

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.

Mike Meno, Center for Climate Integrity, mike@climateintegrity.org
Cass DiPaola, Make Polluters Pay, cassidy@fossilfree.media
Advocates Warn that Big Oil Companies Could Revive Efforts to Escape Legal Accountability Under the Trump Administration
Amid a growing number of legal and legislative efforts to hold Big Oil companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis, a coalition of nonprofit groups are calling on Congressional Democrats to “proactively and affirmatively reject” potential efforts aimed at shielding the fossil fuel industry from legal liability.
In a letter to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, 195 groups including Earthjustice, Sunrise Movement, and the American Association of Justice, pointed to past efforts from the fossil fuel industry to secure a liability waiver from Congress, as well as statements from President Trump, as reason to anticipate a new push to immunize polluters.
“We have reason to believe that the fossil fuel industry and its allies will use the chaos and overreach of the new Trump administration to attempt yet again to pass some form of liability waiver and shield themselves from facing consequences for their decades of pollution and deception,” the groups wrote. “That effort — no matter what form it takes — must not be allowed to succeed.”
Dozens of state, municipal, and tribal governments have filed lawsuits against major oil and gas companies to hold them accountable and make them pay for deceiving the public about the dangers of fossil fuels. Several of those cases are advancing toward discovery and ultimately trial. Twice this year the U.S. Supreme Court has denied requests — most recently on Monday — aimed at shielding Big Oil companies from facing such lawsuits, even after industry allies targeted the justices with an unprecedented pressure campaign.
Separately, a growing number of state legislatures are advancing climate superfund bills that would compel major fossil fuel companies to contribute to funds supporting climate adaptation, infrastructure, and community rebuilding efforts based on their historical emissions. Vermont and New York passed first-of-their-kind climate superfund laws last year, both of which are now facing legal challenges from fossil fuel interests, and at least 10 additional states have introduced similar legislation in 2025.
The groups’ letter asks Schumer and Jeffries “to draw a line in the sand now — before fossil fuel industry allies divulge their specific plans — and unite your caucuses in firm opposition to any Congressional efforts to bail out climate polluters from facing legal and legislative consequences for their central role in the climate crisis.”
"Democrats need to be on guard so that Big Oil’s congressional allies can’t sneak immunity into a bill without it meeting fierce and vocal resistance,” said Aaron Regunberg, Director of Public Citizen’s climate accountability project. “No industry should be above the law — especially one whose criminal actions have fueled the greatest threat to human safety in history."
"Big Oil companies know they face massive liability, and we know they'll do everything they can to avoid facing the evidence of their climate deception in court,” said Richard Wiles, President of the Center for Climate Integrity. “Now that the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to bail out Big Oil, and lawsuits against the companies are getting closer to trial, members of Congress must not give the fossil fuel industry a 'get out of jail free card' for its fraudulent and destructive behavior."
“For decades, the fossil fuel industry has known the health and climate harms of its actions. Instead of addressing them, they have tried everything to insulate themselves from the catastrophes they cause,” said Earthjustice Action Vice President of Policy and Legislation Raúl García. “That’s not how fairness works, and it’s not how the law works. Just like anyone else, they need to be held accountable for the harms they perpetrate on people and communities. The last thing they deserve is a liability shield, and we urge Congress to oppose and block any effort to help these companies evade accountability for their actions.”
"The gun industry wrote this playbook years ago, and we've witnessed the tragic consequences when corporations secure legal shields from accountability. What's at stake here isn't just who pays for climate disasters – it's whether our democracy allows powerful industries to simply rewrite the rules when justice catches up to them,” said Cassidy DiPaola, Communications Director, Make Polluters Pay. “The fossil fuel industry spent decades burying climate science while their products fueled the crisis. Now that the bill is coming due, they want taxpayers to cover their tab. Lawmakers must decisively reject any attempt by the fossil fuel industry to evade accountability and ensure both justice today and the right of future generations to hold polluters responsible for decades of deception.”
