SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
New Data: Oil and Gas Industry Has Spent an Average of $4.3 Million per Senate Seat and $490,000 per House Seat
WASHINGTON
Oil and gas executives and other powerful corporate interests want to keep us home by spreading misinformation and contributing to politicians supporting voter suppression efforts. In fact, new data shows that the oil and gas industry has spent an estimated average of $4.3 million per Senate seat and $490,000 per House seat supporting their back-pocket candidates.
In response to the 2022 midterm elections Ebony Twilley Martin, Greenpeace USA Co-Executive Director, said:
"Today is a turning point for our country, and the urgency of the climate crisis demands that all of us make our voice heard. In 2020, climate voters turned out in record numbers to help protect our families, our democracy, and ensure a livable future. Today, we must do the same.
"Whatever our color, background, or zip code, we must show up to vote for leaders who will be champions for freedom, justice, and a livable future. We need leaders who will protect our right to vote and ensure our voices are heard, especially when the American people are so clearly demanding climate action. What happens at the polls will determine our ability to protect each other and our planet for years to come.
"Oil and gas executives and other powerful corporate interests want to keep us home by spreading misinformation and contributing to politicians supporting voter suppression efforts. In fact, new data shows that the oil and gas industry has spent on estimated average of $4.3 million for key Senate and $490,000 for key House seats supporting their back-pocket candidates. This election is set to be the most expensive midterms ever. We must stay the course against unprecedented millionaire money funding extremist candidates, election overthrowers, and rampant disinformation.
"We need champions in Congress who will fight for us. We cannot achieve the necessary victories for our communities, our children, our air, water, lands, wildlife, and climate without a healthy, functioning democracy. Expanding the number of climate champions in the U.S. House and Senate would be a major step towards protecting our freedoms and securing a future where we all thrive.
"This election puts us at a critical crossroads: one path sends us towards climate catastrophe, the weakening of our democracy, and more injustice. The other path, which I am calling on us to take today, is a chance to improve our lives and protect our planet together."
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 2000LATEST NEWS
House GOP Accused of 'Waging War on America's Wildlife' With Proposed Spending Cuts
"This budget proposal shows yet again the extremes to which anti-wildlife members of Congress will go to sacrifice endangered species," said one conservationist.
Jul 14, 2025
As Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives begin work on spending legislation for fiscal year 2026, conservationists and congressional Democrats are blasting a key appropriations bill released Monday.
"House Republicans are once again waging war on America's wildlife in yet another giveaway to their industry allies," said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "Extinction isn't inevitable, it's a political choice. The Appropriations Committee has one job to do, which is to fund the government, not decide whether our most vulnerable animals get to survive."
The bill that the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee is set to consider on Tuesday morning would not only slash funding for the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—by 23%—and the Fish and Wildlife Service, but also strip Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections from animals including gray wolves, the center noted.
"This budget proposal shows yet again the extremes to which anti-wildlife members of Congress will go to sacrifice endangered species," declared Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife. "The bill is loaded with riders that attack the Endangered Species Act and would put some of America's most iconic species, including the grizzly bear and wolverine, at serious risk of extinction."
"The bill and all who support it are compromising the crucial habitats, outdoor recreation areas, and natural resources that Americans and wildlife rely on."
The legislation would block funding for listing the greater sage-grouse as well as money to protect the northern long-eared bat, the lesser prairie-chicken, and captive fish listed under the ESA. It would also block the Biden administration's rules for the landmark law.
"By blocking protections for public lands while also providing short-sighted lease sales for the benefit of oil and gas corporations, the bill and all who support it are compromising the crucial habitats, outdoor recreation areas, and natural resources that Americans and wildlife rely on," Dewey said.
Democrats on the committee put out a statement highlighting that, along with attacking wildlife, worsening the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, and jeopardizing public health by favoring polluters, the GOP legislation would hike utility bills, promote environmental discrimination against rural and poor communities, and cut national park funding.
