

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.
Background on the resolutions
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.
Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Democratic US Senate candidate Platner said in an ad that aired on the New England Sports Network.
Maine Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner on Saturday said that a campaign ad that aired during a Boston Red Sox game was "taken down" after it took aim at the team's ownership.
The ad in question features Platner discussing the role that private equity firms play in the US economy, including sports teams.
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Platner says at the start of the ad. "Private equity is buying up our homes, our sports, and our lives. I will reverse the private equity curse."
Private equity is taking our homes. It's taking our hospitals. It's taking beloved local businesses and stripping them for parts.
And now private equity is running the Red Sox into the ground.
Our new ad ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/w7LapElpdA
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 22, 2026
Platner concludes the ad by saying that he approves this message "because I miss Mookie Betts," the star player whom the Red Sox traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2020 in a deal that was widely decried by local fans as a salary dump.
According to Platner, his campaign began airing the ad Friday on the New England Sports Network (NESN), the cable TV station owned partially by Fenway Sports Group, the conglomerate that owns the Red Sox.
However, he said that "midway through the game the ad was taken down" by NESN, after which the Red Sox proceeded to blow a 4-0 lead, losing to the Minnesota Twins by a final score of 8-6.
Platner, an oyster farmer and upstart candidate who has never before held political office, became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the 2026 US Senate race in Maine last month after his top rival, Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills, dropped out of the race.
In recent weeks, Platner has pivoted to challenging incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has held the seat since 1996 and is now running for her sixth term in office.
The policy change means "we could have families separated for months or years," said one expert.
Critics are slamming the Trump administration for implementing a new rule that foreigners who apply for green cards must do so from abroad.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Friday announced that foreigners currently in the US who want to establish permanent legal residency must first return to their countries of origin to apply for a green card.
This announcement broke with decades of US immigration policy, which made it possible for immigrants in the US to obtain green cards without having to leave the country.
Doug Rand, a former senior advisor at USCIS under President Joe Biden, said in an interview with The Associated Press that "the goal of this policy is very explicit," which is to block a path to citizenship "for as many people as possible."
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS policy analyst, told The New York Times that the rule change could have particularly dire consequences to foreigners who are married to US citizens and will now have to apply for permanent residency from overseas.
"Our consular processing system through which they would have to apply is already overburdened," Pierce explained. "So that means we could have families separated for months or years."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, similarly noted that the new policy "could force people to leave their jobs, homes, and families for weeks or months, all at their own expense" just to stay in a country where they have already established roots.
Reichlin-Melnick said that the full scope of the policy isn't yet clear because there are several unknown details about how broadly it will be applied, but added that "in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of immigrants now have to worry about upending their lives to get a legal status that they are entitled to under our laws."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim argued that the new policy rips the mask off Trump administration claims that they aren't opposed to all immigration, they simply want to reduce undocumented immigration.
"The talking point that we do want legal immigration, we just want people to get in line and follow the rules, is BS," Grim commented. "This is an attempt to blow up the line, blow up the rules, and make it insanely difficult to immigrate legally."
Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) echoed Grim's comments by pointing out that the new policy shows the Trump administration's disdain for immigration overall.
"This new policy will force thousands of LEGAL immigrants, including spouses of US citizens, to leave their homes, families, and jobs for weeks or even months to get their green card outside the US," said García. "This is an absurd and cruel policy."
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, condemned the new policy for targeting "students, scientists, entrepreneurs, spouses of US citizens, and other individuals following legal immigration processes."
"Aspiring lawful permanent residents are valued members of our communities, workforce, and economy," Espaillat emphasized. "I will continue fighting to protect the rights of aspiring green card holders and immigrant families."