"As people around the country and world suffer from record-breaking global temperatures and unprecedented extreme weather events, the science is clear that burning fossil fuels is the primary driver of dangerous and deadly climate change,” said Kathy Mulvey, Climate Accountability Campaign Director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Major oil and gas companies have understood for decades that their products could have catastrophic effects on people and the planet, yet they engaged in a long-term, deliberate disinformation campaign. Now, when there is growing momentum to make fossil fuel corporations begin to pay for the damage they have caused, policymakers must stand firm and protect their constituents against any attempts by the industry to evade accountability for its pollution, deception, and destruction."
"Working people are footing the bill for climate change. That's why a growing number of state and local governments are demanding that the oil and gas corporations that profit off causing the climate crisis — and mislead the public about it — start paying their fair share,” said Sunrise Movement Executive Director Aru Shiney-Ajay. “Congress needs to stand with working people — not Big Oil — and refuse to give immunity for oil and gas billionaires."
A copy of the letter is available here.
The 195 organizations that signed the letter are
The Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) helps cities and states across the country hold corporate polluters accountable for the massive impacts of climate change.
(919) 307-6637"The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President Trump’s largest donors,” the lawmakers wrote.
A group of 31 Democratic senators has launched an investigation into a new Trump administration policy that they say allows the Environmental Protection Agency to "disregard" the health impacts of air pollution when passing regulations.
Plans for the policy were first reported on last month by the New York Times, which revealed that the EPA was planning to stop tallying the financial value of health benefits caused by limiting fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone when regulating polluting industries and instead focus exclusively on the costs these regulations pose to industry.
On December 11, the Times reported that the policy change was being justified based on the claim that the exact benefits of curbing these emissions were “uncertain."
"Historically, the EPA’s analytical practices often provided the public with false precision and confidence regarding the monetized impacts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone," said an email written by an EPA supervisor to his employees on December 11. “To rectify this error, the EPA is no longer monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone.”
The group of senators, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), rebuked this idea in a letter sent Thursday to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
"EPA’s new policy is irrational. Even where health benefits are 'uncertain,' what is certain is that they are not zero," they said. "It will lead to perverse outcomes in which EPA will reject actions that would impose relatively minor costs on polluting industries while resulting in massive benefits to public health—including in saved lives."
"It is contrary to Congress’s intent and directive as spelled out in the Clean Air Act. It is legally flawed," they continued. "The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President [Donald] Trump’s largest donors."
Research published in 2023 in the journal Science found that between 1999 and 2020, PM2.5 pollution from coal-fired power plants killed roughly 460,000 people in the United States, making it more than twice as deadly as other kinds of fine particulate emissions.
While this is a staggering loss of life, the senators pointed out that the EPA has also been able to put a dollar value on the loss by noting quantifiable results of increased illness and death—heightened healthcare costs, missed school days, and lost labor productivity, among others.
Pointing to EPA estimates from 2024, they said that by disregarding human health effects, the agency risks costing Americans “between $22 and $46 billion in avoided morbidities and premature deaths in the year 2032."
Comparatively, they said, “the total compliance cost to industry, meanwhile, [would] be $590 million—between one and two one-hundredths of the estimated health benefit value."
They said the plan ran counter to the Clean Air Act's directive to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare,” and to statements made by Zeldin during his confirmation hearing, where he said "the end state of all the conversations that we might have, any regulations that might get passed, any laws that might get passed by Congress” is to “have the cleanest, healthiest air, [and] drinking water.”
The senators requested all documents related to the decision, including any information about cost-benefit modeling and communications with industry representatives.
"That EPA may no longer monetize health benefits when setting new clean air standards does not mean that those health benefits don’t exist," the senators said. "It just means that [EPA] will ignore them and reject safer standards, in favor of protecting corporate interests."
"An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down," wrote the New Republic's editorial director.
Democratic voters overwhelmingly want a leader who will fight the superrich and corporate America, and they believe Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the person to do it, according to a poll released this week.
While Democrats are often portrayed as squabbling and directionless, the poll conducted last month by the New Republic with Embold Research demonstrated a remarkable unity among the more than 2,400 Democratic voters it surveyed.
This was true with respect to policy: More than 9 in 10 want to raise taxes on corporations and on the wealthiest Americans, while more than three-quarters want to break up tech monopolies and believe the government should conduct stronger oversight of business.
But it was also reflected in sentiments that a more confrontational governing philosophy should prevail and general agreement that the party in its current form is not doing enough to take on its enemies.
Three-quarters said they wanted Democrats to "be more aggressive in calling out Republicans," while nearly 7 in 10 said it was appropriate to describe their party as "weak."
This appears to have translated to support for a more muscular view of government. Where the label once helped to sink Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) two runs for president, nearly three-quarters of Democrats now say they are either unconcerned with the label of "socialist" or view it as an asset.
Meanwhile, 46% said they want to see a "progressive" at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2028, higher than the number who said they wanted a "liberal" or a "moderate."
It's an environment that appears to be fertile ground for Ocasio-Cortez, who pitched her vision for a "working-class-centered politics" at this week's Munich summit in what many suspected was a soft-launch of her presidential candidacy in 2028.
With 85% favorability, Bronx congresswoman had the highest approval rating of any Democratic figure in the country among the voters surveyed.
It's a higher mark than either of the figures who head-to-head polls have shown to be presumptive favorites for the nomination: Former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Early polls show AOC lagging considerably behind these top two. However, there are signs in the New Republic's poll that may give her supporters cause for hope.
While Harris is also well-liked, 66% of Democrats surveyed said they believe she's "had her shot" at the presidency and should not run again after losing to President Donald Trump in 2024.
Newsom does not have a similar electoral history holding him back and is riding high from the passage of Proposition 50, which will allow Democrats to add potentially five more US House seats this November.
But his policy approach may prove an ill fit at a time when Democrats overwhelmingly say their party is "too timid" about taxing the rich and corporations and taking on tech oligarchs.
As labor unions in California have pushed for a popular proposal to introduce a billionaire's tax, Newsom has made himself the chiseled face of the resistance to this idea, joining with right-wing Silicon Valley barons in an aggressive campaign to kill it.
While polls can tell us little two years out about what voters will do in 2028, New Republic editorial director Emily Cooke said her magazine's survey shows an unmistakable pattern.
"It’s impossible to come away from these results without concluding that economic populism is a winning message for loyal Democrats," she wrote. "This was true across those who identify as liberals, moderates, or progressives: An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down."
In some cases, the administration has kept immigrants locked up even after a judge has ordered their release, according to an investigation by Reuters.
Judges across the country have ruled more than 4,400 times since the start of October that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has illegally detained immigrants, according to a Reuters investigation published Saturday.
As President Donald Trump carries out his unprecedented "mass deportation" crusade, the number of people in ICE custody ballooned to 68,000 this month, up 75% from when he took office.
Midway through 2025, the administration had begun pushing for a daily quota of 3,000 arrests per day, with the goal of reaching 1 million per year. This has led to the targeting of mostly people with no criminal records rather than the "worst of the worst," as the administration often claims.
Reuters' reporting suggests chasing this number has also resulted in a staggering number of arrests that judges have later found to be illegal.
Since the beginning of Trump's term, immigrants have filed more than 20,200 habeas corpus petitions, claiming they were held indefinitely without trial in violation of the Constitution.
In at least 4,421 cases, more than 400 federal judges have ruled that their detentions were illegal.
Last month, more than 6,000 habeas petitions were filed. Prior to the second Trump administration, no other month dating back to 2010 had seen even 500.

In part due to the sheer volume of legal challenges, the Trump administration has often failed to comply with court rulings, leaving people locked up even after judges ordered them to be released.
Reuters' new report is the most comprehensive examination to date of the administration's routine violation of the law with respect to immigration enforcement. But the extent to which federal immigration agencies have violated the law under Trump is hardly new information.
In a ruling last month, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the US District Court in Minnesota—a conservative jurist appointed by former President George W. Bush—provided a list of nearly 100 court orders ICE had violated just that month while deployed as part of Trump's Operation Metro Surge.
The report of ICE's systemic violation of the law comes as the agency faces heightened scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with leaders of the agency called to testify and Democrats attempting to hold up funding in order to force reforms to ICE's conduct, which resulted in a partial shutdown beginning Saturday.
Following the release of Reuters' report, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) directed a pointed question over social media to Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE.
"Why do your out-of-control agents keep violating federal law?" he said. "I look forward to seeing you testify under oath at the House Judiciary Committee in early March."