"With the release of the FY26 Interior bill, it's clear House Republicans are once again pushing an agenda that accelerates the climate crisis, upends our national parks system, and leaves local communities to fend for themselves—all while undermining the power of the Appropriations Committee and of Congress," said Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), ranking member on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
"We are still living with the fallout of last year's failure to negotiate a full-year funding bill. Instead of correcting course, the bill released today delivers more of the same: It cuts water infrastructure funding, slashes EPA programs, and wipes out environmental justice and climate initiatives. It even blocks the EPA from completing its risk assessment on PFAS in sewage sludge," she continued, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also called forever chemicals. "On top of the environmental attacks, Republicans are taking aim at the arts and cultural institutions that enrich communities and drive local economies."
Pingree asserted that "any arguments that these irresponsible cuts are somehow fiscally responsible ring hollow in the wake of Republicans adding $3.4 trillion to the national deficit thanks to their disastrous so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table and support the essential work of this subcommittee: Protecting public health, conserving our lands and waters, investing in resilience, and ensuring that every community—from rural Maine to urban centers—has access to a healthy environment and a vibrant cultural life."
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) pointed out that President Donald Trump "promised to address the cost-of-living crisis, but instead, he and House Republicans are making it worse."
"House Republicans' 2026 Interior funding bill raises utility bills and energy prices to benefit billionaires and big corporations," DeLauro said. "Republicans are threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink and taking steps that damage our public lands, promote dirty energy, and hinder our ability to confront the climate crisis."
"In addition to these dangerous cuts, Republicans' proposal would mean fewer trips to national parks and less access to museums and the arts," she warned. "House Republicans are more focused on lining the pockets of big oil companies than lowering prices for working-class, middle-class, rural, and vulnerable families; protecting our public health; and preserving the planet."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Denounce Trump Official for Hiding Social Security Service Metrics
"The agency's removal of comprehensive customer service data calls into question whether this administration seeks to hide from the public the negative customer service impacts of its staffing cuts," said reads a letter led by Rep. Judy Chu.
Jul 14, 2025
As the Trump administration pushes to cut 7,000 jobs held by federal employees at the Social Security Administration, the agency that oversees the crucial anti-poverty program for senior citizens and people with disabilities has made numerous efforts to disguise the customer service crisis that the cuts have caused—and Democrats on Monday demanded answers about what one progressive lawmaker recently denounced as a "cover up" to hide long wait times.
U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) led 18 Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee in writing to Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, urging the former Wall Street executive to explain why several customer service metrics were deleted from the SSA's website just as Americans were facing longer wait times and a reduced ability to speak with customer service representatives rather than having their claims and questions handled through automation.
Chu spearheaded the letter weeks after the SSA stopped publishing more than 30 metrics related to the performance of its 1-800 number, retirement claims processing times, and disability decision reconsideration wait times.
"Early last month SSA abruptly removed that comprehensive menu of data from its website and replaced it with a new webpage that provides much more limited and sometimes misleading information on the agency's customer service performance," wrote the Democrats. "We are concerned that this new menu is far less helpful for our constituents in knowing what to expect when interacting with SSA."
In addition to omitting crucial information about how long retirees and people with disabilities can expect to wait to receive their benefits or to talk to a representative, Chu noted that the metrics that are currently shown "seem designed to pressure beneficiaries to use online tools instead of talking to live people, an option that simply doesn't work for all beneficiaries, especially the very old and people in rural areas with poor Internet access."
"The agency's removal of comprehensive customer service data calls into question whether this administration seeks to hide from the public the negative customer service impacts of its staffing cuts," reads the letter.
"Early last month SSA abruptly removed that comprehensive menu of data from its website and replaced it with a new webpage that provides much more limited and sometimes misleading information on the agency's customer service performance."
The letter was sent days after The Washington Post reported that the SSA is pulling staff from its field offices to act as customer service representatives for its 1-800 number following a surge in complaints about dropped calls and website crashes.
That change is likely to slow down responses to complicated claims cases that are often handled by field office staff, Jessica LaPointe, president of Council 220 of the American Federation of Government Employees, told the Post.
"So it's just going to create a vicious cycle of work not getting cleared, people calling for status on work that's sitting because the claims specialists now are going to have to pick up the slack of the customer service representatives that are redeployed to the teleservice centers," LaPointe said last week.
Alex Lawson, executive director of the advocacy group Social Security Works, told the Post last month as the metrics were deleted from the SSA website that the Trump administration's attempts to conceal the effects of its mass layoffs would not succeed.
"People notice when they can't get an appointment because their local field office has lost half its staff. When checks and decisions are delayed. When they get the runaround from an AI chatbot on the phone, instead of getting to talk to a real person," said Lawson.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) criticized the agency for "playing musical chairs to try and fill in the gaps" and suggested Bisignano "stop gutting the critical workforce that helps Americans every single day."
Chu and the other Ways and Means Committee Democrats emphasized that the agency recently restored one metric to its new website: a chart showing the six-year trend of disability determination processing times.
"That the agency chose to cherry pick and restore only this metric," they wrote, "and not any of the others that had been removed, only deepens our concern about why your agency continues to keep hidden certain metrics that had previously been publicly available."
The Democrats demanded that the SSA restore "all the robust public data that the agency had previously reported prior to June 2025, including historical data, and to regularly update that data."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Passage of GOP Medicaid Cuts, Congress Debates Nearly $1 Trillion Military Budget
In a closed-door session last week, senators advanced legislation that would authorize $925 billion in military spending for the coming fiscal year.
Jul 14, 2025
Fresh off the passage of a Republican budget measure that includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade, Congress this week is set to consider legislation that would authorize close to that same amount for the U.S. military for the coming fiscal year.
The House Armed Services Committee, controlled by Republicans, will mark up its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Tuesday. In a closed-door session late last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee advanced its military spending authorization package, which has a topline of roughly $925 billion for Fiscal Year 2026—an increase of around $30 billion compared to the current fiscal year.
Unlike the GOP reconciliation package that President Donald Trump signed into law earlier this month, the NDAA is likely to clear Congress with bipartisan support. Just one Democrat on the Senate armed services panel—Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—voted against advancing the legislation out of committee last week.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the NDAA "a critical, bipartisan measure that ensures our military remains prepared to meet the growing and complex challenges of a dangerous world."
The $925 billion Senate NDAA topline does not include the more than $150 billion Pentagon boost that Republicans inserted in their partisan reconciliation package for fiscal year 2025, pushing the nation's approved military spending above $1 trillion for the year. Trump has openly bragged about his push for a $1 trillion military budget.
"This militarized MAGA agenda harms working families and our communities," Lindsay Koshgarian and Hanna Homestead of the National Priorities Project said following passage of the GOP reconciliation bill. "It will be paid for with cuts to programs that help people meet their basic needs and will disproportionately benefit private contractors, further enrich billionaires, and exacerbate waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars."
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) asked Monday, "How do we always find money for war but never enough money for the children, the poor, and the hungry?"
Breaking Defense noted that the Senate NDAA proposes "an increase of Air Force F-35 procurement from 24 to 34 jets—a sum that, if enacted, would take the [Pentagon's] annual total to 57 jets." Watchdogs have long described the F-35 program as a ridiculous boondoggle.
Lawmakers are set to consider another increase in annual military spending following the release of a report estimating that more than half of the Pentagon's discretionary spending between 2020 and 2024 went to private contractors.
The report, released by the Costs of War Project and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, notes that "the arms industry has used an array of tools of influence to create an atmosphere where a Pentagon budget that is $1 trillion per year is deemed 'not enough' by some members of Congress." Such tools include lobbying and sizable campaign contributions.
"The vast bulk of the arms industry's campaign contributions go to candidates for Congress," the report observes. "The industry favors incumbents, and concentrates much of its giving to members of the armed services committees and defense appropriations subcommittees in the House and Senate—the members with the strongest role in shaping the Pentagon budget."
This story has been updated to include comment from Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular