SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 13 2025, 10:40am EDT
Contact:
hauser(at)therevolvingdoorproject.org
Revolving Door Project Calls On OpenAI, Harvard, and Other Organizations To Cut Ties With Larry Summers
The call comes in light of recently released email correspondence between Summers and the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, showing the close relationship the two shared long after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.
The Revolving Door Project’s Executive Director, Jeff Hauser released the following statement in response to the release of emails between convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers:
“Larry Summers’ relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has been known for some time, but these emails show their relationship goes far beyond professional collaboration and the large donations Epstein provided to Summers’ wife. These communications reveal a close personal bond between the two men, long after Epstein’s conviction for sex crimes against minors. It is well past time for the powerful institutions that work closely with Summers –including OpenAI–to distance themselves from him, and anyone with a close relationship to Epstein.”
Summers currently sits on the Board of Directors of the OpenAI Foundation, the governing body of OpenAI.
Hauser continued: “These emails not only show Summers asking the convicted sex offender for advice pursuing women, but they also reveal what Summers says behind closed doors. As the President of Harvard University, Summers claimed women were innately worse at science, and he presided over a precipitous drop in the hiring of female faculty. But Summers claimed feminists were too quick to infer he was a misogynist. Now, we see that when communicating with Epstein, Summers felt free to express his true opinions, claiming that women are less intelligent than their male counterparts. These opinions are not only objectionable given Summers’ role as a professor, but are all the more concerning given his influence over government and one of the most influential companies on the planet, OpenAI.”
“I have previously warned about Summers’ unethical behavior and ties to unsavory businesses, but these latest revelations ought to be the final straw. It is disgusting that Summers has played such a crucial role in government at one of America’s premier universities for so long. Companies and institutions affiliated with him —including the world’s most influential AI company, and two of the nation’s premier news outlets— ought to demand his immediate resignation,” concluded Hauser.
Summers is still listed as holding an active position with the following companies and organizations:
Harvard University – Charles W. Eliot University Professor
OpenAI – Board of Directors
Bloomberg – Columnist
New York Times – Contributing Opinion Writer
Center for American Progress – Distinguished Senior Fellow
SkillSoft – Board of Directors
Center for Global Development – Chair of the Board of Directors
Peterson Institute for International Economics – Vice Chair of the Board of Directors
Atlas Merchant Capital – Senior Advisor
Jiko – Advisory Committee
Aven – Advisory Board
Palmetto – Advisory Board
Yale Budget Lab – Advisory Board
The Revolving Door Project (RDP) scrutinizes executive branch appointees to ensure they use their office to serve the broad public interest, rather than to entrench corporate power or seek personal advancement.
LATEST NEWS
'Little to No Measurable Progress' on Climate as World on Track for 2.6°C: Report
"Without rapid, deep emissions cuts—over 50% by 2030—overshooting 1.5°C becomes ever more likely, with severe consequences for people and ecosystems," one expert said.
Nov 13, 2025
Despite new national policies submitted ahead of the United Nations COP30 climate conference in Belém, Brazil, the world remains on track for a disastrous 2.6°C of fossil fuel-driven warming, according to an annual analysis released on Thursday.
Climate Action Tracker (CAT) said the 2025 report marked the fourth year in a row in which there had been "little to no measurable progress" in its warming predictions for 2100 based on the current policies and commitments of 40 countries.
"The world is running out of time to avoid a dangerous overshoot of the 1.5°C limit," Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare said in a statement. "Delayed action has already led to higher cumulative emissions, and new evidence suggests the climate system may be more sensitive than previously thought. Without rapid, deep emissions cuts—over 50% by 2030—overshooting 1.5°C becomes ever more likely, with severe consequences for people and ecosystems."
Under the Paris Agreement, countries are required to submit nationally determined contributions (NDCs) every five years outlining their plans to slash greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of the climate crisis. However, CAT found that nearly none of the 40 countries it analyzed had updated their 2030 NDCs or announced sufficiently ambitious 2035 NDCs ahead of COP30, which began on Monday. This means that the projected warming based on 2030 and 2035 targets remained at 2.6°C above preindustrial levels.
"We have said it before, and we will keep saying it: We are running out of time."
“A world at 2.6°C means global disaster,” Hare told The Guardian, adding that it would likely trigger key tipping points such as the death of coral reefs, the transformation of the Amazon rainforest into grassland, the destabilizing of ice sheets, and the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
“That all means the end of agriculture in the UK and across Europe, drought and monsoon failure in Asia and Africa, lethal heat and humidity,” Hare explained. “This is not a good place to be. You want to stay away from that.”
CAT also made temperature projections based on existing policies and actions; pledges and targets, including binding long-term targets; and an optimistic scenario including net-zero targets. In 2025, the temperature projection for existing policies dropped from 2.7°C to 2.6°C, mostly due to a change in methodology, and the "optimistic scenario" remained the same at 1.9°C. However, the "pledges and targets" projection increased from 2.1°C to 2.2°C, predominately due to President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement.
Other major carbon polluters China and the European Union did not update their plans with the ambition required to meet the Paris goals.
The analysis comes a week after the UN Environment Programme released its Emissions Gap Report, which found that NDCs put the world on track for 2.3-2.5°C of warming, while current policies put it on track for 2.8°C.
Overall, CAT blamed the lack of progress on the continued growth of fossil fuel production and use. It noted that several major countries had continued to expand fossil fuels, from India, China, and Indonesia building more coal plants to Japan and Saudi Arabia championing gas as a "bridge fuel."
"Worst of all," the report authors wrote, "the United States is actively shutting down offshore wind projects, rolling back renewable energy incentives, cutting curbs on carbon pollution, and actively expanding oil and gas production."
However, despite their grim projections, CAT did see hope in the massive rollout of renewable energy, which generated more power than coal for the first time in 2025.
“While not at the pace needed, our analysis shows that the Paris Agreement works,” said Niklas Höhne, of CAT partner the NewClimate Institute, in a statement.
Höhne continued:
Back in 2015, our current policies scenario led to 3.6°C of warming by 2100. Today, 10 years later, our latest projections show that this has been reduced by roughly 1°C to around 2.6°C. The Paris Agreement has rewritten the rules of global climate action—sparking investment, innovation, and reforms that would simply not have happened without it.
But governments need to speed up the pace now. Although emissions have risen, the exponential pace of the renewable energy expansion allows us to now reduce emissions much faster than previously thought. Governments can strengthen or overachieve 2030 targets, implement robust policies, and ensure transparency and accountability to deliver on the Paris Agreement promise and safeguard a sustainable future.
The faster governments act, the faster they can close the "targets gap" between current emissions and how far they have to fall to keep the 1.5°C goal within reach. This gap is expected to grown by as many as 2 billion metric tons between 2030 and 2035 alone.
CAT said that current research indicates that implementing the most ambitious policies could limit peak warming to 1.7°C. This could be achieved by reaching net-zero carbon dioxide emissions before 2050, reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the 2060s, and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Under this scenario, global temperatures would return to below 1.5°C by the end of the century.
"We have said it before, and we will keep saying it: We are running out of time," said report lead author Sofia Gonzales-Zuñiga.
"Every new fossil gas deal the EU makes, every new coal plant built in China, every fossil gas expansion project in Australia, every exported barrel from Norway, every tonne of LNG Japan pushes into neighboring Asian countries, costs billions to people elsewhere in the world as they deal with increasingly extreme weather events," Gonzales-Zuñiga continued. "These are not abstract policy choices—they are physical realities with human consequences. The atmosphere does not negotiate, and it does not wait."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Colombian President Blasts 'Barbarian' Trump and Halts Intel Sharing Over Bombed Boats
"Intelligence is not for killing," said Gustavo Petro, who has strongly criticized the US president.
Nov 13, 2025
Colombian President Gustavo Petro sat down with NBC News in Bogotá on Wednesday to discuss his decision to stop sharing intelligence with the United States over the Trump administration's deadly boat bombings allegedly targeting drug runners in the Caribbean and Pacific.
Petro announced Tuesday that he halted "communications and other agreements with US security agencies" over the boat attacks that have killed at least 76 people. That same day, the UK government also stopped sharing intelligence related to suspected drug-trafficking vessels.
In the fight against drug trafficking, "intelligence is key," Colombia's leftist president told NBC chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel in Spanish. "The more we coordinate, the better. But intelligence is not for killing."
Critics have stressed that even if the boats are transporting drugs, US President Donald Trump's strikes are illegal. Asked by Engel whether he believes the vessels were carrying drugs, Petro said: "Maybe, or maybe not. We do not know. They are poor boatmen hired by gangsters. The gangsters don't sit on the boats."
Petro is one of the few world leaders who has publicly stood up to Trump. The Colombian leader told NBC, "He's a barbarian, but anyone can change."
As the New York Times pointed out Wednesday: "For Mr. Petro, a former rebel during Colombia's long and brutal internal conflict, defiance is nothing new. Those who know him describe a man propelled by his convictions—a lifelong critic of corruption and inequality who became the fiery face of Colombia's left."
The Trump administration has responded forcefully to Petro's critiques. In September, it revoked the Colombian president's visa over his remarks to protesters in New York City, where he was to address the United Nations General Assembly. During the speech, Petro urged the UN to open criminal proceedings over the boat bombings.
In October, Petro accused the administration of murdering a Colombian fisherman in one of the boat strikes. Trump then halted aid to the country. As Bloomberg reported Thursday, "The US has given Colombia about $14 billion this century, the most in the Americas, much of it to help fight guerrillas and traffickers."
The Trump administration last month also sanctioned Petro, his family members, and Colombian Interior Minister Armando Alberto Benedetti. As Engel noted, the US has also sanctioned Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Even though experts have contested Trump's claim that "we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela," the country and its leader are key targets of Trump.
In addition to bombing boats off the Venezuelan coast, Trump has sent a US aircraft carrier to the region, authorized Central Intelligence Agency operations in Venezuela, and is considering strikes within the country. Maduro has ordered the deployment of nearly 200,000 soldiers and accused Trump of pushing for "regime change," with his sights set on "oil, gas, gold, fertile land, and water."
During the NBC interview, Petro was critical of Maduro, saying, "I believe there has been no legitimate leadership in Venezuela for some time."
However, he also expressed concern about the possibility of Trump waging war on Colombia's neighbor. As Petro put it, "He wants to frighten us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Don't Buy Starbucks!' Says Union as It Launches Nationwide Strike Against Coffee Giant’s Unfair Labor Conditions
As its workers fight for a living wage and for the company to address hundreds of labor violation complaints, Starbucks Workers United says it's prepared for the "biggest and longest" strike in the company's history.
Nov 13, 2025
As hundreds of Starbucks workers go on strike across the US to protest the company's unfair labor practices, its union is telling customers to boycott the company in hopes of pressuring it to return to the bargaining table to negotiate its first union contract.
“As of today, Starbucks workers across the country are officially ON STRIKE,” said Starbucks Workers United, the union representing nearly 10,000 baristas, on social media Thursday. “We’re prepared for this to become the biggest and longest [unfair labor practices] strike in Starbucks history.”
The union implored customers: "DON'T BUY STARBUCKS for the duration of our open-ended ULP strike!"
The strike comes after negotiations between the union and the company stalled out in April. Last week, 92% of union baristas voted to authorize a strike as the company's lucrative holiday season began. They are hoping to turn the company’s annual “Red Cup Day,” during which it gives out free reusable cups to customers, into a “Red Cup Rebellion.”
The union says three of its core demands remain unmet. It has called for the company to address "rampant" understaffing, which it says has led to longer wait times for customers and overwhelmed staff, while simultaneously leaving workers without enough hours to afford the cost of living.
It also seeks higher take-home pay for workers. Starting baristas make just over $15 per hour, which data from MIT shows is not enough to afford the cost of living in any US state when working 40 hours a week. According to the union, most Starbucks workers receive fewer than 20 hours of work per week, rendering them ineligible for benefits.
The union has drawn a contrast between its workers' pay, which averages less than $15,000 a year, and that of CEO Brian Niccol, who raked in a total compensation package of $96 million in just four months after taking over last year.
"Too many of us rely on SNAP or Medicaid just to get by, and most baristas still don’t earn a livable wage. In a majority of states, starting pay is just $15.25 an hour—and even then, we’re not getting the 20 hours a week we need to qualify for benefits," said Jasmine Leli, a barista and strike captain from Buffalo, New York, where the first Starbucks store in the nation voted to unionize back in 2021.
The company has gone nearly four years without recognizing it. While it claims to have engaged with the union in "good faith," the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has found Starbucks guilty of over 500 labor law violations, making it the worst violator in modern history.
These have included illegal firings and disciplinary actions against union organizers, the illegal withholding of wages and benefits, threats to close stores that unionize, and illegal surveillance of employees. More than 700 unfair labor practice charges made against the company remain unresolved, including 125 of them filed since January.
According to an estimate from the Strategic Organizing Center, Starbucks' union-busting had cost the company more than $240 million through February 2024. That money was lost in the form of legal fees and payments to consultants, as well as productivity lost due to anti-union store closures and captive audience meetings.
“Things have only gone backwards at Starbucks under Niccol’s leadership," Leli said. "But a fair union contract and the resolution of hundreds of unfair labor practice charges are essential to the company’s turnaround."
The union has argued that in order to meet their demands for a fair contract, it would cost less than a single day's sales.
The strike begins just days after 85 US lawmakers—led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—sent letters demanding that the company stop union-busting and negotiate a fair deal with its employees.
"Starbucks is not a poor company," the Senate letter said to Niccol. "Last year, Starbucks made over $3.6 billion in profit and paid out nearly $5 billion in stock buybacks and dividends. In fact, in the first three quarters of the year, Starbucks made $1.7 billion in profit and paid out over $2 billion in dividends. Last year, you made $95 million in compensation for the four months you worked in 2024, roughly 6,666 times more than what your average worker was paid for the entire year."
"Despite that extravagant spending on executives and shareholders, Starbucks refuses to reach an agreement with its own workers even though you are less than one average day’s sales apart from a contract," it continued. "Starbucks must reverse course from its current posture, resolve its existing labor disputes, and bargain a fair contract in good faith with these employees."
The strike will begin at 65 stores across more than 40 US cities, with rallies scheduled in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Columbus, and Anaheim, among other locations. The union said the strike is "open-ended," with no set end date, and that baristas across more than 550 unionized stores across the country are prepared to join in.
“If Starbucks keeps stonewalling a fair contract and refusing to end union-busting, they’ll see their business grind to a halt,” said Michelle Eisen, a spokesperson for Starbucks Workers United, who has worked as a barista for 15 years. “'No contract, no coffee' is more than a tagline—it’s a pledge to interrupt Starbucks’ operations and profits until a fair union contract and an end to unfair labor practices are won."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular