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
March, 25 2026, 03:28pm EDT
Contact:
Trump’s Broken Promises: Energy and Utility Bills Surge as Families Struggle to Keep Up
New Groundwork Collaborative fact sheet details how skyrocketing energy prices caused by tariffs, data centers, and Trump’s war in Iran are squeezing household budgets
President Trump promised to cut energy prices in half within his first year in office. He has done the exact opposite. Electricity prices rose nearly 7% last year, with the typical household paying $123 more for electricity in 2025 alone. Now, Trump’s disastrous Iran war has blocked one-fifth of the world’s oil supply, causing gasoline to rise by over a dollar this month to nearly $4 a gallon as diesel nears all-time highs. Those price increases come on top of heightened AI data center demand, which has driven utilities to file for record rate increases. A new fact sheet from Groundwork Collaborative captures the devastating impact on American households and who they blame.
More than 66% of Americans say their electricity bills have increased over the past year, while just 5% report any decrease. The burden is falling hardest on working families, with lower-income households spending nearly six times more of their income on energy than the wealthiest families. Meanwhile, one in five Americans could not afford their energy bills in 2025, and one in three reported cutting back on food or medicine just to keep the lights on.
Groundwork’s brief explores what Americans think is driving these cost increases and what policies they want decisionmakers to pursue. Nearly half of voters (47%) say tariffs are raising their utility bills, and 65% believe the rapid expansion of AI data centers will push electricity costs even higher. A new poll from Groundwork and Data for Progress finds that a majority of voters (52%) would rather end the Iran war than take temporary half measures to somewhat lower the price of gas, like tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and pausing the federal gas tax.
Click here to read the full fact sheet from Groundwork Collaborative.
The Groundwork Collaborative is dedicated to advancing a coherent and persuasive progressive economic worldview and narrative capable of delivering meaningful opportunity and prosperity for everyone. Our work is driven by a core guiding principle: We are the economy. Groundwork Collaborative envisions an economic system that produces strong, broadly shared prosperity and power for all people, not just a wealthy few.
LATEST NEWS
'This War Is Dumb as Hell': Military Historian Assesses Trump's Disaster in Iran
"Every day this war goes on makes both the United States and Iran weaker, poorer, and less secure."
Mar 25, 2026
Even as President Donald Trump signaled this week that he'd like to quickly wrap up his unconstitutional war with Iran, some experts are warning that the president has put himself in a situation with no easy way out.
Military historian Bret Devereaux, a teaching assistant professor at North Carolina State University, published a lengthy analysis of the war on Wednesday in which he described it as a failed gamble that Iran's regime would simply crumble in the face of a well-executed series of aerial strikes.
Devereaux said that this was highly unlikely given the nature of the Iranian regime, which is structured to maintain itself up and down the chain of command if one or even several of its leaders are killed.
And now that it's very clear that Trump's gamble of overthrowing the regime hasn't paid off, Devereaux wrote, he will be at the mercy of events beyond his control.
"Once started, a major regional war with Iran was always likely to be something of a 'trap,'" he contended, "not in the sense of an ambush laid by Iran—but in the sense of a situation that, once entered, cannot be easily left or reversed."
While Iran's response to the strikes carried out by the US and Israel in June 2025 was relatively tepid, Devereaux said, once Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the goal of their latest operation would be regime change, the Iranian government took the extraordinary step of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, sending global energy prices skyrocketing.
It has been this threat to shut down the strait, as well as the massive difficulty and cost it would take to occupy a nation of 90 million people, the historian continued, that has kept every US president for the last five decades from launching an invasion of Iran.
At the same time, he continued, Trump cannot now simply walk away while leaving Iran with the ability to take the global economy hostage whenever it pleases.
"The result is a fairly classic escalation trap: Once the conflict starts, it is extremely costly for either side to ever back down, which ensures that the conflict continues long past it being in the interests of either party," he wrote. "Every day this war goes on makes both the United States and Iran weaker, poorer, and less secure but it is very hard for either side to back down because there are huge costs connected to being the party that backs down."
Summing up his argument, Devereaux declared, "This war is dumb as hell."
