

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.

Nicole Rodel, Oil Change International – nicole@priceofoil.org
New research by Oil Change International shows COP Troika nations – previous, current, and next COP presidents UAE, Azerbaijan, and Brazil – plan to expand oil and gas production 32% by 2035, threatening the climate limits they have collectively pledged to protect.
While Global North countries such as the United States remain the biggest expanders of oil and gas production and have the responsibility and the means to lead in phasing out fossil fuels, the Troika countries have a special duty to lead by example. These three nations chose to host climate talks and have repeatedly committed to submitting 1.5°C-aligned Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) while urging all countries to do so. They must establish the benchmark that 1.5°C-aligned NDCs must include a clear plan to end new oil, coal, and gas projects, as backed by science.
A Troubling Disparity Between Commitments and Actions
At COP28, all countries pledged to transition away from fossil fuels in a just, equitable, and orderly manner. The COP Troika have also publicly committed to submitting 1.5°C-aligned climate plans (NDCs) ahead of COP29 next month. However, these nations’ expansion plans contradict the urgent need to halt new fossil fuel developments. To limit warming to the 1.5°C threshold established by the Paris Agreement, all countries must immediately end the approval of new coal, oil, and gas projects, and entrench this commitment in their NDCs due in early 2025.
Global North Countries Must Lead the Phaseout of Fossil Fuels But Expansion Needs to End Everywhere
While the Troika’s expansion plans raise concerns, Global North countries remain the biggest expanders of oil and gas. Previous Oil Change International research shows just five Global North countries – the U.S., Canada, Australia, Norway, and the United Kingdom – are on track to be responsible for around half of the carbon pollution from new oil and gas fields and fracking wells through to 2050. These countries must immediately end oil, gas, and coal expansion, phase out existing production rapidly, and provide grant and grant-equivalent finance to Global South nations to enable a just energy transition. Without immediate action from these rich oil and gas producers, achieving a fair and equitable global phaseout of fossil fuels will meet a deadlock.
While Global North producing countries have a responsibility to lead the phaseout of fossil fuels, the science to avoid breaching 1.5°C is clear: the hard limits of the world’s remaining carbon budget mean that fossil fuel expansion must stop everywhere, including in the countries forming the so-called COP Troika.
Strong New Climate Finance Target Needed at COP29
The upcoming UN climate talks in Baku will be critical to ensure countries make the next key step in implementing the COP28 decision on fossil fuels – funding a fair phaseout. Climate experts have said the success of COP29 depends on nations agreeing to a new climate finance target (NCQG) of at least $1 trillion every year, which must include a subgoal of at least $300 billion annually for mitigation finance. This will allow countries to adopt national climate plans in 2025 that immediately end oil, gas, and coal expansion. Grant-based and highly concessional financing, not more debt-inducing loans, is an urgent need to fulfill the landmark COP28 decision to phase-out fossil fuels, especially for adaptation, loss and damage, and key mitigation projects in the Global South. Rich countries have the means to mobilize well over $5 trillion a year for climate action at home and for the NCQG, including by ending fossil fuel handouts, making big polluters pay, and changing unfair global financial rules.
Azerbaijan, as COP29 president, must guide the success of these negotiations in securing a strong NCQG. As the countries steering the current COP process, the Troika has a unique responsibility to set ambitious global climate targets, and set the precedent for truly 1.5°C-aligned national climate plans. The Troika countries have a clear choice to make. Halting new fossil fuel projects would begin to align COP Troika nations with 1.5°C goals, while ignoring expansion in NDCs would betray climate commitments.
Shady Khalil, Global Policy Senior Strategist at Oil Change International, said:
“The COP Troika was created to generate collaboration and ambition in support of the 1.5°C temperature limit, and the science is indisputable: there is no room for fossil fuel expansion if we are to meet this goal. By pushing forward with massive new fossil fuel projects, the Troika risks undermining the goal they are supposed to be the guardians of and set a terrible example for other countries currently working on their NDCs. While the Global North must lead by phasing out first and providing the financial support other countries need to implement a just transition, the Troika’s contradictory actions threaten to erode global trust and weaken climate efforts. They stand at a crossroads – either honor the science and lead a true and fair fossil fuel phaseout, or continue down a path that endangers a livable future and jeopardizes their legacy. The only way to ensure NDCs are 1.5°C-compatible is to halt new fossil fuel expansion everywhere.”
Shereen Talaat Founder and Director at MENA FEM Movement, said:
“The expansion of fossil fuel production by the Troika countries is a major obstacle to achieving the 1.5°C climate goal. Given the historical responsibility of the Global North on the crisis, it’s imperative that these nations not only need to halt new projects but also develop clear plans to phase out existing production in a just and equitable manner. This crisis demands immediate action, and the Troika countries must lead the way in accelerating the transition to renewable energy; they can demonstrate their commitment to a sustainable future and inspire other nations to follow suit. However, if they continue to expand their oil and gas production, they risk undermining their own credibility and jeopardizing the future of our planet.”
Claudio Angelo, head of International Policy at Observatório do Clima, said:
“Each of the world’s major fossil fuel producers is gambling on being the last seller of oil and gas. This is a Russian roulette that will either roast the planet or result in massive stranded assets. And while it is obvious that planet-wreckers like the United States, Norway, Canada, and Australia must be the first to phase out, Troika countries must live up to their own said commitment to 1.5°C and stop expansion now. The Troika is supposed to lead by example, but looking at their massive fossil expansion plans, it becomes clear that the only example they are setting is how to greenwash oneself away from climate action.”
Ilan Zugman, Latin America Director at 350.org, said:
“Fossil fuels do not equate to development, nor can they meet the ambition required for the 1.5°C threshold. The Brazilian and other Troika governments must confront this misconception. For Brazil to lead the global energy transition, its updated NDC must commit to ending new fossil fuel projects and provide a plan to phase out existing ones. It should also allocate resources to triple global renewable energy capacity. To advance energy justice, Brazil must ensure solar power reaches vulnerable communities. As COP30 host and a G20 leader, Brazil is in a prime position to set this precedent.”
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) 518-9029One press freedom advocate said the reported FBI investigation "would be outrageous even if The Atlantic reported classified information, which it didn’t."
The Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday denied that it launched a reported probe into The Atlantic, which recently published a damning account of FBI Director Kash Patel’s alleged drunkenness, though magazine leadership and press freedom advocates remain alarmed.
As reported by MS NOW on Wednesday, the FBI is conducting a criminal leak investigation into The Atlantic's Sarah Fitzpatrick, whose reporting on Patel cited two dozen anonymous sources to document concerns about the FBI director's behavior.
MS NOW noted that the investigation into Fitzpatrick's reporting is "highly unusual because it did not stem from a disclosure of classified information" on the part of government insiders.
One source told MS NOW that the FBI agents assigned to the case have expressed serious reservations about its scope and purpose.
"They know they are not supposed to do this," the source said. "But if they don’t go forward, they could lose their jobs. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don't."
FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson denied to MS NOW that the agency had launched an investigation into Fitzpatrick, saying that "every time there’s a publication of false claims by anonymous sources that gets called out, the media plays the victim via investigations that do not exist."
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, said the magazine was working to learn more about the alleged investigation, but "if true, this would be an outrageous, illegal, and dangerous attack on the free press and the First Amendment."
"We will defend Sarah and all of our reporters who are subjected to government harassment simply for pursuing the truth," Goldberg added.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, also condemned the reported investigation, which he said "would be outrageous even if The Atlantic reported classified information, which it didn’t."
"The FBI is reportedly conducting an invasive leak investigation merely to settle a personal vendetta," added Stern. "Separately, it doesn’t make much sense for Patel’s FBI to investigate leaks from what Patel’s lawsuit over the same reporting called ‘sham sources.’ Fake sources can’t leak."
Patel last month filed a $250 million defamation suit against The Atlantic for its report on his behavior, which the magazine said included "episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences."
The Atlantic vowed to fight the lawsuit, saying it stood by its reporting while describing Patel's complaint as "meritless."
"The secretary knows very well the damage and suffering that the criminal oil siege he himself proposed to his president is causing the Cuban people today," said Cuban Foreign Affairs Minister Bruno Rodríguez.
Peace advocates joined Cuba's top foreign relations official on Wednesday in accusing US Secretary of State Marco Rubio of blatantly lying about the existence of a blockade on oil exports to Cuba, which Rubio denied at a press briefing on Tuesday.
Anti-war group CodePink pointed to comments made by the US chargé d'affairs to Cuba, Mike Hammer, after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 29 threatening other countries with tariffs if they provided the communist country with oil and accusing the Cuban government of harboring terrorists—a claim officials have vehemently denied.
"Now there's going to be a real blockade," said the diplomat at the time. "Nothing is getting in. No more oil is coming."
Cuba's primary source of fuel had been cut off earlier in January after the US invaded Venezuela, killed dozens of Venezuelans and Cubans while abducting President Nicolás Maduro, and took control of the country's oil supply.
However, on Tuesday Rubio claimed that Venezuela had freely decided to no longer supply Cuba with "free oil"—an apparent reference to a barter system agreed to by the two countries.
"This is a lie," said CodePink in response to Rubio's comments.
Cuban Foreign Affairs Minister Bruno Rodríguez added that Rubio had "simply chosen to lie" about the Trump administration's policy, contradicting both Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
"In four months, only one fuel tanker has arrived in Cuba. All our suppliers are intimidated and threatened in violation of free trade rules and freedom of navigation," said Rodríguez.
He also pointed to Trump's new executive order, signed last Friday, which imposed new sanctions on Cuba's energy, finance, and security sectors and threatened to further isolate Cuba from international finance systems by authorizing sanctions on foreign banks that conduct major transactions with designated Cuban entities.
"The secretary knows very well the damage and suffering that the criminal oil siege he himself proposed to his president is causing the Cuban people today," said Rodríguez.
In late March, Leavitt said that an oil tanker from Russia had been permitted by Trump to reach Cuba for "humanitarian reasons," but denied there had been any policy change regarding allowing international fuel shipments to be sent to the island.
Decisions about shipments “are being made on a case-by-case basis,” said Leavitt at the time. "There has not been a formal change in sanction policy.”
Since Trump ramped up the blockade in January—intensifying a sanctions policy that the US has imposed on Cuba for more than six decades—nearly 100,000 Cubans, including about 11,000 children, have been left waiting for surgeries as the fuel shortage has led to rationing and frequent blackouts that have impacted the healthcare system. Healthcare workers have reported shortages of syringes, antibiotics, and IV supplies.
The Center for Economic Policy and Research (CEPR) also found last month that Trump's tightened sanctions and policies regarding Cuba, starting in his first term, have contributed to an “unprecedented increase” in the country's infant mortality rate, which soared 148% from 2018-25.
“It is clear that the increase in sanctions is responsible for this huge increase in infant deaths,” said Alex Main, director of international policy at CEPR, on Wednesday. “The oil blockade has been especially inhumane, disrupting the operation of ventilators, inhalers, and other crucial medical equipment and crippling emergency transportation. More than 80% of Cuba’s electricity is based on oil and oil products.”
US lawmakers who visited the island in April denounced the oil blockade as "cruel collective punishment" that has caused a water shortage, forced businesses and schools to shut down, and left cancer patients without lifesaving medications.
"Rubio is willfully lying" about the blockade, said Mexico City-based journalist José Luis Granados Ceja.
At Tuesday's press conference, after denying the blockade exists, Rubio pivoted to the Trump administration's position that Cuba's "economic model doesn't work" and blamed the country—whose healthcare system and literacy rates are frequently ranked higher than those of the US—for the crisis it's facing.
"Incompetent communists run that country. They don’t know how to fix it," said Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants. "So it’s an unacceptable status quo, and we’ll be addressing it."
While joining Israel in waging war on Iran in recent months, the Trump administration has repeatedly suggested it hopes to take military action against Cuba.
Last Friday, the president said the US military "will be taking [Cuba] over almost immediately."
On Wednesday, CEPR and YouGov released a new poll that found 64% of Americans oppose a US military takeover of Cuba.
"This should make President Trump think twice about another ‘war of choice,’” said Mark Weisbrot, senior economist and co-director of CEPR. “Almost all of the experts on Cuba would laugh at the idea that Cuba presents a security threat to the United States. And the war against Iran has already cost Trump and his party significant support.”
"The global War on Terror has come home."
The Trump administration on Wednesday released an official counterterrorism strategy that puts "anti-fascist" organizations on par with terrorist organizations such as Islamic State and al-Qaeda.
In outlining its strategy, the document argues that the US faces three "major type" of terrorist threats: "Legacy Islamiast Terrorists," such as al-Qaeda and ISIS; "Narcoterrorists" that sell illegal drugs; and "Violent Left-Wing Extremists, including Anarchists and Anti-Fascists."
When it comes to the purported domestic left-wing threats, the document says the administration will "prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist."
"We will use all the tools constitutionally available to us to map them at home," the document adds, "identify their membership, map their ties to international organizations like Antifa, and use law enforcement tools to cripple them operationally before they can maim or kill the innocent."
The document makes no mention of the threat posed by members of right-wing groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, many of whom received pardons from President Donald Trump in 2025 for their role in violently storming the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021.
A report published last year by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that, while left-wing political violence has grown since Trump's first election in 2016, it "remains much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers."
Journalist Ken Klippenstein reported on Wednesday that the strategy "is the brainchild of White House counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka, an eccentric figure I have reported on, who last year hinted at terrorism charges being levied for political opponents of the administration."
Digging into the details of the document, Klippenstein said it was essentially a strategy for prosecuting "pre-crime," which he noted "aims to build cases against people for what they might do, most ominously based on speech or beliefs."
At the end of his analysis, Klippenstein warned that the document makes clear "the global War on Terror has come home."
The counterterrorism strategy document builds on the framework established by National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by Trump in September that demanded a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
Rights groups have for months been sounding the alarm about the implications of NSPM-7, which they said could be used to initiative a widespread crackdown against the Trump administration’s critics.