to work with Abdul to win Medicare for All, create good union jobs, and end the influence of big money in politics," said Mitchell on Tuesday.
On social media, the group highlighted public health successes El-Sayed led while heading Detroit’s Health Department and the Wayne County’s Department of Health, Human, and Veterans Services in Wayne County, Michigan, which serves 1.8 million residents.
"He is the kind of candidate we need in office," said WFP.
Distill Social, a Michigan-based grassroots news organization, said the endorsement "says a lot" to voters weighing their options ahead of the August primary.
WFP's "lane is clear: workers, healthcare, clean water, corporate accountability, and a government that actually fights for people," said the group.
El-Sayed said the group "understands that finding and keeping a good job, guaranteed healthcare, being able to afford a home, and having the freedom to spend time with your family aren't radical ideas. They should be the baseline."
"I'm honored to earn their endorsement," said El-Sayed.
“These work requirements address a problem that doesn’t exist," said one researcher. "They just strip healthcare from millions of low-income people by making it harder for them to prove they qualify.”
A pair of leading humanitarian groups warned Tuesday that millions of people will soon be "at risk of an avoidable loss of healthcare coverage" as states move to implement new Medicaid work requirements, which were at the center of the reconciliation package enacted by congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump last year.
Oxfam America and Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned in a joint letter to top federal health officials that the work requirements—which mostly target adults in states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act—will result in a massive surge in the uninsured population if concrete steps aren't taken to mitigate coverage losses.
The groups point to a Congressional Budget Office analysis projecting the Trump-GOP budget law "will cause roughly 10 million people to lose health insurance coverage by 2034," increasing "the number of uninsured people in the US by nearly 50%, exposing millions of people to high drug and hospital costs, and forcing many to forgo or ration healthcare."
Under the 2025 law, people subject to the work requirements must document 80 hours per month of work or another qualifying activity.
"Work requirements are sold as sensible, pragmatic reforms, but the lived reality couldn’t be more different."
Analysts have warned that the new work reporting mandates—which account for around $326 billion of the Trump-GOP law's total cuts to Medicaid—will create massive administrative hurdles and burdens for Medicaid recipients and for states. Given that most Medicaid recipients already work, experts say coverage loss from the new mandates will largely be attributable to enrollees' failure to comply with byzantine reporting procedures.
“Work requirements are sold as sensible, pragmatic reforms, but the lived reality couldn’t be more different,” said Jackson Gandour, senior policy advisor for economic justice at Oxfam America. “In practice, evidence shows they can create unfair and effectively insurmountable barriers for people who need coverage and are making every effort to meet the requirements.”
The federal work requirements are set to formally take effect in most states by January 2027—though some states are rushing forward with the mandates ahead of schedule, heightening fears of chaos and large-scale coverage loss. By June 1, federal agencies must issue guidance to states on how to implement the new Medicaid work requirements.
Oxfam and HRW urged the Trump administration to do all it can to mitigate coverage loss, including by "reducing documentation requirements, broadly interpreting exemptions, and recognizing a wide range of qualifying activities that reflect real labor conditions, including gig work, unpaid caregiving, and seasonal employment."
A 36-year-old woman in Atlanta, Georgia—which has state-level work requirements that predate the Trump-GOP mandates—told the humanitarian groups that she lost Medicaid and nutrition assistance after her child was born late last year, despite working sufficient hours to comply with Georgia's requirements.
“After I had the baby, my Medicaid and food stamps were turned off,” she said. “[They] said that I failed to report that I was working."
The woman said she's spent months trying to restore her coverage, encountering chaos and administrative barriers.
“It’s hectic,” she said. “You’re not able to reach anybody.”
The Urban Institute has estimated that even if strong mitigation measures are put in place, around 3 million people could lose Medicaid coverage due to the new federal work requirements.
“These work requirements address a problem that doesn’t exist since most Medicaid recipients are already working,” said Matt McConnell, economic justice and rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “They won’t fix the budget. They just strip healthcare from millions of low-income people by making it harder for them to prove they qualify.”