Devereaux's analysis was echoed by Ilan Goldenberg, senior vice president and chief policy officer at J Street, who wrote in a social media post Wednesday that the US and Iran appear to be caught in an escalation trap, as exemplified by the Trump administration's recent decision to send more military personnel to the Persian Gulf.
"The much more important story right now isn’t diplomacy—it’s the thousands of US troops being mobilized and moving toward the Middle East," he wrote. "That movement strongly suggests preparation for further escalation, with Kharg Island emerging as the most likely target. For any objective observer, the likely Iranian response to a US move on Kharg is obvious: escalation, not capitulation. Tehran would almost certainly respond by expanding attacks on energy infrastructure across the Gulf."
Goldenberg added that "the most plausible off-ramp" will involve Trump simply declaring victory while leaving the regime intact and with vague promises to not produce a nuclear weapon, although he said that likely wouldn't come until after more escalation and destruction.
"Better to accept this likely outcome today rather than six months from now," he advised.
In a Wednesday analysis published at Liberal Currents, University of Illinois political scientist Nicholas Grossman cast doubt on Trump's ability to simply wash his hands of the Iran conflict and walk away.
Part of the issue, said Grossman, is that Iran simply might want to keep inflicting economic damage on Trump to make him think twice before launching a future attack on the regime.
"In hard power dynamics, this is the strongest position the Islamic Republic has ever been in, the most leverage they have over the United States since the 1979-80 hostage crisis," Grossman wrote. "Iran is likely thinking of longer-term security. If they can endure more US-Israeli bombing—and the war so far indicates that they can—then they can increasingly establish their ability to crash the global economy, a deterrent even the United States must respect."
Given that Trump is unlikely to want to be seen as a "loser" for simply accepting Iran's control of the strait, Grossman concluded, "that points to stablemate or escalation, more death and destruction, and a global economic disruption that will be bigger than many currently expect."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Earthquake for Big Tech': LA Jury in Social Media Addiction Trial Finds Meta, YouTube Harmed Child
"Between yesterday’s historic verdict in New Mexico and today’s ruling in California, it is clear that Big Tech’s free rein to addict and harm children is over," said one campaigner.
Mar 25, 2026
A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found that Meta and Google acted negligently by harming a child user with their social media platforms' addictive design features in a landmark verdict that came on the heels of Tuesday's $375 million fine imposed on Meta by New Mexico jurors.
The California jury—which deliberated for 40 hours over nine days—ordered the companies to pay $3 million in compensatory civil damages to a now-20-year-old woman, known in court as Kaley G.M., for pain and suffering and other damages.
Meta—the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—must pay 70%, while Google, the Alphabet subsidiary that bought YouTube, will pay the rest.
The jury also found the companies acted fraudulently and with malice, and will impose an additional fine.
Kaley's legal team successfully argued that the social media companies designed products that are as addictive as cigarettes or online casinos, and that site features like infinite scrolling and algorithmic recommendations caused her anxiety and depression. Attorneys said Kaley began viewing YouTube videos when she was 6 years old and started using Instagram at age 9.
Attorney Mark Lanier called YouTube Kaley's "gateway" to social media addiction. Later, features like Instagram's "beauty filters" made her feel "fat" and unattractive.
Still, Kaley was hooked, testifying in court last month: “Every single day I was on it, all day long. I just can’t be without it.”
Kaley's lawyers submitted evidence including internal communications in which officials at the two companies privately acknowledged their products' addictiveness.
"If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens," one YouTube strategy memo states.
A communication from an Instagram employee says: “We’re basically pushers... We’re causing reward deficit disorder, because people are binging on Instagram so much they can’t feel the reward.”
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says, “Kids under 13 aren’t allowed on our services.” That's a lie. 2015: Internal review found 4 million kids on Instagram.2017: Meta employees, we're "going after <13 year olds” – Zuckerberg had been talking about this “for a while.”
[image or embed]
— Tech Oversight Project (@techoversight.bsky.social) February 20, 2026 at 10:18 AM
Kaley's attorneys said in a statement following Wednesday's verdict: "For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. Today’s verdict is a referendum—from a jury, to an entire industry—on that accountability.”
