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
For Immediate Release
June, 04 2024, 08:46am EDT
Contact:
Nicole Rodel, Oil Change International – nicole@priceofoil.org
Last opportunity for G7 to deliver on fossil fuel promises before updating climate plans
Data published today by Oil Change International shows G7 countries are continuing to overwhelmingly prop up fossil fuels at home and abroad, despite agreeing to phase them out at COP28. G7 countries are massively expanding fossil fuel production at home and investing billions in more fossil fuel infrastructure abroad.
G7 nations – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom – will gather for the upcoming Leaders’ Summit in Italy from 13 – 15 June, at a historic time for climate politics. This will be the last time these governments meet before submitting enhanced climate plans under the Paris Agreement.
At home, G7 countries have both the capacity and the responsibility to lead in phasing out fossil fuels. However, not only are G7 countries among the world’s biggest extractors of fossil fuels, they also have large expansion plans that sabotage any hope of achieving the climate goals they have repeatedly committed to.
- Italy, which holds the G7 presidency this year, recently committed to doubling its production of natural gas, when it should be among the nations phasing out fossil fuel production fastest.
- The U.S. is both the largest oil and gas producer globally and has the biggest oil and gas expansion plans by far, despite President Biden’s climate promises.
To uphold the COP28 decision, G7 countries must quickly phase out all existing production, and immediately end fossil fuel expansion at home. Continued oil and gas expansion would lock in climate chaos and an unlivable future.
Abroad, G7 members continue to provide billions of dollars in taxpayer finance for international fossil fuel projects, despite repeatedly promising to end financial support for these projects. Last year, the G7 even misleadingly claimed it had ended such financing. However, as of May 15, 2024, OCI has tracked at least $8.5 billion in public support for fossil fuel projects abroad from the G7 since the end of 2022, with Japan and the United States providing the majority of this financing.
The G7’s financing of fossil fuels still dwarfs its financial support for renewable energy, using public money to enable high-risk fossil fuel projects worldwide, while delaying the transition to renewables.
Oil Change International’s recommendations for G7 leaders at the upcoming summit and beyond include:
- Strengthen fossil fuel phase-out language and targets agreed at the 2023 G7 Hiroshima Summit and at COP28
- Demonstrate robust implementation of the COP28 UAE consensus to transition away from fossil fuels
- Acknowledge reductions in future fossil fuel demand and the impact this will have on export-dependent producer countries
- Prioritize support for the clean energy transition with a clear clean energy finance offer, that dramatically scales up clean energy finance where it is most needed, on fair terms
- Reiterate and strengthen the G7 2022 commitment to “end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector by the end of 2022.”
Adam McGibbon, Public Finance Strategist at Oil Change International, said:
“The G7 are not just delaying taking climate action – they are actively blocking a fair, fast, full, and funded phase out of fossil fuels with massive expansion plans at home, and backing fossil fuel projects abroad with billions in public money.
“This summit is a critical moment for G7 nations to demonstrate true leadership. We’re calling on G7 leaders to acknowledge that fossil fuel expansion is incompatible with the 1.5C limit, and to commit to submitting enhanced climate plans under the Paris Agreement that will deliver a science-aligned fossil fuel phaseout and support for an equitable transition to clean energy.
“There is no shortage of public money to make the COP28 decision on fossil fuels a reality – it is just poorly distributed to the most harmful parts of our economies that are driving the climate crisis and extreme inequalities. G7 countries must make good on their promise to stop funding fossil fuels, and pay their fair share for people-centered renewables on fair terms.
“The G7 are among the world’s most powerful and wealthiest nations. They have a responsibility to lead the way both at home and abroad. Anything less is hypocrisy and gross negligence, and risks endangering the implementation of the COP28 decision to transition away from fossil fuels.”
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029LATEST NEWS
In Rousing COP31 Address, UN Chief Blasts Big Oil for ‘Making a Killing While Killing Our Planet’
“Fossil fuels must go the way of the dinosaurs, but that won’t happen on its own. The dinosaurs did not have a lobby, but fossil fuels do,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
Nov 11, 2026
At his last United Nations Climate Change Conference as secretary-general, António Guterres on Wednesday emphasized that he "will not stop telling the truth" about how the fossil fuel industry and the wealthy governments that continue to hand out oil and gas subsidies are allowing the sector to reap massive profits while people around the world suffer from the worsening impacts of the climate emergency.
“The last four years were the hottest ever, and fossil fuel interests keep making a killing while killing our planet," the secretary-general said bluntly.
"Climate disasters are pounding lives, livelihoods, and economies across the globe," he added. "This is the path to mutually assured destruction."
Guterres spoke two days after the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released its "State of the Climate" report at the conference, known as COP31, which is being hosted by the Turkish government in Antalya this year. The report warned that while the past 12 years have been the Earth's warmest on record, the trend has particularly accelerated since 2022.
The impacts have been brutal, with more than 1,500 people killed this year in Nepal and Tibet after a glacier collapsed and caused sudden catastrophic flooding, an estimated 200,000 people killed across Europe by extreme heat over the past years, and tens of thousands of acres scorched by wildfires across Europe and in the COP31 host country this summer.
