

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.

Drew Toher, Beyond Pesticides, dtoher@beyondpesticides.org
Jason Davidson, Friends of the Earth, jdavidson@foe.org
Shaye Skiff, Friends of the Earth, kskiff@foe.org
Today more than 115 local officials sent a letter to Congress urging the rejection of any language in the 2023 Farm Bill that would limit local government authority to regulate toxic pesticides. If included, such language would overturn decades of precedent set by the Supreme Court and harm the ability of communities to safeguard the health of their residents and unique local ecology.
This letter is a response to ongoing attempts by the pesticide industry to incorporate the language of HR7266, introduced last session by former Representative Rodney Davis (R-IL), into the upcoming Farm Bill. The Farm Bill conference committee rejected similar efforts by the pesticide industry during 2018 Farm Bill deliberations. Local officials are urging the House and Senate Agriculture Committees to produce a clean Farm Bill that does not undermine the authority of local communities wishing to protect public health and the environment. The letter is signed by 118 elected officials in 62 communities from 20 states and the District of Columbia.
“This fight is about more than toxic pesticides,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director with Beyond Pesticides. “It’s about local democracy. The letter acknowledges that not every local lawmaker may support action on pesticides, but they strongly oppose forfeiting the authority to protect their constituent’s health and wellbeing.”
“Our democratically elected leaders are keenly aware of the threat pesticides pose to our communities, while the pesticide industry wants a free pass to poison us,” said Jason Davidson, Senior Food and Agriculture Campaigner with Friends of the Earth. “We must not let corporations take away our right to protect ourselves. Congress must put the health of people and the planet over corporate profits and stop Big Ag’s latest power grab.”
Local officials added the following:
Mayor Daniel Biss, City of Evanston, IL: “It is critical that local governments have tools to protect the health of our residents and safeguard our environment. The federal government should not tie the hands of local lawmakers aiming to address ongoing crises relating to health, biodiversity and climate change. Congress should be expanding the authorities available to local governments to address these concerns, not limiting them.”
Mayor Aaron Brockett, City of Boulder, CO: “There is increasing scientific evidence showing that pesticides harm human health, threaten biodiversity and weaken the natural systems upon which human survival depends. Local governments need to be given the ability to make decisions about how to best protect their community, their children, and the natural world from these toxic substances.”
Councilwoman Sara Continenza, South Euclid, OH: “As Councilwoman in South Euclid Ohio, I am opposed of any sort of preemption of home rule, particularly as it relates to the ability of municipalities to regulate chemicals that are dangerous to our health, our environment, and our communities. In South Euclid, we passed an ordinance banning pesticides on public property due to the extensive evidence of the harm it causes. There are extensive options for natural products and practices that can regulate pests and fungi without causing harmful green algae blooms in our lakes or creating toxic hazards to humans and pets. Our environment is already struggling with the toxicity caused by industry, the train derailment in East Palestine, and more. We need to be doing whatever we can to clean up our environment, not further toxify it. Please oppose the federal pesticide preemption in the 2023 Farm Bill — this preemption only further damages our environment and trust in our government.”
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400"The result," said the author of a new Public Citizen analysis, "is a self-reinforcing loop where corporate cash buys policy, and policy pays cash back."
Eighty-eight corporations that paid no federal income tax last year spent roughly $852 million on US campaign contributions and lobbying during recent election cycles, a report published Thursday revealed.
The report, "The Current Price of Zero," was authored by Eileen O'Grady, a researcher at Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. The publication draws upon an analysis published in April by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) showing that at least 88 of the nation’s largest companies paid no federal corporate income tax in fiscal year 2025, despite reporting combined US pretax income of around $105 billion.
"Using data from OpenSecrets, which compiles and publishes campaign finance and lobbying data, we found that from the 2020 election cycle through the 2024 cycle, these 88 companies have spent nearly $852 million on lobbying and campaign contributions," O'Grady wrote. "We highlight the companies that spent the most money on lobbying, hired the most lobbyists, lobbied specifically on tax issues, and contributed the most cash to political campaigns."
The federal corporate income tax rate is 21%, indicating that the 88 companies in the report dodged a combined $22.1 billion in taxes last year. Additionally, they received $4.7 billion in tax rebates, bringing their total tax breaks to approximately $26.7 billion.
“The largest and richest corporations in the country are paying zero in federal income tax, and that is a slap in the face to the American taxpayers who are struggling to afford necessities like groceries and healthcare,” O’Grady said in a statement.
"Meanwhile, these companies are spending money that could have gone to the public good on lobbying for even more special advantages and tax breaks," she added. "In this backwards, cash-fueled system, the deck is being stacked ever higher in favor of corporations, and against working people.”
The report's key findings include:
The report singles out two related pieces of legislation—President Donald Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law by Trump last July 4—which enabled "several common strategies the companies used to get tax breaks and rebates."
"The most commonly used corporate tax giveaway, accelerated depreciation, enabled more than half of the companies to collectively avoid $11.4 billion in taxes by allowing them to write off capital investments immediately," O'Grady noted.
"In addition, a tax break supercharged under the Big Ugly Law allowed more than 30 companies to immediately write off research and development expenses, which alone netted them at least $4.4 billion in savings," she added, using a common liberal epithet for the OBBBA.
Since the US Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling—which affirmed that political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment—nearly $20 billion has been spent on US presidential elections and more than $53 billion on congressional races, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Spending on 2024 congressional races was double 2010 levels, while presidential campaign contributions were more than 50% higher in 2024 than in 2008, the last election before Citizens United.
Ultrawealthy and corporate megadonors played a critical role in Trump’s 2024 victory. Fossil fuel interests spent more than $445 million during the 2024 election cycle on campaign donations, lobbying, and other efforts to elect Trump and his Republican allies, plus pass policies that benefit their climate-wrecking businesses. Artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency are fast emerging as some of the most prolific lobbyists. Trump and Republicans in Congress have promoted policies and legislation boosting these sectors and shielding them from government regulation.
Elon Musk—the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and majority owner of X who could soon become the world's first trillionaire—is the most prominent of the numerous Trump donors who have been rewarded with Cabinet nominations and other key appointments in “an administration dominated by billionaires and corporate interests,” as Americans for Tax Fairness executive director David Kass described it.
O'Grady wrote that "corporate tax dodgers spend lavishly on lobbying and campaign contributions that feed into more tax breaks, which in turn fund even more political spending on policies that serve to pad corporate profits—and the cycle continues."
To remedy this, the report asserts: "It is imperative that Congress undo the Republican tax giveaways to corporations like bonus depreciation and research and development write-offs. In addition, the corporate rate must be increased to at least the 35% rate that stood before the 2017 law."
"Corporations should not be able to deduct multimillion-dollar bonuses. And Congress must prevent multinational corporations from avoiding taxes by booking profits in offshore subsidiaries by equalizing the domestic and international tax rates," the publication concludes. "With these and other reforms to our tax code, our nation could have more than enough revenue to breinvest in American communities and make life more affordable for everyone. It’s time to finally put people over corporate profits."
Iranian threats against SpaceX facilities came as the company had a record-breaking IPO.
While Elon Musk's SpaceX rockets have typically had no trouble exploding on their own accord, they could soon get some assistance from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Tehran's state-run Fars News Agency reported on Thursday that Iranian officials have added assets owned by Musk throughout the Middle East to their target lists, noting the US and Israeli military's use of SpaceX's Starlink satellite services in operations against Iranian infrastructure.
As reported by Forbes, SpaceX has Starlink ground stations in Qatar, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and Oman that could be potential targets of future Iranian attacks. However, the Starlink facilities may not be the only targets, as Iran reportedly said it "reserves the right to strike all Musk-affiliated facilities in the region," according to Forbes.
Iran's threats to attack SpaceX facilities came as the private space exploration firm made an initial public offering (IPO) on Thursday that the Wall Street Journal reported broke the record for the largest in history.
According to the Journal, SpaceX sold $75 billion worth of shares during the IPO at $135 apiece, giving the company a valuation of $1.77 trillion.
The SpaceX IPO has come under criticism in recent weeks over revelations that the Nasdaq stock market exchange changed its own rules so that company can be immediately included in index funds without having to wait through the one-year “seasoning” period that used to be required for newly public firms.
Other critics have raised red flags about SpaceX's profitability, noting that it made only $19 billion in profits last fiscal year, giving it a valuation 54 times larger than its projected revenue multiple, a measure of its value based on expected future earnings.
SpaceX shares are set to begin trading publicly on Friday.
"Irony is if the Trump admin had listened to Parsi, they'd be in much better shape now," said a fellow anti-war writer.
The Trump administration is once again being accused of using immigration enforcement to silence speech after it reportedly launched an investigation into one of the most prominent critics of the president's war in Iran, Trita Parsi, as part of an effort to deport him.
Parsi, an Iranian-Swedish citizen who holds a green card in the US, is the co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and co-founded the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).
Since February, when the US and Israel launched a war against Iran that has killed more than 1,700 civilians, wracked the global economy, and spiraled out across the Middle East, Parsi has been a highly cited anti-war voice in the media.
But according to an exclusive report from The Free Press published on Thursday, which quotes senior Trump administration officials, the State Department views Parsi, who has lived in the US for 25 years, not as "another Washington pundit eager to share his point of view," but as someone seeking to nefariously spread "Iranian influence."
“The secretary has been very clear,” an unnamed Trump administration official said, referring to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Anyone who seeks to undermine the US, we’re taking a hard look at.” That includes “people who support adversaries of ours and whose work furthers their agenda and undermines our security.”
Since attacking Iran, the Trump administration has brought the hammer down on other Iranians living legally in the US due to their alleged sympathies with their nation of origin.
In April, the State Department arrested two women alleged to be the niece and grandniece of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, who was extrajudicially assassinated in an airstrike ordered by President Donald Trump in 2020. Rubio accused the two women of promoting "regime propaganda," revoking their green cards, though documents later revealed that the women had no connection to the slain general.
The administration also canceled the visa belonging to the daughter of Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, who was assassinated in March.
The administration has similarly wielded its powers against foreign-born critics of Israel, including Columbia University student protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, and Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who was snatched off the street by immigration agents and detained for weeks over an opinion piece she co-wrote calling on her school to divest from Israel. The White House's deportation effort against her was thrown out by an immigration judge in February.
Documents unsealed in January showed that five pro-Palestine student activists singled out by the State Department, including Öztürk and Khalil, were targeted for deportation for no other reason than their speech and were not accused of any wrongdoing.
Relying on a previously rarely used provision in the McCarthy era Immigration and Nationality Act, the administration has defended its right to strip legal residents of their status on the grounds of speech alone that was adverse to a "compelling United States foreign policy interest.”
In the case of Khalil, Rubio acknowledged in a memo that his speech was “otherwise lawful,” but claimed that allowing him to remain in the country would undermine the Trump administration's foreign policy goals of supporting Israel and "combating antisemitism."
A similar justification appears to be undergirding the administration's attacks on Parsi. According to The Free Press, the administration has highlighted his and his organization's public warnings against escalation against Iran, his role as an informal adviser to negotiations for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, opposition to US sanctions against the country, and correspondence with Iranian officials as evidence that he is working to further Tehran's influence.
While Parsi has not yet publicly confirmed that an investigation is underway, The Free Press reported that the Quincy Institute has prepared for legal action if the government attempts to have him detained or deported.
The outlet cited a memo from Quincy CEO Lora Lumpe, who noted that Parsi had recently come into the crosshairs of the notorious pro-Trump influencer Laura Loomer, who accused him of being “a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime" and threatened that his “days in our country are numbered.”
The State Department has previously appeared to make decisions directly in response to Loomer's online outbursts. Loomer was the first to erroneously claim that the two women detained in April were relatives of Soleimani. She also took credit for the department revoking the visa of the British commentator and Israel critic Sami Hamdi, who was abducted by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the middle of a speaking tour.
The State Department has also appeared to follow her lead after she called for it to block children injured during Israel's genocide in Gaza from entering the US on medical humanitarian visas to receive desperately needed surgeries and rehabilitative care.
News of the State Department's pursuit of an investigation against Parsi was described as the latest attempt by the Trump administration to use the threat of deportation to bully critics into silence.
"Trita Parsi is a courageous and outspoken critic of the US-Israeli war on Iran, alongside whom we’re proud to have worked in opposition to war and injustice for many years," said the civil liberties organization Defending Rights & Dissent. "The Trump administration’s investigation of Parsi is an outrageous attack on free speech. Government officials are explicit that they are exploring deporting Parsi specifically for his advocacy—a blatant affront to the First Amendment."
Branko Marcetic, another prominent war opponent who writes for Jacobin magazine, called the attack on Parsi "contemptible."
"Irony is if the Trump admin had listened to Parsi, they'd be in much better shape now," he added. "Instead, they put their political futures in the hands of people Trump himself called warmonger idiots, and now they're left throwing this bureaucratic temper tantrum."
Drop Site News, which has often interviewed Parsi as an expert, also noted the significance of the fact that the "exclusive" report was being published by The Free Press, a hawkish right-wing publication that "has repeatedly published articles that amplify official pressure on critics of Israel, US wars, and aggressive foreign policy, contributing to a chilling effect intended to deter others from speaking out."
Some of Parsi's ideological opponents have also warned against the government's efforts to punish his speech, like Kaveh Shahrooz, a prominent Iranian-Canadian advocate for regime change in Iran.
"You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who, over the past decade, has been more aggressively outspoken against Trita Parsi and NIAC than I have," Shahrooz said. "But I’m deeply uncomfortable with what’s being reported."
"Unless the [US government] can demonstrate that Parsi violated US law... deporting him would amount to targeting someone for their speech and political beliefs," he continued. "An abuse of government power directed at someone you despise today can very easily be directed at you, or at someone you support, tomorrow."