One of those attorneys, Joseph VanZandt, told The New York Times that “this is the first time in history a jury has heard testimony by executives and seen internal documents that we believe prove these companies chose profits over children."
As Courthouse News Service reported:
Kaley is the first of nearly 2,500 plaintiffs in a consolidated case in Southern California suing four tech companies—Google, Meta, TikTok, and Snap—who say their social media and streaming platforms were designed in ways that caused or worsened depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia in minors.
TikTok and Snap settled with Kaley in the weeks before her bellwether trial but remain defendants in the broader consolidated litigation. The trial’s outcome could help spur a global settlement, though eight more bellwether trials are being prepared, with the next one scheduled to start this summer.
A Meta spokesperson told Courthouse News Service that “we respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.”
Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO and co-founder, insisted during the trial that Instagram is “a good thing that has value in people’s lives.”
Appeals by the companies could drag on for years, and, as Fox Business correspondent Susan Li noted on X, "if it’s just money that they have to pay, in the end it’s just a speeding ticket as they have deep pockets of cash."
Wednesday's verdict comes amid numerous pending lawsuits against social media companies and follows Tuesday's $375 million penalty imposed on Meta by a New Mexico jury, which found that the company violated the state's Unfair Practices Act by misleading users and exposing children to harm on its platforms.
Child welfare and digital rights advocates hailed Wednesday's verdict, which The Tech Oversight Project, an advocacy group, called "an earthquake for Big Tech."
"After years of gaslighting from companies like Google and Meta, new evidence and testimony have pulled back the curtain and validated the harms young people and parents have been telling the world about for years," the group's president, Sacha Haworth, said in a statement.
"These products were purposefully designed to harm [and] addict millions of young people, and lead to lifelong mental health consequences," Haworth added. "This trial was proof that if you put CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg on the stand before a judge and jury of their peers, the tech industry’s wanton disregard for people will be on full display."
Alix Fraser, vice president of advocacy at Issue One, said, “Today’s verdict is a victory for young people, their families, and all Americans, marking a critical turning point in the fight to hold Big Tech accountable."
"The message is clear: The industry cannot continue to treat the youngest generation as its guinea pigs without consequences," he continued. "The trial process exposed how these platforms are designed, how risks to young users are understood internally, and how those risks have too often been outweighed by the pursuit of growth and profit."
"Today’s verdict builds on that truth. It affirms that young people are not test subjects for unproven products that prioritize profit at all cost," Fraser added. “No other industry enjoys the level of legal protection tech companies have relied on. This verdict begins to crack that shield and move us closer to a system where accountability is the norm, not the exception."
Josh Golin, executive director of the children's advocacy group Fairplay, said, “We are so pleased that a jury has confirmed what Fairplay and the survivor parents we work with have been saying for years: Social media companies like Meta and YouTube deliberately design their products to addict kids."
"Between yesterday’s historic verdict in New Mexico and today’s ruling in California, it is clear that Big Tech’s free rein to addict and harm children is over," he added.
JB Branch, the artificial intelligence and technology policy counsel at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "the parallels to Big Tobacco litigation are becoming harder to ignore."
"Like tobacco companies before them, social media firms built massive business models around dependency, denied or minimized mounting evidence of harm, and resisted meaningful safeguards while millions of young people were exposed to escalating risks," Branch explained. "Infinite scroll, push notifications, algorithmic amplification, and behavioral targeting were commercial design choices built to maximize attention, addiction, and revenue."
“Now more than ever, it’s time for Congress and federal regulators to establish enforceable safeguards for youth online while preserving the right of states to adopt stronger standards, including stronger product safety requirements, transparency obligations, limits on manipulative design practices, and accountability mechanisms for platforms whose business models depend on prolonged youth engagement," Branch added.
While many campaigners are urging congressional lawmakers to pass the Senate version of the Kids Online Safety Act, civil rights groups including the ACLU argue that KOSA is overbroad and poses serious risks of censorship of free speech.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Slam Meeks, Jeffries Pushing Off War Powers Bill Just as It Gets Enough Votes to Pass
"Each day we delay increases the risk of deeper US involvement and more lives lost," said one progressive policy adviser. "Failing to act now means owning what comes next."
Mar 25, 2026
Democratic Party leaders are under fire after it was reported that they plan to wait until mid-April to hold a vote to rein in President Donald Trump's powers to wage war with Iran.
Punchbowl News reported on Tuesday that US House lawmakers had abandoned plans to hold a vote this week on a war powers resolution introduced by Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
With a two-week recess beginning next week, postponing the vote means the earliest Democrats could force it again is April 13.
A previous war powers resolution, which came to the floor just days after the US and Israel launched the war at the end of February, failed by a razor-thin margin when four pro-war Democrats—Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Jared Golden (D-Maine), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), and Juan Vargas (D-Calif.)—joined the bulk of Republicans to kill it.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said at a press briefing on Tuesday that there are “ongoing conversations” about passing a war powers resolution “sooner rather than later." He said, “When we present something on the floor, it’s our determination to win.”
But Democrats would likely be in a position to "win" the vote if it were held this week. Andrew Solender reported on Tuesday for Axios that following intense criticism from the grassroots base and pressure from party leadership, "most, if not all, of the four defectors are expected to flip and vote for the measure this time."
Solender later reported that Meeks was undecided about the measure. While the New York Democrat confirmed to Axios that the party had gotten defectors on board, he said he "hasn’t decided whether to force a vote on his war powers resolution this week or in mid-April."
Democratic leadership has already been accused of attempting to sabotage a previous resolution introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) in late February by waiting to vote on it until after Trump launched the war.
Independent journalist Aída Chávez, who reported on these stall tactics in February, noted that Meeks "previously tried to delay a vote by warning 40 Democrats could oppose it. In the end, just four did."
"Now Meeks is saying he may not hold the vote because one member could vote no," Chávez wrote on social media. "If Democrats are unified, this Iran war powers resolution could actually pass... That makes Democratic leadership’s refusal to force a vote ASAP even more indefensible."
The decision to punt yet another resolution for nearly three weeks has ignited even more outrage and suspicion among progressives, especially amid reports that Trump is sending thousands more US troops to the Middle East and is mulling a ground invasion of Iran.
"It would be extremely alarming for Reps. Jeffries and Meeks to waver now on forcing a war powers vote," said Cavan Kharrazian, the senior policy adviser for Demand Progress. "Delaying a war powers vote now effectively gives Trump two more weeks to continue and escalate the war in Iran."
Ryan Grim, co-founder of Drop Site News, went further, accusing Meeks of backing off the resolution precisely "because it now may have the votes to pass." He contended that "Democrats secretly want this war to continue because it hurts Trump."
The war is indeed highly unpopular, with 59% of Americans saying it has "gone too far," according to an Associated Press-NORC poll published Wednesday. Its cascading effects throughout the economy—particularly the sharp increases in gas prices across the US—also have the potential to harm Trump, who has shed support for failing to address the high cost of living.
Andrei Vasilescu, the director of communications for Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Common Dreams that Meeks was "whipping a vote precisely so it passes, and any accusations to the contrary are absurd."
He said many members of the House are not currently in DC and that passing the resolution would require all of the "yes" votes to be present.
"Ranking Member Meeks could not be clearer about his opposition to the war, and is working through this resolution and all other available tools to hold President Trump accountable for his reckless war of choice," he added.
He noted that Meeks also introduced a motion on Wednesday to subpoena Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to testify about the war.
According to the Human Rights Activist News Agency (HRANA), a US-based human rights monitor for Iran, at least 1,443 civilians, including 217 children, have been killed by US and Israeli strikes since the war began on February 28. Lebanon's Ministry of Health reported last week that more than 1,000 civilians have been killed by Israeli attacks as it expanded its military campaign there in early March.
"This war is a disaster, it’s unpopular, and civilians across the region are dying," Kharrazian of Demand Progress said. "This is a moment for anti-war leadership, not hesitation. The House should be on the record now, especially when reporting suggests the votes are there to pass a war powers resolution."
"Each day we delay increases the risk of deeper US involvement and more lives lost," he added. "Failing to act now means owning what comes next."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular