

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.

Today, the State Legislature and Governor agreed to enact a historic deal to end fossil fuels in new buildings via the 2023-24 New York state budget. Once enacted, New York will become the first state to end gas in new construction by law, beginning in 2026 for buildings under seven stories; 2029 for taller ones. The timeline of the law’s effect defers action until the beginning of 2026, one year later than advocates’ demands.
“At the behest of New York’s grassroots climate movement, Governor Hochul and legislative leaders are taking a historic step, making New York the first state in the nation to prohibit fossil fuels in new construction by law. New Yorkers are resisting fossil fuels everywhere they pop up, from the power plants that pollute our air to the pipelines that put our communities in harm’s way. Now buildings can be a part of that solution,” said Alex Beauchamp, Northeast Region Director at Food & Water Watch. “Unfortunately, we’re still moving too slowly, and Governor Hochul is to blame. Instead of fighting for the swift transition off fossil fuels that the climate crisis demands, the governor caved at the eleventh hour, giving the fossil fuel industry another year of delay to profit at our expense. We won’t stop fighting until we end our devastating addiction to fossil fuels.”
The politically popular move will reduce climate-heating pollution, create jobs in clean energy, reduce childhood asthma, and save New Yorkers money — analyses have found that building all-electric leads to hundreds of dollars in energy cost savings for consumers. As the prices of gas and fuel oil rise, New Yorkers across the state, regardless of climate zone, would save more with an all-electric home.
“My family lost everything to a climate disaster. This is a moment of mixed emotions because this policy is a political compromise between what’s needed for the people and the death-dealing fossil fuel industry, the people who hurt my family so badly. On the one hand, New York, my home, will be the first state to end fossil fuels in new buildings by law. That’s huge because my community needs to save money, breathe clean air, and get good jobs in clean energy, not die in an extreme weather crisis, as members of my family have. Sadly, this great new law will go into effect years later than it should. New York is far behind what’s needed for climate justice. We needed Governor Hochul to deliver at the scale of the crisis, but in the end we got a half-measure. I want to thank our bill sponsors, and all the movement leaders who fight for what’s right,” said Rachel Rivera, a member of New York Communities for Change and Sandy survivor who lives in Brownsville, Brooklyn.
Advocacy groups are disappointed that the law will take effect too slowly to maximize benefits to New Yorkers. A delayed start date at the beginning of 2026 threatens to lock in higher energy bills and decades of new pollution from the 40,000 new buildings that are constructed each year. Groups had been backing proposed legislation to mirror New York City’s all-electric new buildings law, to take effect at the beginning of 2024, providing earlier cost savings and pollution reduction. The final deal also drew criticism for exemptions including for fuel cell systems and certain commercial buildings, which wouldn’t have to comply until 2029. Large warehouses and box stores operated by the likes of Amazon stand to benefit from these carve outs, which reduce the bill’s positive impact and further defer to corporate lobbyists.
Each year, the state adds approximately 250,000 metric tons of climate-heating pollution from the tens of thousands of new homes and buildings that are built to be dependent on gas boilers and furnaces, thereby jeopardizing meeting the state’s legally mandated climate targets.
The law does not include a “poison pill” the gas lobby pushed that advocates opposed; the provision, left on the cutting room floor, would have allowed local governments to, in effect, veto the law locally.
Assemblymember Emily Gallagher and Senator Brian Kavanagh, the bill’s prime sponsors, led the charge, with Governor Hochul also proposing this vital policy. With the State Senate and State Assembly’s leaders, Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Carl Heastie, committing to action in budget resolutions released in March, a legislation path opened for this historic, though needlessly delayed, action. In the “end game,” the State Senate pushed for climate and jobs action and remains the clear leader on the issue.
“Facing big spending from the oil and gas industry on disinformation campaigns to stall climate action, New York passed a historic law to move new buildings off fossil fuels. We want to thank the bill sponsors and the thousands of young people that fought with us to make this law happen. However, the Governor and legislative leaders compromised and allowed a too-slow timeline, making it all the more difficult to meet fast approaching greenhouse gas emission reduction benchmarks. For the young people we work with, this is a gamble with their futures,” said Megan Ahearn, Program Director for NYPIRG.
A rising multiracial climate movement fought hard for the policy’s enactment, first winning NYC’s landmark law in December, 2021, then moving to push for action at the state level. Enactment of this policy by Ithaca and Beacon, NY also paved the way to final passage. Activists statewide from a variety of groups also pushed hard, with rallies, protests, and local events across the state building to a people-powered victory.
The resulting legislation ensures that backup generators are allowed for emergencies and includes some exemptions for building uses that still require gas, but these are narrow exemptions that only apply to a tiny proportion of new construction. However, the law takes effect much slower than is justified, locking tens of thousands of new buildings to higher bills and pollution for decades to come.
“Following enactment of New York’s nation-leading climate law, thanks to the voices of thousands of New Yorkers, New York has made a historic move to end fossil fuels in new buildings. But as the state with the highest building-sector emissions and most premature deaths in the country from fossil fuel combustion in buildings, it is disappointing that the Governor and Legislature caved to fossil fuel industry lies and delayed the implementation timeline. We thank the bill sponsors and our partners for their work leading to this victory,” said Liz Moran, New York Policy Advocate for Earthjustice.
The groups and legislators defeated a multimillion dollar effort by the gas industry and its allies to defeat this legislation. Nonetheless, lawmakers were influenced by the lies, backed by deep pocketed lobbyists, to push off the policy effective date.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500With more than 1,700 civilians, including hundreds of children, reportedly killed during US-Israeli bombarding of Iran, one advocacy group said that "more pressure and oversight on these war crimes is urgently needed."
While claiming that the subject of civilian casualties is his “passion” before US lawmakers during a US Senate hearing on Thursday, the head of US Central Command was asked directly if he and his team had investigated a litany of reports about civilians being killed or maimed by US bombs in Iran. His answer? No.
Commander Adm. Brad Cooper appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee for a hearing on US Central Command (CENTCOM) and US Africa Command (AFRICOM) concerning the Trump administration's request for $1.5 trillion in military spending authorization for 2027.
During the questioning, Cooper refuted reports that US-Israeli airstrikes have hit 22 schools in Iran and raised eyebrows for his answers regarding cuts to Pentagon programs meant to mitigate harm to noncombatants.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)—who last month led the introduction of a defeated war powers resolution aimed at stopping President Donald Trump's "reckless" attack on Iran—pressed Cooper about US conduct in the war. She cited New York Times reporting that 22 schools and 17 healthcare facilities have been destroyed or damaged since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the illegal war of choice on February 28.
"We have regulations. We have the law of war. We have human rights obligations. We have our own targeting requirements to avoid civilian harm and death," Gillibrand said. "Have you been implementing all the laws that are required under current law to minimize civilian death?"
.@SenGillibrand presses CENTCOM Commander Cooper on the bombing of schools and hospitals in Iran.
Cooper’s response is woefully insufficient, denying that more than one such bombing took place, despite widespread documentation of bombings destroying protected civilian sites. pic.twitter.com/8gy6Zx6eg2
— NIAC (@NIACouncil) May 14, 2026
"We follow all the procedures and have gone above and beyond to, in my case, personally warn the Iranian people of several instances during conflict where they were being potentially used as human targets," the admiral said.
Asked by Gillibrand "how did we then bomb 22 schools," Cooper countered that "there is no indication that we have that has been corroborated."
The Iranian Red Crescent Society claimed last month that at least 60 students and 10 staff members were killed in US-Israeli attacks on 32 universities and 857 schools.
Pressed by the senator on "how many schools" the US has bombed, Cooper retorted that "there is one active civilian casualty investigation from the 13,629 munitions" used to attack Iran.
The admiral was presumably referring to the February 28 cruise missile strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, which killed 156 students and staff and wounded 95 others. Trump and senior administration officials initially denied responsibility for the massacre, but physical evidence, journalistic investigations, and a preliminary Pentagon probe indicate US culpability.
A skeptical Gillibrand repeated her question about 22 schools "and multiple hospitals" being bombed.
"There's no way that we can corroborate that," Cooper replied. "No indication of that whatsoever."
The senator asked for clarification: "There's no way you can corroborate, or no indication of it? Which one?"
Cooper answered, "No indication."
"Well, the indication is what's publicly available," Gillibrand fired back. "There is indication. Have you investigated those claims?"
The admiral replied, "We have not."
Gillibrand continued: "Why have you not? If this is a passion of yours, if you believe that the civilian casualties are not consistent with the law of war and not consistent with human rights obligations... why have you not investigated those allegations when they're publicly being made on the cover of The New York Times?"
The senator then asked how Cooper has "managed the 90% cut to the personnel who are supposed to avoid civilian targets," a reference to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's gutting of the Biden-era Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP), which laid out a series of policy steps aimed at preventing and responding to the death and injury of noncombatants.
The plan, which was implemented after US forces killed an estimated 432,000 civilians since late 2001 during the so-called War on Terror, was skeptically welcomed for its commitment to reducing harm to noncombatants. However, Hegseth said at the outset of the Iran War that US forces would not be bound by “stupid rules of engagement" and would instead prioritize “lethality."
The Pentagon eliminated the entire civilian harm office at Joint Special Operations Command, removed related specialists from target development teams, and slashed CENTCOM's civilian harm mitigation team from 10 people to just one full-time staffer.
Cooper told Gillibrand that he would be "happy to provide any report" on the matter.
Iranian officials and human rights groups say more than 1,700 Iranian civilians have been killed by US and Israeli attacks since February 28. US and Israeli use of artificial intelligence systems to select bombing targets exponentially faster than any person has also raised concerns regarding a lack of meaningful human oversight. One former IDF officer said AI enabled a “mass assassination factory” in Gaza, where more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli attacks since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said after the exchange with Gillibrand that "Cooper’s response is woefully insufficient, denying that more than one such bombing took place, despite widespread documentation of bombings destroying protected civilian sites."
"More than 1,700 civilians, including hundreds of children, were killed in the bombardment of Iran," NIAC added. "Dozens of schools and hospitals were damaged and destroyed by the dropping of massive bombs in urban areas. More pressure and oversight on these war crimes is urgently needed."
"What we're seeing is the public experience how more spending does not actually keep them safe," said a researcher at Brown University's Costs of War Project.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday released yet another ad pitching President Donald Trump's proposed $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget, as new polling showed major skepticism over the idea.
In his latest pitch for the record-breaking defense budget, the former Fox News host insists that "America is not in decline," even though the US has been unable to compel Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz despite having spent nearly $1 trillion on defense in 2025.
"We remain the strongest military power on Earth," Hegseth continued. "But that power requires renewal. And with global threats that are constantly evolving, it's time to make a $1.5 trillion investment."
The $1.5 trillion investment is a GENERATIONAL DOWN PAYMENT on America’s national defense.
This investment guarantees the United States maintains overwhelming strength and unmatched deterrence against any adversary for generations to come. pic.twitter.com/2zOSlZkzNr
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) May 14, 2026
A $1.5 trillion military budget would be over 50% more than the 2025 US defense budget and more than four times the money spent on defense by China, the world’s second-biggest defense spender.
Among other things, Hegseth said that the budget would invest $18 billion into Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" missile defense shield, which the Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday estimated would cost $1.2 trillion to create, deploy, and operate over the first 20 years of its existence.
Hegseth also said that the Pentagon would be increasing its investment in artificial intelligence by "800%," although it's not at the moment clear how well AI helps militaries effectively fight wars.
The defense secretary concluded his video by insisting that "we are expanding our strength, we are restoring our deterrence, and we are putting America first."
USA Today reported on Thursday that a new poll conducted by ReThink Media and the Costs of War Project at Brown University finds that nearly 60% of Americans think the proposed Trump Pentagon budget is too large, including 40% who say $1.5 trillion is "much too high" to spend on defense.
Breaking the figures down by party, 87% of Democrats said the defense budget was too high, along with 54% of independents, and even 30% of Republicans.
Jennifer Greenburg, a researcher with Brown's Costs of War Project, told USA Today that Americans were broadly skeptical that plunging more taxpayer money into the Pentagon is really necessary given that the US already doles out more for defense than the next four biggest spenders—China, Russia, Germany, and India—combined.
"In real time, I think what we're seeing," said Greenberg, "is the public experience how more spending does not actually keep them safe."
In a column published by The New York Times on Wednesday, longtime national security reporter Noah Shachtman argued that Hegseth's $1.5 trillion proposal was "less like a budget and more like a trip to an endless casino buffet" in which the Pentagon spends money in "gut-busting proportions."
Shachtman also noted that the proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget comes at a time when the Trump administration has wrecked traditional oversight mechanisms, thus making waste and fraud far more likely at a Pentagon that's never passed an audit.
"One of their early actions was to fire and replace the Pentagon’s inspector general, whose office looks into claims of fraud and abuse in military contracting," Shachtman explained. "The independent office that tests whether our weapons actually work has been gutted."
Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued in an analysis published on Tuesday that Hegseth's budget pitch at congressional hearings this week was particularly baffling because there is really no imperative behind it on par with the Cold War or the post-9/11 defense buildup.
"Despite presenting no strategic necessity for the largest year-over-year Pentagon spending increase since World War II," Freeman wrote, "Hegseth repeatedly claimed the $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget was a sound financial decision, arguing in the Senate hearing that 'at every level we have made it a fiscally responsible budget.' Yet, the fact is that the entirety of this proposed increase in Pentagon spending would be deficit financed, effectively going on Uncle Sam’s credit card."
"Susan Collins cares far more about protecting bank executives’ millions than protecting the rest of us from BS overdraft fees," said Platner's campaign manager.
Graham Platner's campaign is accusing Sen. Susan Collins of siding with banking interests after she joined Senate Republicans in blocking a Democratic measure to protect consumers from unexpected overdraft fees.
On Wednesday, the GOP voted largely along party lines against a set of Democratic resolutions aiming to restore Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) policies killed by the Trump administration.
In what its acting director, Russell Vought, has described as an effort to effectively dismantle the bureau, which has been credited with delivering more than $21 billion in consumer relief since its creation, he has rescinded 67 policies that protected Americans from junk fees, medical debt, lending discrimination, and other financial abuses.
One resolution voted down Wednesday would have restored a scrapped CFPB guidance against debt collectors hounding consumers over false or inflated medical debts. Another would have reaffirmed that the bureau can scrutinize financial companies for predatory credit practices aimed at military families.
These Democratic resolutions were not expected to pass in a Republican-controlled Senate, but were instead meant to force Republicans to put themselves on the record as standing against consumer interests.
As President Donald Trump takes a beating from voters on the economy, the votes will serve as ammunition as Democrats run with the message that the GOP has "abandoned consumers and is making life more expensive for them," as the CFPB's architect, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), said on Wednesday.
Platner is already deploying that ammunition in one of November's marquee races, hammering Collins (R-Maine) for voting with the GOP against restoring a guidance enacted by the Biden administration that required banks to obtain customers' consent before charging overdraft fees for ATM and one-time debit card transactions.
"Last night, Susan Collins voted once again to make it easier for big banks to hit Maine families with predatory overdraft fees," his campaign said in an email on Thursday. "Her vote to block even a debate on restoring basic consumer protections was just the latest reminder of where Collins' real loyalties lie."
"There is no legitimate policy rationale for voting against basic consumer protections on overdraft fees,” said Platner's campaign manager, Ben Chin. “But Susan Collins cares far more about protecting bank executives’ millions than protecting the rest of us from BS overdraft fees. This vote is yet another example of this deeply unfortunate reality.”
According to data from OpenSecrets, Collins has received nearly $1.8 million this cycle in contributions from the financial sector, including more than $570,000 from private equity and investment firms, which the Platner campaign said were "among the most predatory actors in the American economy."
She's also received more than $44,000 from commercial banks and holding companies that have a particular interest in her stance on overdraft fees.
The Pine Tree Results PAC, which has thrown about $12.7 million behind Collins, likewise got nearly a third of its funding from figures in the financial sector, particularly in private equity and hedge funds with a broader interest in neutering the CFPB.