

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.

Sanjali De Silva Communications Officer Energy, Climate Accountability:
SDeSilva@ucsusa.org
The U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget hosted a hearing today, “Dollars and Degrees: Investigating Fossil Fuel Dark Money's Systemic Threats to Climate and the Federal Budget.”
The hearing came as half of the people living in the United States have faced an extreme weather alert since May 1—the start of what the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has deemed “Danger Season,” the time roughly from May through October in the Northern Hemisphere when climate change impacts in the U.S. are at their peak and increasingly likely to collide with one another.
Witnesses offered insights and provided historical background on the role of dark money in the fossil fuel industry, including scientific evidence on how fossil fuel companies have funded disinformation campaigns and front groups. NPR and Floodlight and another investigation by The Washington Post have revealed how dark money campaigns are aimed at safeguarding the finances of fossil fuel energy companies.
Below is a statement by Kathy Mulvey, the accountability campaign director at UCS.
“It's encouraging to see Congress take steps to investigate the role of so-called ‘dark money’ in the fossil fuel industry's relentless efforts to preserve its dangerous and unjust business model at the expense of the well-being of people across the country and around the world. The hearing provided unequivocal evidence that the influence of fossil fuel dark money is far-reaching—from insidious public relations disinformation campaigns to wielding political influence through front groups. It has become abundantly clear that those who benefit most from a fossil fuel-dependent economy will stop at nothing to obscure science, confuse the public and policy makers, and block action to limit the worst effects of climate change. As witness Dr. Naomi Oreskes pointed out, we have already lost 30 years of climate action as a result.
“It is alarming to see elected officials parrot fossil fuel industry talking points and support the manipulation of public perception as the toll of the climate crisis mounts. Further investigation of the fossil fuel industry's dark money, disinformation campaigns, and extensive influence on our political, economic, and social systems is urgently needed in order to minimize suffering, save lives, and protect our planet. By exposing the truth and holding those responsible accountable, we can chart a course toward a sustainable and equitable future for all.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"If I have money left over, then I will eat."
Beneficiaries of federal food aid are expressing anger and bewilderment at the Trump administration's efforts to use the program as a hostage to end the current shutdown of the federal government.
On Monday, the Trump administration said that it would partially restart funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the wake of two district court rulings mandating that the administration use emergency funds set up by Congress to continue the program.
The administration said that it would only fund around 50% of the $8 billion in total monthly benefits, while also warning that there could be delays before SNAP beneficiaries are able to access the funds.
In interviews with The Guardian, several SNAP beneficiaries fumed that their ability to access food for themselves and their families is being used as a political football by the administration.
Wisconsin resident Betty Standridge, who had been relying on SNAP to afford food after being hospitalized, told The Guardian that, without the funds, "I will not be able to replenish my food for the month, therefore I will do without things like fresh produce, milk, eggs."
Donna Lynn, a disabled veteran who lives in Missouri, also said that she would have to make significant cuts to her budget if SNAP benefits were not replenished.
"It comes down to paying for my medications and my bills or buying food for myself and for my animals," she said. "So I pay for my medications and bills and get what food I can for my animals, and if I have money left over, then I will eat."
A Wisconsin retiree named Sandra, meanwhile, told The Guardian she feared that the administration was angling to permanently end SNAP even after the end of the government shutdown.
"I'm dumbfounded by the cruelty," she said.
Before the administration allowed more than 40 million people—nearly 40% of whom are children—to go without food assistance on November 1 and refused to use a contingency fund to keep SNAP running, the Republican Party passed roughly $186 billion in cuts to the program in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer.
The bill expanded work requirements, shifted some of the cost of SNAP to the states, and restricted benefit increases, leaving millions of people vulnerable to losing their benefits.
Betty Szretter, a New York retiree whose daughter depends on SNAP benefits, told NBC News that she regrets voting for President Donald Trump in 2024, and said she's worried that his focus appears to be elsewhere—like the corporate-funded construction of a ballroom at the White House—rather than on helping people like her family.
“I think deep down he wants to help the country with things like food insecurity,” she said. “But now he is busy out of the country and demolishing the White House. I know that is being paid for with private funds, but those could be used to help people... It all seems very selfish."
CBS News on Tuesday interviewed a Baltimore resident named Kelly Lennox, who has been relying on SNAP for the last year-and-a-half after a car accident that required multiple surgeries left her unable to work. She said the halt of SNAP payments was a particularly harsh blow given that she's deep in medical debt in the wake of the accident.
Now, she says she'll have to rely on local food pantries to keep from going hungry.
"I'm going to have to make use of the pantries and work with their schedule, because if I use actual money for food, it takes away money I need to pay for my residential parking permit, gas, and union dues," she said.
Roughly 42 million people living in the US currently receive SNAP benefits, and The Washington Post estimates that SNAP payments account for 9% of all grocery sales in the US.
"I don't know how a DC jury would convict," said one resident who was not selected to serve on the jury.
The trial of Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department employee who threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent in protest in early August, began Monday, weeks after US Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office failed to secure a felony indictment.
Dunn, who is now facing a misdemeanor assault charge, has become a symbol of public resistance to and disdain for President Donald Trump's deployment of masked federal immigration agents to the streets of US cities.
DC residents who were not chosen to serve on the jury for the trial expressed deep skepticism that the latest attempt to indict Dunn would end any differently than the first.
"How is that an assault?” one DC woman asked of Dunn's sandwich throw, which was caught on video. Before hurling the sandwich, Dunn screamed at the agents and called them "fascists."
Another person who was not selected to serve on the jury told CNN that they "don't know how a DC jury would convict."
The trial is expected to be quick. The judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, called it "the simplest case in the world" and predicted a two-day trial.
Dunn's lawyers have argued in court that the Trump administration's prosecution attempts amount to "a blatant abuse of power."
"The federal government has chosen to bring a criminal case over conduct so minor it would be comical—were it not for the
unmistakable retaliatory motive behind it and the resulting risk to Mr. Dunn," Dunn's lawyers said. "Mr. Dunn tossed a sandwich at a fully armed, heavily protected Customs and Border Protection officer. That act alone would never have drawn a federal charge. What did was the political speech that accompanied it."
"He should have died in The Hague," said one journalist.
Dick Cheney, a chief architect of the US invasion of Iraq and broader "war on terror" that has killed millions of people since its inception, has died at 84, his family announced in a statement Tuesday.
Cheney was best known for his central role in the administration of former President George W. Bush, under whom Cheney served as vice president.
An unapologetic advocate of preemptive war and torture in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Cheney was widely regarded as a war criminal who should have faced international prosecution.
"He should have died in The Hague," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in response to the news of Cheney's death.
Cheney's family said he died "due to complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease."