

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.

Ginny Cleaveland, Deputy Press Secretary, Fossil-Free Finance, Sierra Club, ginny.cleaveland@sierraclub.org,
30 largest asset managers in Europe, US do not have sufficient policies to engage with companies
Thirty of the largest asset managers in Europe and the US do not have sufficiently robust policies to encourage the companies in their portfolios to stop developing new fossil fuel projects. These are the findings of the 2023 analysis of asset managers’ climate action, published by Reclaim Finance, ReCommon, Sierra Club, The Sunrise Project and Urgewald (1).
Using previously unpublished data, the 5 NGOs demonstrate that asset managers are breaching their climate commitments through their investments, particularly by purchasing bonds that have been issued recently by some of the biggest fossil fuel developers. The NGOs are urging the institutional clients of these asset managers, which include pension funds, to demand they urgently strengthen their policies.
For the third year, this report analyses the action taken by the 25 largest European and 5 largest American asset managers (2) to end support for oil and gas expansion, an essential first step for achieving international climate targets. This year, asset managers were assessed on three main indicators:
"Asset managers continue to add fuel to the fire by buying the bonds from the worst fossil fuel polluters. Their policies are an inadequate response to the climate emergency. They should listen to the science and sanction companies that refuse to stop their devastating fossil fuel expansion plans. It is time for asset managers’ clients to challenge them on this issue and ask them to put in place robust policies to stop this scourge," said Lara Cuvelier, sustainable investment campaigner at Reclaim Finance.
The parent groups of the 30 asset managers have invested US$3.5 billion in bonds issued in the last 18 months by some 40 companies actively involved in fossil fuel expansion (4). At least 21 of the 30 asset managers were found to have invested in the latest bond issued by TotalEnergies, the world's 7th largest developer of new oil and gas supply projects, including the EACOP project (5). These figures are an underestimate because bond markets are notably opaque and investors seldom publish details of these transactions. This lack of transparency is even more problematic given that fossil fuel developers are increasingly seeking finance through the bond market (6).
Asset managers are able to invest in these bonds because of inadequate sectoral policies. The report reveals that while 4 asset managers have committed to stop purchasing new bonds from all companies developing coal projects (7), none have stopped new bond purchases from oil and gas developers. Just one asset manager, Ostrum AM (8), asks oil and gas companies to halt their expansion plans. None have systematic sanctions in place to encourage oil and gas developers to change, either through votes or investment restrictions.
"We need to pay more attention to the bond market when we think about how oil companies like BP and TotalEnergies raise capital for their devastating climate projects. Asset managers have enormous power through their bond purchases and it's time to ask them to flex their muscles and stop this flow of money to fossil fuel developers. There is a lack of transparency in these markets but it is crucial to shed light on this hidden support," said Cuvelier.
The US asset manager Vanguard has the highest level of investments in these new fossil fuel bonds internationally, holding at least US$1.2 billion in bonds recently issued by 19 major fossil fuel developers, including by ConocoPhillips, the company behind the oil drilling Willow project (9). The German group Allianz, parent company of PIMCO and Allianz GI, and the French group BPCE, parent company of Natixis IM, are the biggest European investors. They hold respectively at least US$193 million and US$122 million in bonds recently issued by major fossil fuel developers (10).
Reclaim Finance and its partners are calling on asset managers to stop buying bonds issued by companies developing new coal, oil and gas projects, and at the very least to vote against the management of these companies at forthcoming annual general meetings. These conclusions should also be a wake-up call for these asset managers’ clients. The NGOs are calling on major asset owners to demand action to stop support for fossil fuel expansion before entrusting their money.
“This report clearly demonstrates a collective failure from the investment sector to manage climate risk responsibly. BlackRock and Vanguard are by far the worst offenders, together providing 58% of the recent investments in fossil fuel expansion, while setting very few expectations of fossil fuel companies to pivot away from business as usual. As the world’s largest asset managers, BlackRock and Vanguard have a responsibility to mitigate the growing systemic risk posed by climate change. Failing to do so means failing their clients,” said Jessye Waxman, Senior Campaign Representative with the Sierra Club’s Fossil-Free Finance campaign.
“German asset managers, including market leader DWS, systemically neglect the oil and gas sector's role in driving the climate crisis. They like to publicly stress their rather untransparent and inconsistent engagement activities, hide behind net-zero lingo and dismiss calls for stricter policies. Time for decisive climate action is running out fast and the oil and gas industry is in a historic gold rush, with no apparent interest in real transition," said Julia Dubslaff, finance campaigner at Urgewald. 
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500Earlier on Monday, rival Zohran Mamdani sarcastically congratulated Cuomo for receiving a backhanded endorsement from the president.
Independent New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo does not appear to want President Donald Trump's endorsement.
During a Monday interview flagged by MeidasTouch, Cuomo was asked by WQHT morning show host Ebro Darden about Trump giving the former New York governor a backhanded endorsement over his top rival, Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani.
"Your boy was just on '60 Minutes,' Cuomo, saying you're his guy," Darden informed Cuomo.
"No," Cuomo responded.
Darden, however, pressed the issue.
"Trump said you're his candidate!" he said. "If he had to pick a bad Democrat or a... communist, he's picking you!"
There were then several seconds of silence after this before Darden's co-host, Peter Rosenberg, concluded that he had left the interview.
Co-host Laura Stylez lamented that Cuomo never answered Darden's question about the Trump endorsement.
"I really wanted to hear that answer!" she said.
Rosenberg then said that he heard a "click" on Cuomo's end, which indicated that he had apparently ended the call.
"Wow!" exclaimed Stylez. "OK!"
"Oh well!" said Darden.
Ebro: Your boy was just on 60 Minutes, Cuomo, saying that you're his guy!
Cuomo: No.
Ebro: Trump said you're his candidate.
Cuomo: *ends call* pic.twitter.com/GuwgIId5hU
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) November 3, 2025
During an interview that aired Sunday on CBS News' "60 Minutes," Trump said that he was "not a fan of Cuomo one way or the other," before adding that he would nonetheless prefer him to Mamdani.
Mamdani, a Democratic state Assembly member who has represented District 36 since 2021, immediately pounced on Trump’s remarks and sarcastically congratulated his rival for winning the endorsement of a Republican president who is deeply unpopular in New York City.
“Congratulations, Andrew Cuomo!” he wrote in a social media post. “I know how hard you worked for this.”
A leaked audio recording from a Cuomo fundraiser in the Hamptons in August included comments from the former governor about help he expected to receive from Trump as he ran as an independent in the mayoral race, following his loss to Mamdani in the Democratic primary. Cuomo and Trump have reportedly spoken about the race, which will be decided at the ballot box on Tuesday.
"Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
On the verge of the longest government shutdown in US history and in the wake of two losses in district courts, President Donald Trump's administration announced Monday that it would only partially fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for 42 million Americans this month.
In response to lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on Friday ruled against the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) refusal to use a contingency fund for at least some of November's $8 billion in SNAP benefits, often called food stamps.
Judge John McConnell, appointed to the District of Rhode Island by former President Barack Obama, gave the USDA two options: Fully cover the November SNAP benefits with the emergency funding and money pulled from other sources by the end of Monday, or make a partial payment of the total amount of the contingency fund by the end of Wednesday.
In a pair of Monday filings, the Trump administration chose the latter, explaining that there is "a total of $4.65 billion in the contingency fund for November SNAP benefits that will all be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households' current allotments."
While the development means millions of low-income families will at least get some benefits this month, a hunger crisis still looms. As one of the filings notes, "This means that no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November disaster assistance, or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely."
In a Monday statement, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups that sued in Rhode Island, welcomed that McConnell's order "means SNAP beneficiaries—including children and seniors—whose money ran out at the end of last month should be receiving funds for essential nutrition." However, she also called out the Trump administration for "still trying to deprive people of their full benefits," which "will not only prevent people from getting the full sustenance they need but also delay payments going out altogether."
"We are reviewing the administration's submission to the court and considering all legal options to secure payment of full funds," she pledged. "It shouldn't take a court order to force our president to provide essential nutrition that Congress has made clear needs to be provided. But since that is what it takes, we will continue to use the courts to protect the rights of people. For now, we are pleased to have forced the administration to release money it had been withholding from 42 million people in America who rely on their benefits. Rest assured, we will continue to fight so that people have the full benefits they are entitled to under SNAP."
Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell—who co-led the case in her state with over two dozen other AGs—noted Monday that "never in the history of the SNAP program—including during government shutdowns—has SNAP funding ever been suspended or only partially funded."
"While some funding is better than no funding, the federal government has made it clear that they are only willing to do the bare minimum to help our residents, and only after they were required to do so by our lawsuit and the courts," she said. "The Trump administration has the means to fund this program in full, and their decision not to will leave millions of Americans hungry and waiting even longer for relief as government takes the additional steps needed to partially fund this program."
Democrats in Congress—who have refused to vote for the GOP majorities' funding legislation to end the shutdown unless they reverse devastating cuts to Medicaid and extend expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits—also criticized the USDA's plan.
"USDA has the authority to fully fund SNAP and needs to do so immediately. Anything else is unacceptable," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on social media. "Trump's 'decision' to follow the court order and only send partial SNAP benefits to 42 million hungry Americans as Thanksgiving approaches is cruel and callous. Trump should focus less on his ballroom and his bathroom and more on the American people."
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly said: "The letter of the law is as plain as day. Trump should have paid SNAP benefits all along. Just now paying the bare minimum to partially fund SNAP is not enough, and it is not acceptable. Trump should immediately work to fully fund benefits under the law."
Both Senate Democrats from Massachusetts, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, also took aim at the president on Monday. Markey said: "Two federal courts confirm what we already knew: Trump must use contingency funds to fund SNAP this month. But millions will still see their benefits delayed because Trump tried to hold SNAP hostage. No more games. Use all available resources to ensure no one goes hungry."
While it's the Senate where Republicans need some Democratic votes to send a government spending bill to Trump's desk, House Democrats also blasted the administration's decision to only partially fund SNAP benefits in November.
"This is a very temporary Band-Aid," stressed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), adding that "42 million hardworking Americans are trying to figure out how they will keep food on the table. Partial is not good enough. End this Republican shutdown now so we can fully fund SNAP."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) declared: "Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP for 42 million Americans—including 1.4 million Michiganders. Anything less is unacceptable. It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
"These are not random donations," said Public Citizen. "It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
As President Donald Trump has embarked on the $300 million demolition of the East Wing of the White House—a project he insists has been "longed for" for more than a century—he has openly said that he and "some of [his] friends" are paying for the ballroom he is building.
But an analysis on Monday detailed just how "massive, inescapable, and irremediable" the donors' conflicts of interest are, as more than a dozen of the presidents' "friends" have major government contracts and are facing federal enforcement actions.
The White House has denied that corporate donors to Trump's ballroom construction project have any conflicts of interest, but Public Citizen found that 16 out of 24 publicly disclosed contributors—including three identified by CBS News but not by the White House—have government contracts.
The companies, including Amazon, Google, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir Technologies, have received $279 billion in government contracts over the last five years and nearly $43 billion in the last year. Lockheed is by far the biggest recipient, having received $191 billion in defense contracts over the last five years. The amount the companies have each donated to the ballroom construction has not been disclosed, but Lockheed spent more than $76 million in political donations from 2021-25.
The money the corporations have spent to build Trump's ballroom, said Public Citizen, "are not random donations. It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
Lockheed is among at least 14 ballroom contributors that are facing federal enforcement actions, including labor rights cases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement, and antitrust actions.
The National Labor Relations Board has before it cases alleging unfair labor practices by Lockheed as well as Google and Amazon.
The big tech firm Nvidia, another donor, has previously been accused of entering into a "quid pro quo" arrangement with the White House when it said it would give 15% of its revenue from exports to China directly to the Trump administration. The company has spent more than $6 million on political donations since 2021 and more than $4 million on lobbying, and faces a Department of Justice antitrust investigation into whether it abused its market dominance in artificial intelligence computer chips.
While Trump has sought to portray the ballroom fundraising drive as one in which his wealthy "friends" have simply joined the effort to beautify a cherished public building, Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman said the companies are not acting "out of a sense of civic pride."
"They have massive interests before the federal government and they undoubtedly hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration," said Weissman. "Millions to fund Trump’s architectural whims are nothing compared to the billions at stake in procurement, regulatory, and enforcement decisions."
In total, the 24 companies identified as ballroom donors spent more than $960 million in lobbying and political contributions in the last election cycle and $1.6 billion over the last five years.
Weissman said the companies' contributions to the president's pet project amount to corporate America "paying tribute" to the White House in order to stave off unfavorable labor rights and antitrust rulings, energy and financial regulations, and SEC actions and oversight, like an investigation into the cryptocurrency firm Gemini over alleged sales of unregistered securities.
"This is more than everyday corporate influence seeking. Paying tribute is a mark of authoritarianism and in making these payments, these corporations are aiding Trump’s authoritarian project," said Weissman. "They should withdraw their contributions.”