Last month, the UN released a report finding that avoiding a global temperature rise over 1.5°C above preindustrial temperatures is no longer possible. Experts now say governments must work toward a goal of ensuring that the overshoot is only temporary, just over a decade after the warming limit was agreed to in the Paris Agreement at COP21.
On Wednesday, Guterres emphasized that the failure to avoid passing the 1.5°C limit comes as planet-warming emissions from the oil, gas, and coal industries have continued climbing—and as already wealthy companies' profits have soared.
Meanwhile, those same companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying in an effort to delay a transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources.
“The brutal truth is that the climate crisis is outrunning us," said Guterres Wednesday. "Emissions in 2025 reached all-time highs. Heat records keep shattering."
“Fossil fuels must go the way of the dinosaurs," he added. "And that won’t happen on its own. The dinosaurs did not have a lobby. Fossil fuels do. And their strategy is simple: Distort the science. Delay policy. Delay action. Delay accountability.”
Guterres called on governments to tax oil and gas companies' windfall profits, like those the industry has reported since US President Donald Trump joined Israel in launching an illegal war in Iran. Since the conflict began in February, global energy prices have soared.
Last month, ExxonMobil reported $17.5 billion in adjusted earnings for the third quarter of 2026, while Chevron reported $10.4 billion. British company Shell earned $10.8 billion from July-September, and the French firm TotalEnergies brought in $9.1 billion.
The companies have reaped profits while the global Loss and Damage Fund, which experts and developing countries say needs about $400 billion annually from wealthier governments in order to help poorer countries adapt to emergency and repair damages, is woefully underfunded.
“Those who profit most from fossil fuels must help foot the bill for the damage they have caused," said Guterres. "In the last quarter alone, the nine largest oil companies pocketed $95 billion in profits. Meanwhile, the Loss and Damage Fund has received around $600 million. That is what these companies made in about 14 hours. It’s time for governments to tax these windfall profits—and use them to help vulnerable countries recover. Polluters must pay.”
David Tong, industry campaign manager for the global group Oil Change International (OCI), said in a statement that "trusting big oil to solve the climate crisis is like trusting big tobacco to cure lung cancer."
"Fossil fuel companies actively undermine a renewable energy future while trying to wring as much profits as possible out of fossil fuels while cashing in on conflict," said Tong. "It’s time to tax fossil fuel companies’ superprofits to pay for a transition to publicly owned renewable energy, governments must cut ties with fossil fuel companies and limit their influence on politics, and we must hold polluters accountable—legally and otherwise—for the damages they cause.”
OCI noted that Guterres' speech came shortly after YouGov released new polling that showed significant support in countries with large fossil fuel industries—the US, the UK, and France—for laws to phase out oil, gas, and coal production.
The climate action group 350.org said world leaders at COP31 must "turn growing international support for moving away from fossil fuels into a clear commitment at COP31."
Türkiye and Australia, which is serving as co-president of COP31, "will be to blame if this opportunity is allowed to slip away," said 350.org.
On Tuesday, said the group, attendees took part in "high-level events on roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels," which "saw strong support from countries across negotiating blocs, alongside UN Secretary-General António Guterres, former COP presidents and ministers, for continuing the initiative launched by Brazil's COP30 Presidency in Belém last year."
"While Türkiye indicated it was open to considering the initiative, Australia offered no clear pathway for taking it forward," the organization continued.
Fenton Lutunatabua, Pacific and Caribbean program manager at 350.org, said that "the political mandate for a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels is there."
"The world cannot afford another COP where governments acknowledge the need to move beyond fossil fuels but fail to agree on how to make it happen," said Lutunatabua. “If Australia is unwilling to advance this agenda, Türkiye must lead rather than allow one of the world's most fossil-fuel-dependent governments to hold back progress. The political support is there. What is missing is the leadership to turn it into action.”
This year's UN conference marks the second consecutive year without an official delegation from the US, the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, as Trump has refused to participate.
French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi are also skipping the summit, leaving UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham the only G7 leader attending.
“It really is a disgrace,” Mohamed Adow, the director of Power Shift Africa, told The New York Times of the absences. “The world’s biggest economies should be leading the response to the climate crisis, not leaving it to others.”
But Guterres stressed that despite the absence of leadership from the world's wealthiest economies, "science is not telling us to surrender. It is telling us to fight harder.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawmakers Report That Some Democrats Missed Hegseth Impeachment Vote to Attend Event for ‘AIPAC Front Group’
The event was hosted by the group Elect Democratic Women, which funneled nearly $2.4 million from AIPAC into congressional races this cycle.
Nov 11, 2026
Some of the 11 Democrats who missed Tuesday’s vote to advance the impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were reportedly attending an event hosted by a “front group” for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly known as AIPAC.
The vote, which would have prevented Republicans from killing efforts to impeach Hegseth over his launching of an unauthorized war against Iran, extrajudicial killings of sailors in the Caribbean and Pacific, kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and other actions, fell short by just seven votes.
The absent Democrats—Reps. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.), Lou Correa (D-Calif.), Laura Gillen (D-NY), Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.), Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.), and Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.)—could have changed the outcome.
