

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.

Arielle Swernoff, arielle@stopthemoneypipeline.com
Resolutions a “litmus test” for investors
This coming Tuesday, April 25, shareholders at Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, the second, third, and fourth largest global funders of fossil fuels, respectively, will vote on climate and Indigenous rights resolutions at their annual shareholder meetings. These three banks have provided over $789 billion in financing to fossil fuel companies since 2016.
Shareholders at Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America will be voting on four resolutions related to climate and Indigenous rights. Those resolutions include:
· Fossil Fuel Phase Out: Calls on banks to adopt a time-bound phase-out of financing for projects and companies engaged in fossil fuel expansion. Filed at Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. A version of this resolution was filed last year at the same companies, and received 12.8% support at Citi and 11% support at Bank of America and Wells Fargo.
· Indigenous Rights Report: Filed at Citigroup, this resolution urges the company to issue a report on the efficacy of their current practices in ensuring their financing respects internationally-recognized standards for respecting Indigenous rights. A version of this resolution was filed last year at Citi and Wells Fargo, where it received 34% and 26%, respectively.
· Absolute Emissions Targets: Filed by New York City and New York State at Bank of America, these resolutions call on the banks to set absolute emission reduction targets. Banks currently use Intensity-based targets, which allow them to increase the amount of greenhouse gas emissions financed so long as the emissions per dollar or per unit goes down; absolute targets require companies to decrease emissions funded overall.
· 2030 Transition Plan: Filed at Bank of America and Wells Fargo, these resolutions urge the respective banks to publish a comprehensive plan detailing how they will meet their 2030 climate targets.
Significance of the Results
Shareholder voting is not like a Presidential election; the outcomes and impacts of the vote carry different weight. In the US the results of shareholder votes are non-binding. Resolutions that receive more than 50% of the vote are not automatically adopted, nor are those which fail to receive a majority vote considered a failure. Votes represent capital and power. Votes in support of climate resolutions at Citi, Bank of America and Wells Fargo last year, which received 11-13% support, represent tens of billions of dollars in shareholder equity.
It’s also worth noting that the largest bank shareholders are other Wall Street institutions and other banks. For example, asset managers Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street, and banks JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, hold over 24% of shares at Citi. If these companies are trying to block accountability by shareholders at their own annual general meetings, they are hardly going to support similar resolutions at Citi’s.
Grassroots Action
On April 5, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) – now the world’s #1 fossil fuel financing bank of 2022 – harassed and segregated Black and Indigenous land defenders at its AGM in Saskatoon, and dodged accountability for its financing of toxic fossil fuel projects including the Coastal GasLink fracked gas pipeline through unceded Wet’suwet’en Hereditary territory without consent from the rightful titleholders.
Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs are expected to face intense grassroots protest over their fossil fuel financing and violations of Indigenous rights in the lead up to the AGMs. Groups in New York City, Charlotte, San Francisco and Dallas have announced their intention to shut down the headquarters of the three banks leading up to the AGM.
“Hiding behind “green” lingo and playing at hapless, innocent lender of billions to the fossil fuel industry is the kind of BS that got us to full-on climate crisis. Our actions have consequences. Funding the destruction of what remains is unconscionable. Indigenous peoples are on frontlines all over the earth, bringing the voice of nature to those who have forgotten and threatening big oil profit margins.” said Tara Houska, Giniw Collective. “Respect Indigenous rights, respect our only home. For our children and yours.”
“It’s despicable, in this time of extreme flooding, droughts, and fires, that the likes of Citibank continue to be the top financiers of fossil fuels in the world,” said Amy Gray, Senior Climate Finance Strategist with Stand.earth, and coordinator of the Climate Safe Pensions Network. “They clearly don’t care about communities, particularly Black and Indigenous communities facing the brunt of climate chaos. While bank executives greenwash and lie about supporting coal, oil and gas companies transitioning, big oil is raking in record profits and increasing pollution. It's time for shareholders, especially public pension funds, to wield voting power for Indigenous sovereignty and climate action."
"There is no more time for banks to delay addressing the urgent demands of frontline communities and climate science,” said Ernesto Archila, Strategy and Engagement Manager at the Rainforest Action Network. “This year's crop of resolutions demonstrate that a critical mass of investors are demanding clear limits and reporting on fossil fuel financing and indigenous rights. These responsible investors are not fooled by the continuous greenwashing and evasion we have seen from the banks, to the tune of $5.5 trillion in financing for fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement was signed."
“As communities of color are literally fighting for our lives on the frontlines of the climate crisis, U.S banks continue funding the fossil fuel industry. These banks target communities, like mine, treating us as collateral damage to corporate profiteering. By funding the fossil fuel industry these banks are also funding environmental racism and climate chaos. Our communities don’t have clean air or drinkable water. Our children have asthma and eczema. Our elders are dying of cancer and other health issues caused by methane and other pollutants being emitted. Enough is enough.” Said Roishetta Ozane, founder, director and CEO of The Vessel Project of Louisiana and Gulf Fossil Finance Coordinator for Texas Campaign for the Environment.
“Wall Street banks continue to sacrifice Black and Indigenous communities for profit. At some point the people who lead these banks will have to decide what is more important: their children’s future & the future of our planet, or another dollar in their pocket. History will judge us all by the actions we take today,” said Michael Esealuka, organizer with Healthy Gulf and True Transition
“Indigenous communities have bore the brunt of energy colonization. From the exploitation of traditional homelands, forced removal, pollution, the exploitation of resources, forced labor and the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous peoples, financial are not only complicit in these human and environmental rights abuses, but are directly financing it,” said Matt Remle (Lakota), co-founder of Mazaska Talks. “Financial institutions can, and must, do better.”
“Banks’ financing decisions have a significant outcome on whether the world will meet its climate goals. It is imperative for banks to adopt science-based policies that translate to real-world emissions reductions. They cannot hide behind accounting tricks to shield themselves and their shareholders from climate-related financial risks,” said Jessye Waxman, Senior Campaign Representative at the Sierra Club. “Prudent investors recognize the threats climate change poses to our economy and to their investments, and will support these resolutions that help shield banks from future risk.”
“As shareholders consider resolutions on climate and Indigenous rights, we’re organizing grassroots protests at Citi, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo in order to give them a glimpse into the destruction people are experiencing because of climate chaos,” said Alice Hu, Lead Climate Campaigner at New York Communities for Change. “Banks like Citi like to say verbally that they are funding the energy transition, but in reality it’s business as usual: pumping money into the fossil fuels driving worsening extreme weather, droughts, and food shortages that hit working class communities of color like ours the worst.”
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
The intervention comes as the US and Israel are waging a joint war on Iran.
After over two years of arming and otherwise supporting the Israeli government as it lays waste to the Gaza Strip—even after an October ceasefire deal—the United States this week officially joined an International Court of Justice case to defend Israel from allegations of genocide.
The United Nations' primary tribunal announced Friday that the Trump administration had filed a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ statute. The filing states, "To avoid any doubt, the United States affirms, in the strongest terms possible, that the allegations of 'genocide' against Israel are false."
"They are also unfortunately nothing new," the document continues. "The United States recalls that international fora have been misused to level false charges of 'genocide' against the state of Israel since at least May 1976 as part of a broader campaign (including UN General Assembly resolution 3379) to delegitimize the state of Israel and the Jewish people and to justify or encourage terrorism against them."
"Sadly, that effort remains' ongoing," the filing claims. "Only days after Hamas launched its assault of mass rape, murder, and kidnapping on October 7, 2023, pro-Hamas actors, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, were already falsely charging Israel once again with 'genocide.'"
The filing comes less than two weeks after President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began a joint war against Iran. Since then, Israel has also returned to bombing Lebanon, despite a November 2024 ceasefire agreement, and again cut off the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The bombing of Gaza by Israel has also continued.
When South Africa initiated its case in December 2023, accusing Israel of violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, Israel's bombardment and blockade had killed more than 21,500 people, according to local health officials.
The Gaza Ministry of Health now puts the death toll at 72,136, with another 171,839 wounded—including 651 killed and 1,741 injured since the ceasefire began. Experts around the world have warned that the true figures could be far higher.
The US filing states that "civilian casualties, even widespread civilian casualties, are not necessarily probative of genocidal intent, particularly when they occur in the context of an armed conflict involving urban combat."
However, as South Africa highlighted in its initial application, "repeated statements by Israeli state representatives, including at the highest levels, by the Israeli president, prime minister, and minister of defense express genocidal intent."
"That intent is also properly to be inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having regard... to Israel's failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter, and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people, which has pushed them to the brink of famine," South Africa's filing states. "It is also clear from the nature, scope and extent of Israel’s military attacks on Gaza."
Fiji, Hungary, and Namibia also intervened in the ICJ case on Thursday. While only Namibia supports South Africa, the interventions came a day after Iceland and the Netherlands also formally backed the arguments against Israel.
In addition to the ICJ case, the International Criminal Court—also based at the Hague—has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza. Trump has retaliated with sanctions against ICC jurists.
Sen. Maggie Hassan said that while paying back businesses hit by Trump’s illegal tariffs, the administration “refuses to provide relief for families.”
American families could pay a combined $330 billion this year as a result of President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff policy, according to a report released Friday by the Democratic minority on the Joint Economic Committee in Congress.
Although the Supreme Court ruled Trump's use of emergency powers to pass sweeping tariffs illegal last month, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the government is expected to bring in "virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026" compared with the previous year, as Trump has continued to enact new tariffs using different legal authorities in hopes of getting around the high court's ruling.
If Bessent's projection holds true, the committee's Democrats estimated that the average US household would pay more than $2,500 in tariff costs this year, a considerable increase from the more than $1,700 the committee found Americans paid in 2025.
The minority said it reached its findings based on official data on the amount of tariff revenue collected by the Treasury since 2025 combined with independent research from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which found last month that only about 5% of tariff costs are borne by foreign entities. About 30% is taken on by domestic companies, and the remaining 65% is passed on to consumers.
There is already somewhat of an answer in the works for businesses to recoup the illegal duties they've had to pay. Earlier this month, the US Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that the Treasury Department and Customs and Border Protection must return $166 billion to around 330,000 importers hit by tariffs, including thousands of companies that have filed lawsuits seeking to recover their money.
However, the Trump administration has said it could take more than 4.4 million hours to process all refund requests for more than 53 million entries subject to the now-illegal tariffs.
On Thursday, Brandon Lord, an official with US Customs and Border Protection responsible for tariff collections, informed the court that CBP is about 40-80% done creating a system that will allow importers and brokers to submit refund requests. He said in a filing last week that it could be operational as soon as mid-April.
But Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the ranking member of the joint committee, lamented on Friday that while businesses are going to be reimbursed with interest, "the Trump administration refuses to provide relief for families" and is instead "choosing to institute new tariffs that will push prices even higher.”
On Thursday, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), another committee member, introduced a bill to create a new tax rebate for individuals and families hit by tariffs.
The so-called "Working Families Refund" would provide a $600 rebate to individuals earning $90,000 or less annually and to head-of-household filers earning $120,000 or less. Joint filers earning $180,000 or less per year would receive a $1,200 rebate. Each family would also receive an additional $600 for each dependent child.
"This is money that belongs to working families—not the CEOs of Walmart or Amazon or any other big corporation,” Heinrich said.
Trump has pressed ahead with his tariffs despite their rising unpopularity. In an NBC News poll last week, 55% of voters said the tariffs have hurt the economy, while just 33% said they have helped. And as his newly launched war with Iran has heightened economic instability, 62% of voters said they disapproved of his handling of inflation and the cost of living.
Seeking to stop Trump from squeezing a political win out of his policy's failure, Heinrich's bill also forbids the president from putting his own name on the tariff rebate checks, as he famously did with Covid-19 stimulus checks sent months before the 2020 election.
“The president may call the affordability crisis a ‘hoax,’ but working people feel it every time they pay for groceries or everyday essentials," Heinrich said. "This bill will return the money lost to Trump’s tariffs back to the people who paid the price.”
In a tirade against media coverage of the Trump administration's illegal assault on Iran, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth said, "The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better."
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth used part of his Friday press conference to complain about what he described as negative and "fake" news stories about the administration's illegal war on Iran, openly pining for the day the son of billionaire Trump donor Larry Ellison takes control of CNN.
"The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better," said Hegseth, pointing specifically to CNN's report Thursday that "the Pentagon and National Security Council significantly underestimated Iran’s willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US military strikes while planning the ongoing operation."
"CNN doesn't think we thought of that," said Hegseth, a former Fox News host who is facing mounting backlash over the US military's bombing of an Iranian elementary school on the first day of the war and poor strategic planning overall.
"It's a fundamentally unserious report," Hegseth added.
Watch:
Hegseth: "Some in the press just can't stop. Allow me to make a few suggestions. People look at the TV and they see banners, headlines -- I used to be in that business, I know everything is written intentionally. For example, a banner -- 'Mideast War Intensifies.' What should the… pic.twitter.com/mbz70e7SsY
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 13, 2026
David Ellison is the CEO of Paramount Skydance, which is poised to acquire CNN owner Warner Bros. Discovery after a lengthy bidding war with Netflix. The deal still must receive regulatory approval from the Trump administration and in Europe, and some state attorneys general have vowed to closely scrutinize the agreement.
"Hysterical Hegseth wants state media," Jim Acosta, a former CNN anchor and White House correspondent, wrote in response to the Pentagon secretary's comments on the looming Ellison takeover.
Hegseth rejected as "patently ridiculous" the notion that the Trump administration—whose deadly incompetence has been on full display since the start of the war—would fail to adequately plan for Iran to retaliate against a military attack by closing the Strait of Hormuz, a route through which roughly 20% of the world's oil supply travels each year.
"Don't need to worry about it," Hegseth said Friday of the strait's closure, as oil prices skyrocket.
Hegseth's latest attack on the US media, which he called insufficiently "patriotic," came days after it was revealed that the Pentagon decided to bar press photographers from briefings about the Iran war after the secretary's staff reportedly deemed some of the photos taken during a March 2 briefing "unflattering."
"I, along with print photographers, have been denied entry to cover today’s Pentagon briefing," reported Nancy Youssef, a journalist with The Atlantic, on Friday morning. "All other media were allowed in."
Mark Schoeff Jr., president of the National Press Club, called the Pentagon's decision to bar photographers from briefings "deeply troubling," saying it "runs counter to the fundamental principles of transparency in a democratic society."
"A government confident in its actions welcomes scrutiny. It does not restrict it," said Schoeff. "When the government decides which images the public is allowed to see, transparency is replaced by control. Accountability doesn't take place behind closed doors."