Andrew Solender, a congressional reporter for Axios, shed new light on why some of them may have missed the crucial vote.
Citing several lawmakers, he posted on social media:
Some of the House Democrats who missed the Hegseth impeachment vote were on their way back from an Elect Democratic Women event at a venue about 1.5 miles down Pennsylvania Avenue but got caught in a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam on Independence Avenue (the road on the House side of the Capitol complex).
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim noted that EDW was one of many groups that served as a "pass-through" for AIPAC funds in Democratic primaries during the 2026 election cycle.
As The Lever reported last month, AIPAC's super political action committee (PAC), the United Democracy Project, donated nearly $2.4 million to the group's political arm, EDW Action, while Democratic Majority for Israel donated another $140,000. Those funds made up nearly half the money the group subsequently spent in elections during the 2026 cycle, including against Democratic primary candidates critical of Israel, such as Reps.-elect Melat Kiros (D-Colo.) and Amish Shah (D-Ariz.).
EDW, which was founded in 2018 but did not start receiving AIPAC dollars through its action fund until 2024, was one of several innocuous-sounding groups—with names like "Affordable Chicago Now" and "BOLD America"—that acted as conduits for AIPAC dollars as the group's support came to be viewed as toxic among Democratic voters who were outraged by Israel's genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and push for Trump to launch a war with Iran.
Drop Site's congressional reporter Julian Andreone found that all eight of the women who missed the vote have some connection to EDW: Brownley is listed as a founding member and current executive board member, while Stansbury has been an at-large board member since 2025. Gillen is listed as a "frontline member" supported by the group.
The group provided support to Wilson, Stevens, Strickland, and Pettersen during the past election cycle. Pelosi, who has helped EDW raise money for years, missed Tuesday's impeachment vote because she was attending a veterans event in San Francisco.
According to an online post, EDW was holding a "new member reception" from 4:30 to 6:30 ET Tuesday at The Roost food hall at 1401 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, during the impeachment vote, which was scheduled for 5:30 ET.
Solender did not clarify which Democrats missed the vote because of their attendance at the EDW event. But at least five members have blamed traffic for their absence: Gillen, Jackson, Stansbury, Strickland, and Pettersen.
Jackson said, “A traffic incident and a police-escorted bus caused a delay.” He and Stansbury entered statements in the Congressional Record opposing the referral motion after arriving too late to vote. Strickland also blamed a motorcade for her absence, with her chief of staff saying she missed the vote by just one minute; she said she also would have voted to advance the impeachment effort.
A spokesperson for Pettersen accused Republicans of having "cynically closed the vote early" when several Democratic members were stuck in traffic. In a statement posted to social media, Brownley said she and her colleagues were "rushing to the floor" when House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) closed the vote.
Correa has said he missed the vote due to a medical procedure in California. Horsford's office said he missed the vote due to an unspecified "personal emergency."
As of Wednesday morning, Stevens and Wilson had not provided an explanation for why they missed the vote.
Reports that members of Congress were attending an event hosted by a group linked to AIPAC—which has cheered President Donald Trump's attack on Iran—immediately fueled speculation that their absences from the vote may not have been entirely accidental.
Journalist and AIPAC critic Adam Johnson mocked their explanations in a post on social media: "'I was stuck in traffic after attending an event for an AIPAC front group so I couldn’t (accidentally, and in good faith) vote to impeach the person prosecuting the war AIPAC enthusiastically supports,'” he wrote. "OK. If you say so."
The lawmakers who said they missed the vote due to traffic have not responded to questions from Common Dreams regarding whether they were returning from EDW’s event when the vote took place.
Common Dreams has also asked other members who have not explained their absences why they missed the vote. Those lawmakers have also not responded to the requests for comment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In New Poll, Over 80% of MoveOn Members Say They Oppose Schumer for Senate Majority Leader
"Our members are tired of politicians content with incrementalism—they want bold, creative leadership."
Nov 11, 2026
A survey of progressive activists released on Wednesday shows an overwhelming demand for new leadership among Democrats in the US Senate.
The poll, which was conducted by MoveOn Civic Action, finds that 82% of MoveOn members who took part in the survey do not support Schumer becoming Senate majority leader next year when Democrats assume control of both chambers of the US Congress. MoveOn said it received more than 10,000 responses to the member poll.
MoveOn members also overwhelmingly say the new Senate leader should "use all their power" to reverse Republicans policies, and they list ending President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, overturning his tariffs, and repealing cuts to federal healthcare programs as their biggest priorities.
"Our members are tired of politicians content with incrementalism—they want bold, creative leadership that will help Democrats usher in affordability and accountability without delay or compromise in the next Congress," said Joel Payne, executive director of MoveOn. "We welcome and will support any potential Senate leader willing to meet the moment."
The MoveOn poll is the second survey released in the last week showing progressives overwhelmingly want an alternative to Schumer as Senate majority leader.
A poll of over 4,300 progressive activists released by Our Revolution on Monday found that 72% of respondents want a different leader than Schumer, compared to just 5% who say they support him, and 22% who say they’re willing to see what he delivers.
So far, no other Democrats have stepped forward to officially challenge either Schumer or Jeffries. According to a Monday report in Punchbowl News, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is open to challenging Schumer for Senate leadership after having "received an outpouring of calls" urging him to do so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not in the US Interest': Van Hollen Leads Effort to Prevent Deeper Integration With Israeli Military
"Should these provisions be enacted, it would further increase Israel’s leverage over the United States through some of the most sensitive technologies in warfare."
Nov 11, 2026
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who is considering a bid for Senate majority leader against Sen. Chuck Schumer, led a group of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday in demanding that congressional leaders scrap a bipartisan effort to more closely integrate the American and Israeli militaries, warning the initiative would threaten US national security and risk further complicity in Israeli atrocities.
In a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, Van Hollen (D-Md.) and 11 other members of the Senate Democratic caucus demanded exclusion of three specific provisions from the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), warning they would "constrain the administration’s ability to independently determine how best to protect US national security and would lock in long-term commitments despite our serious concerns with the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region." Schumer did not sign the new letter.
Two of the provisions raised in the letter—Section 1217 of the Senate-passed NDAA and Section 219 of the House version of the bill—would establish a "United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative" aimed at accelerating "bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, coordination, and industrial cooperation."
Lawmakers from both chambers must reconcile the differences between the House and Senate NDAAs before final passage, creating another opportunity for opponents of US-Israel military integration to strip out the provisions.
The senators warned in their Tuesday letter that the "agreements and projects these provisions envision threaten U.S. national security interests by handing Israel leverage over American weapons systems and military technology."
"Should these provisions be enacted, it would further increase Israel’s leverage over the United States through some of the most sensitive technologies in warfare. That is not in the US interest," the lawmakers wrote. "If enacted, these agreements would create long-term dependencies by embedding Israeli technology into the US defense industrial base that could make future policy changes costly or difficult to implement."
"We do not share, let alone co-produce, many of these sensitive technologies even with our closest partners, including NATO or other treaty allies," they added. "To do so in this instance would be unwise, especially as the government of Israel continues to pursue policies in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region that are inconsistent with US interests and values."
The lawmakers also warned against passage of Section 618 of the Fiscal Year 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA), which would require the executive branch to "expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the government of Israel." The IAA is usually included in the NDAA.
"The provision would tie the president’s hands from limiting intelligence sharing with Israel, even when doing so may be necessary to protect US national security," the senators wrote. "That would be irresponsible and especially troubling given public reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency recently raised the counterintelligence threat from Israel to its highest level."
"I am pushing every Democrat and our leadership to get Section 219 out of our defense bill."
The senators' letter came a week after President Donald Trump declared on the day of the midterm elections that he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement to end the roughly $4 billion in military assistance that the US provides to Israel each year.
"This is where Section 219 of the NDAA comes in," Drop Site reporter Julian Andreone wrote in response to the president's announcement, referring to the military integration provision. "They’re going to transfer all of the aid behind closed doors and cut it from the appropriations process."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) argued in a social media post earlier this week that removal of the military integration language from the NDAA "needs to be a top priority" in the lame-duck session of Congress.
"I am pushing every Democrat and our leadership to get Section 219 out of our defense bill," Khanna said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heartless and Cruel': New Trump Rule Would Take Food Aid From More Than 6 Million People
"The Trump administration is doubling down on making it harder for people to feed their families, after already enacting the deepest cuts to SNAP in history."
Nov 11, 2026
The Trump administration on Tuesday rolled out a proposed rule that would further restrict access to the United States' largest and most effective anti-hunger program, taking benefits from more than 6 million people—including many children—as grocery prices continue to rise and food bank demand surges nationwide.
The US Department of Agriculture's proposal, published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, targets a policy known as broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), which allows states to deem recipients of other federal benefits eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Experts say the policy reduces administrative burdens for states and individuals by streamlining the SNAP application process.
Under the new rule, households with annual gross incomes above 130 percent of the poverty line—roughly $35,500 per year for a family of three—would lose SNAP benefits, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal think tank.
"In the midterm elections, the public indicated they want their elected officials to focus on making life affordable. Yet the Trump administration is doubling down on making it harder for people to feed their families, after already enacting the deepest cuts to SNAP in history," said Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at CBPP. "These attacks are part of the administration’s broader policy agenda that has raised costs and made it harder for working families to afford their basic needs, all to partially pay for trillions of dollars in tax cuts heavily weighted to the wealthy and fund its extreme and aggressive immigration detention apparatus."
According to the Trump administration's own analysis, the proposed rule would strip SNAP benefits from 3.2 million households—or around 6.3 million individuals—in fiscal year 2029, the first year the rule would take full effect. The USDA's proposal is open to public comment for just 30 days.
The Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) warned in a statement Tuesday that the impact of the rule "could be far worse" than the administration's projection, pointing to the disastrous and ongoing effects of SNAP cuts enacted under the 2025 Trump-GOP budget law. An estimated 5.5 million people—including roughly 1.5 million children—have lost SNAP benefits since the budget law's enactment, an outcome that Trump administration officials have celebrated.
Condemning the new proposal as "unconscionable," FRAC warned the rule's impacts would extend beyond the SNAP program, including by reducing access to free school meals, "making children hungry at home and at school."
"Children who lose SNAP are no longer automatically eligible for free school meals. Some would no longer be eligible for free school meals; others would be at risk of falling through the cracks when they go through the school meal application process," the group said. "The proposed rule would also negatively affect babies and toddlers, and pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding parents who are automatically income eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), because they participate in SNAP. This rule would make it more difficult for households that lose SNAP to apply for WIC. Losing both SNAP and WIC would harm hundreds of thousands of infants and young children during their initial stages of development."
BBCE has long been a target of right-wing policy architects and Republican lawmakers. Project 2025, the policy blueprint released by the conservative Heritage Foundation, called for reforming the policy.
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, condemned the USDA's proposal as "heartless and cruel," warning it would make it harder for families "to meet basic needs" and undercut states' efforts to "streamline federal programs."
"SNAP is a highly effective and efficient program when it is allowed to work as designed," said Craig. "Unfortunately, the Trump administration and the outgoing Republican majority in Congress have undermined the program’s integrity at every turn, harming millions of vulnerable Americans in the process."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jeffries Dragged for 'Serious Leadership Problem' as Hegseth Impeachment Bid Falls 7 Votes Short With 11 Dem No-Shows
"Jeffries didn't even whip the vote," one critic said about the House minority leader, who wants to be speaker. "This is why people want a stronger leader."
Nov 10, 2026
As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries seeks to become speaker when Democrats retake Congress in January, critics questioned his leadership Tuesday after the Republican-led lower chamber effectively blocked a bid to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth by just seven votes—an outcome that may have been averted if more Democrats showed up to vote.
The 211-204 procedural vote effectively torpedoed Congressman Thomas Massie's attempt to impeach Hegseth by sending the outgoing Kentucky Republican's resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will likely gather dust during the remainder of the GOP-controlled congressional term.
The resolution seeks to impeach Hegseth for his role in waging President Donald Trump's war on Iran in contravention of the War Powers Act and apparent war crimes committed by US forces in the conflict, including the February massacre of 156 people, at least 120 of them children, in a missile strike on an elementary school in the southern city of Minab.
Massie's resolution also accuses Hegseth of "extrajudicial killings of at least 221 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters" as part of Trump's boat-bombing spree; the invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife; waging an illegal war on Yemen that has killed hundreds of civilians; and suppressing free speech at the Pentagon.
The 11 Democrats who were not present for the vote are: Julia Brownley (Calif.), Lou Correa (Calif.), Laura Gillen (NY), Steven Horsford (Nev.), Jonathan Jackson (Ill.), Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Brittany Pettersen (Colo.), Melanie Stansbury (NM), Haley Stevens (Mich.), Marilyn Strickland (Wash.), and Frederica Wilson (Fla.). Correa is recovering from an undisclosed medical procedure and cannot travel.
Seven Republicans also did not vote. Observers noted there was a chance for Democrats to keep Massie's impeachment bid alive if more of them attended the session and voted.
Jeffries (D-NY)—who backs impeaching Hegseth—"didn’t think it was important to make sure 11 Democrats didn’t skip the Hegseth impeachment vote," author Jared Yates Sexton wrote on Bluesky.
Migrant Insider editor Pablo Manríquez accused Democrats of having "a serious leadership problem."
Zeteo reporter Prem Thakker wrote on social media that Jeffries "is arguing that he should be the leader of the Democrats—and then, as the current leader, he couldn’t get enough Democrats to show up to impeach Pete Hegseth."
On Tuesday morning, Hegseth brushed off the impeachment attempt as a "farce" and "political spectacle."
"None of these are high crimes or misdemeanors," he said of the allegations against him. "They're partisan policy disagreements from people who want to politicize our military."
Hegseth also said he "stand[s] behind every one of" the massacres and killings listed in the resolution, and that he "was proud to execute them, and... would do it again tomorrow.”
Asked by Politico's Riley Rogerson about the 11 Democrats' absence, Jeffries said: "I haven't had a conversation with anyone on the floor team about what may or may not have happened in terms of the Hegseth resolution, but this is not the end of it. It's just the beginning."
While numerous Democrats said they would renew efforts to impeach Hegseth once they're in control of Congress, many observers pointed to Tuesday's vote as further evidence that new party leadership is needed.
"Jeffries didn’t even whip the vote. He told people to 'vote their conscience,' and 11 members of his caucus didn’t show up," writer Laura Bassett wrote on social media. "This is why people want a stronger leader."
Similar sentiment is dogging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), whose bid to become majority leader is opposed by a growing number of his colleagues. On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who asserted that the midterm election "was about change," and that "people want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
World's Richest Person Elon Musk Seeks Corporate Welfare for Texas Data Center
"I hate the way they are taking advantage of Texas, and that stops when I'm governor," Democratic Texas Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa said of AI companies' proliferating data centers.
Nov 10, 2026
Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest person, is seeking a property tax break for a proposed $24 billion SpaceX data center and gas-fired power plant in South Texas, where residents are mobilizing against the multicentibillionaire's expanding industrial footprint.
Politico reported Tuesday that commissioners in the border town of Starbase—which has around 500 residents and was incorporated in 2021 via a petition from SpaceX employees—is set to consider a proposed property tax abatement and economic development agreement for the company's facilities during a December 9 meeting. Two of the town's three commissioners are also SpaceX employees.
The data center and power plant project would occupy more than 400 acres near the Port of Brownsville, on land that the city of Brownsville agreed to de-annex in August at SpaceX's request.
In that deal, Brownsville agreed to remove 444.45 acres from its jurisdiction in exchange for SpaceX contributing up to $220 million toward regional water and wastewater infrastructure. The deal includes an initial $40 million payment and six subsequent quarterly payouts of $30 million.
Disannexation became a critical issue following Brownsville commissioners' unanimous vote last week in favor of a 90-day moratorium on permits for data center construction.
According to KRGV, SpaceX vice president Sheila McCorkle told Brownsville's six commissioners the company wanted the land removed from the city's jurisdiction to allow infrastructure development "quicker and more economically" than if it remained part of Brownsville. McCorkle also touted the move as an opportunity to boost growth and help the water supply in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, a semi-arid region suffering a severe water crisis.
That crisis is largely due to overconsumption of water—a resource data centers require in massive quantities. SpaceX has projected that its Starbase operations will eventually require approximately 2 million gallons of water per day.
Many local residents oppose both the proposed tax break and the data center/power plant project.
"Please pass a full 180-day data center moratorium. And please remember that this is supposed to be a community-led environmental task force," South Texas Environmental Justice Center co-founder Bekah Hinojosa told commissioners during a November 4 Brownsville City Commission meeting.
"You need to make sure that you're taking every possible step to ensure meaningful public input throughout this data center moratorium," she continued. "We don't know what SpaceX is building on the 444 acres. It's frankly terrifying."
Attorney Jacqueline Morales told the commissioners: "The moratorium will not make us forget that you de-annexed 444 acres of land to SpaceX, which is now building a data center. This community has been sounding the alarm for months, only for this commission to ignore us and pretend like it knows better."
"You either work to protect residents of Brownsville or you don't," Morales added. "There is no middle ground here."
The Brownsville dispute is part of the nationwide backlash against data centers, which consume enormous quantities of electricity and water while frequently seeking taxpayer-funded incentives.
Musk has met similar resistance in Louisiana, where Republican Gov. Jeff Landry's administration has offered SpaceX an estimated $27.5 billion incentive package to construct a massive launch facility on 125,000 acres of coastal land in Vermilion Parish. According to the Louisiana Illuminator, nearly $24 billion of the package consists of a 25-year property tax exemption.
The proposed deal has outraged many local residents, more than 1,000 of whom submitted comments to the Federal Aviation Administration expressing concerns about the project's environmental consequences, including damage to fragile wetlands, wildlife habitats, and the rapidly eroding Louisiana coastline.
"I'm not anti-SpaceX," small farmer Karol Bourque told The Current in September. "It's all the secrecy, the NDAs, the laws protecting all these powerful people and companies."
Ironically, Musk relocated SpaceX and other companies from California to Texas in recent years, seeking lower taxes and less regulation. During the 2026 midterm election cycle, he reportedly spent around $224 million supporting Texas Republican candidates and political committees, including Ken Paxton for the US Senate and Greg Abbott for governor.
Both lost amid Democrats' historic "blue tsunami." Democratic Sen.-elect James Talarico has explicitly targeted Musk's extreme wealth.
"We should tax trillionaires out of existence," he declared last year, warning that "the reason poverty exists in the wealthiest country on earth isn't because we can't feed the poor—it's because we can't satisfy the rich."
Abbott was beaten by Democrat Gina Hinojosa, who has called for a moratorium on new data center approvals and has pledged to end the enormous tax giveaways offered to the artificial intelligence industry.
"When I am governor I will issue a moratorium—a ban—on all data center approvals until laws can be passed by the Legislature to protect Texans," Hinojosa said in October.
She also pledged to end the enormous tax giveaways offered to the artificial intelligence industry.
"It is not that I hate data centers. I hate the way they are taking advantage of Texas, and that stops when I'm governor," she said.
Democrats also won control of the Texas House of Representatives. But even before the "blue tsunami," momentum was building in Austin to reverse the state’s formerly welcoming approach to AI data centers. Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike have signaled support for rolling back tax breaks for the industry in the upcoming legislative session. Monday marked the opening of the bill-filing period ahead of the session, which is scheduled to begin on January 12.
Among the proposals, state Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-21) introduced legislation barring counties and other local governments from granting property tax abatements to data center operators. Two additional bills filed in the Texas House would eliminate sales tax exemptions on electricity consumed by data centers and restrict counties’ ability to enter into nondisclosure agreements with the companies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Your Victory Is Fleeting': After California Measure Falls Short, Sanders Threatens Billionaires With Federal Wealth Tax
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," said economist Gabriel Zucman, who led the charge for California's failed proposal.
Nov 10, 2026
California's wealth tax proposal has fallen just short after the state's richest residents spent hundreds of millions of dollars to mobilize voters against it. But Sen. Bernie Sanders is warning them not to get too comfortable.
Sanders (I-Vt.) argued that Proposition 40, which would have used revenue from a one-time 5% tax on billionaire residents to fund the state’s healthcare system, performed quite well given the resources that powerful tech barons like Google co-founder Sergey Brin and its former CEO Eric Schmidt deployed to fight it.
"Oligarchs spent $425 million against California's billionaire wealth tax—outraising supporters 250 to 1 on ads," Sanders wrote on social media. "The result: They got a 'whopping' 52% [of the vote]."
"I've got bad news for these oligarchs," Sanders continued. "Your victory is fleeting. We will pass a federal billionaire wealth tax and end your greed."
Many of the wealthiest Americans pay lower effective tax rates than ordinary workers because much of their wealth is held in stocks, whose gains are generally untaxed until sold—and can be taxed at lower rates than wages when realized.
Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans support a federal tax on the wealth of the superrich—including most Republicans.
One February poll by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation found that 80% of Americans, including 72% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats, supported the idea of a federal tax of 2% on fortunes over $50 million and a 3% tax on those over $1 billion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has called for a wealth tax for years and made it central to her 2020 presidential bid, has argued that "the best way to do a wealth tax is to do a national wealth tax."
In January, she told The New Republic that a federal proposal would avoid some of the pitfalls the rich used to fearmonger about California’s proposal, such as the possibility of simply fleeing across state lines to avoid paying it.
Escaping a national tax, she said, would mean having to “give up your US citizenship, and forfeit your passport.”
French economist Gabriel Zucman, who helped lead the push for California’s ballot measure, said he was “not surprised” by its defeat.
"The money spent by the billionaires was critical," he told NPR. "Anyone who lives in California has been carpet-bombed by a deluge of ads. One can easily see how this could be pivotal in such a closely contested ballot."
But he said that last week's midterm elections, which saw Democrats swept into power on a wave of anti-billionaire anger, showed that the fight over a wealth tax was not something that could easily be ignored.
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," Zucman said. "Many of the newly elected Democratic senators have been campaigning on curbing the power and influence of billionaires. One can reasonably expect to see significant progress in the next two years."
Sanders, who introduced a 5% annual wealth tax on those worth $1 billion or more with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, renewed his call to pass the bill after the elections.
Another proposal, which would impose an annual 2% tax on net worth above $50 million, increasing to 3% on wealth above $1 billion, has gained the support of 63 Democrats, including Warren, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Van Hollen, who has suggested he may challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to become Senate majority leader when Democrats retake the chamber, told Politico last week that he thinks there’s “growing support” in the Democratic caucus for a tax on the ultrarich.
“People are recognizing that we have a tax system that allows individuals to accumulate huge amounts of wealth," he said.
“It is essential that we show the American people where we stand,” Van Hollen added. “If [President Donald Trump] vetoes it, it will just show people that he’s on the side of billionaires.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
For Backstabbing El-Sayed, Progressives in Michigan Demand ‘Capricious’ Haley Stevens Be Expelled From Democratic Party
"As a constituent of Haley Stevens, I am appalled that she’s left residents of the 11th Congressional District high and dry."
Nov 10, 2026
Progressives are demanding that Rep. Haley Stevens be expelled from the Democratic Party over the Michigan Democrat's last-minute decision to rescind her endorsement of Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed.
Just two days before the 2026 midterm elections, Stevens announced that she was supporting Republican Mike Rogers in the US Senate race in Michigan, despite pledging to back El-Sayed after he defeated her in the state's Democratic primary months earlier.
Stevens' surprise endorsement of Rogers led to a mass staff exodus, including her longtime chief of staff. Politico reported that Stevens had been spotted in the Republicans' cloakroom in the US House of Representatives on Monday, and her office door was locked throughout the day.
Levi Teitel, communications director of Progress Michigan, said Stevens' actions merited her being forced out of the Democratic Party.
"As a constituent of Haley Stevens, I am appalled that she’s left residents of the 11th Congressional District high and dry," said Teitel. "Her capriciousness is what’s led to this: flipping to Rogers just two days before polls opened on Election Day without thinking through how she would be able to represent her constituents in her last few weeks in office."
Stevens is still representing her district until January 3, 2027, when Rep.-elect Jeremy Moss (D-Mich.) is slated to take over.
Regardless, Teitel said Stevens' actions are "nothing short of a dereliction of duty," adding that House Democrats "have a responsibility to hold Rep. Stevens accountable and expel her from the caucus."
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is also leaving Congress next year after a 40-year career, cautioned her party against expelling Stevens while speaking with reporters on Tuesday.
"We have about... two more weeks of being in the Congress," said Pelosi, "so I don’t think we should start making judgments about anybody in the caucus at this point."
Nancy Pelosi on Kicking Haley Stevens Out of the Caucus:We have a few more weeks of being in Congress, so I don’t think we should start making judgments about anybody in the caucus at this point.I was disappointed. I conveyed that to her. I want to be helpful to her in terms of how she deals with this, but I’m not supporting kicking her out.Let’s focus on the very positive
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2026
The California Democrat added that she was "disappointed" in Stevens for endorsing Rogers, but emphasized that she's "not supporting kicking her out of the caucus."
Critics of Pelosi, however, found her position unconvincing and a testament to the failure of Establishment wing of the party that has long been hostile to progressives and accommodating to figures like Stevens.
“Pelosi refusing to kick Haley Stevens out of the caucus because ‘there’s only a few weeks left’ is everything people hate about DC,” said journalist Saad Abedine, in response to the former speaker’s remarks. “Zero accountability, total protection for insiders, and a smile telling us to ‘focus on the positive.’ Utterly absurd.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congressman-Elect Don Leonard Says House Members Warned of ‘Living Hell’ If He Doesn’t Back Jeffries
“The ‘big-D’ Democratic Party needs some ‘little-D’ democracy,” said Rep.-elect Don Leonard, who conditioned his support for Jeffries on efforts to end the Iran War, cut off support for Israel, and end Citizens United.
Nov 10, 2026
Rep.-elect Don Leonard of Ohio said Tuesday that “senior members of the Democratic House” have threatened to make his life “a living hell” unless he backs, without conditions, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to be the next Speaker of the House.
Leonard, who flipped Ohio's heavily Republican 15th Congressional District blue last Tuesday, said he told senior party leaders that, to win his support, Jeffries would have to meet with him and his constituents to discuss two priorities. One was a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling that struck down restrictions on independent election spending by corporations and unions. The other was ending “US support for the war in Iran and the country, Israel, that led us into it.”
In a video covered by Drop Site News, Leonard said the unnamed party leaders he met with responded with threats that felt like “the stuff you see in the movies.”
Leonard explained how the Democrats told him “in no uncertain terms” that unless he supported Jeffries “regardless” of his demands, “it would basically mean both making my life a living hell for the next two years here in Washington as well as being sure to lose my election in two years.”
Leonard said he had expected to face this kind of pressure once he took office and that support from fellow Democrats might dry up if he refused to “wear the team jersey and be a good team player.”
"We're searching our hearts tonight about how we can reach Leader Jeffries and help him be a better speaker," he said. "At the end of the day, the 'big-D' Democratic Party needs some 'little-d' democracy."
"I'm just a stubborn SOB," he said. "So we'll continue meeting with our fellow members of Congress and members-elect and try and see if we can build support for what we're trying to do here."
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) depart a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on January 8, 2026. (Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
Unlike in the US Senate, where a potential leadership challenge is simmering, no House Democrat has stepped forward to take on Jeffries, who has led the caucus since succeeding former Speaker Nancy Pelosi in early 2023.
But Democratic leaders seem wary of a growing grassroots rebellion against Jeffries’ leadership. Axios reported Friday that House Democrats had been “inundated” with calls and emails urging them to oppose Jeffries’ bid for speaker.
One unnamed senior House Democrat reported receiving over 500 calls in two days. A Democratic chief of staff, also unnamed, said their office had received around 300 calls, many urging support for Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who has shown no public interest in running for speaker.
"Democrats in both chambers can't go back to business-as-usual politics," said Ezra Levin, the leader of Indivisible—a progressive advocacy group—that has called for Democrats to choose a new speaker. "People want leadership that's ready to join the rest of us in this new era of politics."
In the Senate, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is considering a challenge to Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader. Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) has said he would back Van Hollen if he runs, and several other incoming Democrats have declined to endorse Schumer.
Opponents of Schumer argue that his fealty to the Democratic donor class has led to limp opposition to President Donald Trump and resistance to positions that large majorities of Democrats support, like Medicare for All, ending military aid to Israel, and bringing a swift end to the president’s war in Iran.
The grievances against Jeffries are largely the same. As Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, summed up in August, “Jeffries’ instinct is to negotiate with the Trump power structure rather than draw lines and fight it.”
Roughly 40 Democrats would need to vote for someone else in order to prevent Jeffries from taking the gavel. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a potential 2028 presidential contender who is popular with the Democratic base, told Drop Site that organizing the votes to challenge Jeffries—as Republican holdouts did when they delayed Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker in January 2023—“should be absolutely part of the conversation” among progressive Democrats.
"But you have to remember, during that time, there was a very small margin that allowed for that kind of thing to happen,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez said that without a clear alternative, there’s “no material scenario” in which Democrats could block Jeffries from becoming speaker. She added that “in a contested race [it’s] a different situation.”
In October, RedBox Research, the polling arm of the super political action committee (PAC) A Fight Worth Having, surveyed likely voters in 31 races across 11 states. In the pooled results, only 19% wanted Jeffries as speaker, while 48% wanted “someone else.” Among Democratic respondents, 39% wanted Jeffries and 38% wanted someone else.
Writing about plans for another round of polling, Corbin Trent, a co-founder of Justice Democrats who helped conduct the October surveys, noted Tuesday in an op-ed published in Common Dreams that “support for Jeffries and Schumer is still nearly non-existent, especially where seats flipped.”
“To keep the promises these candidates made, we’ll have to take on the Democratic establishment, corporate greed, and powerful institutions," he added. "People with power and money don’t want to give it up. Unless we pull it from their death grip, we won’t get this country back on the right path.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular