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.
“It will soon become undeniable, not only that the climate change crisis is real,” writes Day, ” but also that a crime has been committed.”
If you’re a reasonably young person who is opposing measures to address climate change for reasons of financial or political gain, be afraid. Be very afraid.
Largely out of public view, there is a growing advocacy for treating certain forms of climate change denial as a crime. The political will to do this doesn’t exist today, of course, but give it a decade or two. The planet is warming faster than predicted. Oceans are warming more rapidly than expected, extreme weather events are occurring with unprecedented frequency; glaciers are disappearing, sea levels are rising, prolonged droughts are becoming common place, tropical diseases move North following the mosquitos, and much more.
Estimates of the number of people who will die each year because of climate change range from 250,000 to 5,000,000. And the butcher’s bill is sure to grow as the crisis worsens. The tragedy, of course, is this was preventable—every death, every extinction of a species—all unnecessary.
Humanity can’t say it wasn’t warned. Almost half a century ago Jimmy Carter became the first president to raise the alarm on climate change. But America chose Ronald Reagan, who quickly gutted Carter’s efforts to develop alternative energy sources. What a different world this would be if we had listened to Carter.
Why didn’t we listen? Why, for that matter, are so many people still not listening? Sociological studies suggest there are many factors contributing to climate change denialism. There is no doubt, however, the biggest factor has been the political war on truth initiated by the petroleum industry and other polluting enterprises. With help from their political cronies, they have been extraordinarily successful in convincing a large minority of the population that scientific truth is found, not in a laboratory, but from blowhards on talk radio.
But time has a way of catching up with scientific falsehoods. Earlier than expected, climate change is now impacting our lives in profound ways. And with every passing year, climate change’s impact on our lives will grow, and maintaining the fog of lies will become correspondingly more difficult.
It will soon become undeniable, not only that the climate change crisis is real, but also that a crime has been committed. The most consequential crime in world history. And the demands for justice will grow.
No one would argue that every MAGA loudmouth shouting in a tavern that climate change is a hoax should be hauled to The Hague for trial. If the sting of criminal law is to be applied to climate change deniers, it will need to be done selectively, enforced against only the worst offenders: the people with money and power who choose to put maximizing their personal wealth (and/or political power) above the future of the planet.
The moral case for holding this select group criminally responsible Is powerful. The three traditionally stated justifications for criminal punishment are: deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation. All three fit here to some degree. The deterrence effect of criminalizing climate related fraud would be powerful. The likelihood that their actions will help to ruin, and in many cases end, the lives of billions of souls may not be enough to get these people to change their conduct, but the thought of sitting in jail for years often would.
The same basic point applies to incapacitation. If the people spreading climate misinformation for profit are arrested, tried and thrown into jail, their ability to continue such actions will greatly diminish and hopefully disappear altogether. While it is unlikely silencing fraudulent conduct by these few people would empty the sewer of misinformation, it would at least slow it.
What deterrence and incapacitation have in common, of course, is they both have expiration dates. The scientific consensus is that at some point, probably very soon, the earth will pass a tipping point after which catastrophic climate change will become unstoppable. Some scientists think we may already have passed that point, though most believe there is still time, if very little, to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. Once that line is crossed it will be too late to prevent disaster, which would mean that deterrence and incapacitation’s value will have largely been squandered.
That is when retribution will take center stage. A generation of Americans who were too young, and too powerless, to prevent the disaster will be suffering the consequences of prior generations’ failure to act. By the time they have grown into a political majority and have the political heft that goes with it, they’ll find there’s little they can do. It’s too late.
Given this history, does anyone seriously believe this betrayed generation will let bygones be bygones?
Not a chance.
They will demand justice. And the only form of justice available will be retribution, which in this context will mean imprisonment of offenders. And while there will be non-frivolous legal arguments over whether such prosecutions are lawful, including claims that they would constitute an expo facto prosecution (prosecuting someone for conduct that was not criminal at the time committed), have no doubt, given the likely state of public rage, ways will be found to overcome such defenses.
But this type of justice will be incomplete. Most of the worst offenders will have already died peacefully from old age, escaping all forms of justice, at least in this world. But not all of the guilty will be gone. Given the quickening pace of disasters related to climate change, there is reason to believe that by twenty years from now, perhaps ten, a worldwide consensus will have been reached as to the dimensions of the disaster, it’s cause, and the extent of the betrayal. Calls for justice will surely soon follow.
Many of today’s leaders of the corporations that are still contributing to climate change, and still resisting the scientific consensus, are now in the prime of their lives. The same goes for many of the politicians guilty of bad-faith climate change denial. The majority of these people will still be alive at the times we are talking about. Most will have been living comfortable lives with enough money to largely protect themselves from the early consequences of climate change.
But there is every reason to believe, justice, or the closest thing to justice possible, will track many of them down. And many may well die in prison.
So, once again, if you’re a reasonably young person who opposes measures to address climate change for reasons of financial or political gain be afraid. Be very afraid.Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I’ve ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That’s why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we’ve ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here’s the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That’s not just some fundraising cliche. It’s the absolute and literal truth. We don’t accept corporate advertising and never will. We don’t have a paywall because we don’t think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
If you’re a reasonably young person who is opposing measures to address climate change for reasons of financial or political gain, be afraid. Be very afraid.
Largely out of public view, there is a growing advocacy for treating certain forms of climate change denial as a crime. The political will to do this doesn’t exist today, of course, but give it a decade or two. The planet is warming faster than predicted. Oceans are warming more rapidly than expected, extreme weather events are occurring with unprecedented frequency; glaciers are disappearing, sea levels are rising, prolonged droughts are becoming common place, tropical diseases move North following the mosquitos, and much more.
Estimates of the number of people who will die each year because of climate change range from 250,000 to 5,000,000. And the butcher’s bill is sure to grow as the crisis worsens. The tragedy, of course, is this was preventable—every death, every extinction of a species—all unnecessary.
Humanity can’t say it wasn’t warned. Almost half a century ago Jimmy Carter became the first president to raise the alarm on climate change. But America chose Ronald Reagan, who quickly gutted Carter’s efforts to develop alternative energy sources. What a different world this would be if we had listened to Carter.
Why didn’t we listen? Why, for that matter, are so many people still not listening? Sociological studies suggest there are many factors contributing to climate change denialism. There is no doubt, however, the biggest factor has been the political war on truth initiated by the petroleum industry and other polluting enterprises. With help from their political cronies, they have been extraordinarily successful in convincing a large minority of the population that scientific truth is found, not in a laboratory, but from blowhards on talk radio.
But time has a way of catching up with scientific falsehoods. Earlier than expected, climate change is now impacting our lives in profound ways. And with every passing year, climate change’s impact on our lives will grow, and maintaining the fog of lies will become correspondingly more difficult.
It will soon become undeniable, not only that the climate change crisis is real, but also that a crime has been committed. The most consequential crime in world history. And the demands for justice will grow.
No one would argue that every MAGA loudmouth shouting in a tavern that climate change is a hoax should be hauled to The Hague for trial. If the sting of criminal law is to be applied to climate change deniers, it will need to be done selectively, enforced against only the worst offenders: the people with money and power who choose to put maximizing their personal wealth (and/or political power) above the future of the planet.
The moral case for holding this select group criminally responsible Is powerful. The three traditionally stated justifications for criminal punishment are: deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation. All three fit here to some degree. The deterrence effect of criminalizing climate related fraud would be powerful. The likelihood that their actions will help to ruin, and in many cases end, the lives of billions of souls may not be enough to get these people to change their conduct, but the thought of sitting in jail for years often would.
The same basic point applies to incapacitation. If the people spreading climate misinformation for profit are arrested, tried and thrown into jail, their ability to continue such actions will greatly diminish and hopefully disappear altogether. While it is unlikely silencing fraudulent conduct by these few people would empty the sewer of misinformation, it would at least slow it.
What deterrence and incapacitation have in common, of course, is they both have expiration dates. The scientific consensus is that at some point, probably very soon, the earth will pass a tipping point after which catastrophic climate change will become unstoppable. Some scientists think we may already have passed that point, though most believe there is still time, if very little, to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. Once that line is crossed it will be too late to prevent disaster, which would mean that deterrence and incapacitation’s value will have largely been squandered.
That is when retribution will take center stage. A generation of Americans who were too young, and too powerless, to prevent the disaster will be suffering the consequences of prior generations’ failure to act. By the time they have grown into a political majority and have the political heft that goes with it, they’ll find there’s little they can do. It’s too late.
Given this history, does anyone seriously believe this betrayed generation will let bygones be bygones?
Not a chance.
They will demand justice. And the only form of justice available will be retribution, which in this context will mean imprisonment of offenders. And while there will be non-frivolous legal arguments over whether such prosecutions are lawful, including claims that they would constitute an expo facto prosecution (prosecuting someone for conduct that was not criminal at the time committed), have no doubt, given the likely state of public rage, ways will be found to overcome such defenses.
But this type of justice will be incomplete. Most of the worst offenders will have already died peacefully from old age, escaping all forms of justice, at least in this world. But not all of the guilty will be gone. Given the quickening pace of disasters related to climate change, there is reason to believe that by twenty years from now, perhaps ten, a worldwide consensus will have been reached as to the dimensions of the disaster, it’s cause, and the extent of the betrayal. Calls for justice will surely soon follow.
Many of today’s leaders of the corporations that are still contributing to climate change, and still resisting the scientific consensus, are now in the prime of their lives. The same goes for many of the politicians guilty of bad-faith climate change denial. The majority of these people will still be alive at the times we are talking about. Most will have been living comfortable lives with enough money to largely protect themselves from the early consequences of climate change.
But there is every reason to believe, justice, or the closest thing to justice possible, will track many of them down. And many may well die in prison.
So, once again, if you’re a reasonably young person who opposes measures to address climate change for reasons of financial or political gain be afraid. Be very afraid.If you’re a reasonably young person who is opposing measures to address climate change for reasons of financial or political gain, be afraid. Be very afraid.
Largely out of public view, there is a growing advocacy for treating certain forms of climate change denial as a crime. The political will to do this doesn’t exist today, of course, but give it a decade or two. The planet is warming faster than predicted. Oceans are warming more rapidly than expected, extreme weather events are occurring with unprecedented frequency; glaciers are disappearing, sea levels are rising, prolonged droughts are becoming common place, tropical diseases move North following the mosquitos, and much more.
Estimates of the number of people who will die each year because of climate change range from 250,000 to 5,000,000. And the butcher’s bill is sure to grow as the crisis worsens. The tragedy, of course, is this was preventable—every death, every extinction of a species—all unnecessary.
Humanity can’t say it wasn’t warned. Almost half a century ago Jimmy Carter became the first president to raise the alarm on climate change. But America chose Ronald Reagan, who quickly gutted Carter’s efforts to develop alternative energy sources. What a different world this would be if we had listened to Carter.
Why didn’t we listen? Why, for that matter, are so many people still not listening? Sociological studies suggest there are many factors contributing to climate change denialism. There is no doubt, however, the biggest factor has been the political war on truth initiated by the petroleum industry and other polluting enterprises. With help from their political cronies, they have been extraordinarily successful in convincing a large minority of the population that scientific truth is found, not in a laboratory, but from blowhards on talk radio.
But time has a way of catching up with scientific falsehoods. Earlier than expected, climate change is now impacting our lives in profound ways. And with every passing year, climate change’s impact on our lives will grow, and maintaining the fog of lies will become correspondingly more difficult.
It will soon become undeniable, not only that the climate change crisis is real, but also that a crime has been committed. The most consequential crime in world history. And the demands for justice will grow.
No one would argue that every MAGA loudmouth shouting in a tavern that climate change is a hoax should be hauled to The Hague for trial. If the sting of criminal law is to be applied to climate change deniers, it will need to be done selectively, enforced against only the worst offenders: the people with money and power who choose to put maximizing their personal wealth (and/or political power) above the future of the planet.
The moral case for holding this select group criminally responsible Is powerful. The three traditionally stated justifications for criminal punishment are: deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation. All three fit here to some degree. The deterrence effect of criminalizing climate related fraud would be powerful. The likelihood that their actions will help to ruin, and in many cases end, the lives of billions of souls may not be enough to get these people to change their conduct, but the thought of sitting in jail for years often would.
The same basic point applies to incapacitation. If the people spreading climate misinformation for profit are arrested, tried and thrown into jail, their ability to continue such actions will greatly diminish and hopefully disappear altogether. While it is unlikely silencing fraudulent conduct by these few people would empty the sewer of misinformation, it would at least slow it.
What deterrence and incapacitation have in common, of course, is they both have expiration dates. The scientific consensus is that at some point, probably very soon, the earth will pass a tipping point after which catastrophic climate change will become unstoppable. Some scientists think we may already have passed that point, though most believe there is still time, if very little, to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. Once that line is crossed it will be too late to prevent disaster, which would mean that deterrence and incapacitation’s value will have largely been squandered.
That is when retribution will take center stage. A generation of Americans who were too young, and too powerless, to prevent the disaster will be suffering the consequences of prior generations’ failure to act. By the time they have grown into a political majority and have the political heft that goes with it, they’ll find there’s little they can do. It’s too late.
Given this history, does anyone seriously believe this betrayed generation will let bygones be bygones?
Not a chance.
They will demand justice. And the only form of justice available will be retribution, which in this context will mean imprisonment of offenders. And while there will be non-frivolous legal arguments over whether such prosecutions are lawful, including claims that they would constitute an expo facto prosecution (prosecuting someone for conduct that was not criminal at the time committed), have no doubt, given the likely state of public rage, ways will be found to overcome such defenses.
But this type of justice will be incomplete. Most of the worst offenders will have already died peacefully from old age, escaping all forms of justice, at least in this world. But not all of the guilty will be gone. Given the quickening pace of disasters related to climate change, there is reason to believe that by twenty years from now, perhaps ten, a worldwide consensus will have been reached as to the dimensions of the disaster, it’s cause, and the extent of the betrayal. Calls for justice will surely soon follow.
Many of today’s leaders of the corporations that are still contributing to climate change, and still resisting the scientific consensus, are now in the prime of their lives. The same goes for many of the politicians guilty of bad-faith climate change denial. The majority of these people will still be alive at the times we are talking about. Most will have been living comfortable lives with enough money to largely protect themselves from the early consequences of climate change.
But there is every reason to believe, justice, or the closest thing to justice possible, will track many of them down. And many may well die in prison.
So, once again, if you’re a reasonably young person who opposes measures to address climate change for reasons of financial or political gain be afraid. Be very afraid.The ACLU is asking a federal district court in Georgia to order the immediate release of Mario Guevara, a journalist arrested while covering a June "No Kings" protest, after the Board of Immigration Appeals on Friday ordered his return to El Salvador.
The Emmy-winning Spanish-language journalist has reported on immigrant issues in the Atlanta area for two decades. When he was arrested on the job this year, he had a work permit and a path to a green card through his US citizen son. The charges from June have been dropped, but he remains at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) center in Folkston.
ICE refused to comply with a July 1 decision that Guevara could be released on bond. The Board of Immigration Appeals has now dismissed his bond appeal "as 'moot' because it has also granted the government's motion to reopen his removal proceedings," according to the ACLU—which secured an emergency federal district court hearing on Friday.
"Mr. Guevara should not even be in immigration detention, but the government has kept him there for months because of his crucial reporting on law enforcement activity," said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "The fact that he may now be put on a plane to El Salvador, a country he fled out of fear, at any moment, despite a clear path to becoming a permanent resident, is despicable. The court must ensure he is not deported and should order his release from detention immediately."
"The fact that he may now be put on a plane to El Salvador, a country he fled out of fear, at any moment, despite a clear path to becoming a permanent resident, is despicable."
In a letter published Friday by The Bitter Southerner, Guevara detailed his experience since his arrest and wrote: "I don't know why ICE wants to continue treating me like a criminal. It pains me to know that I have been denied every privilege and the right to be free when I have never committed any crime."
"This whole situation has me devastated, and not only morally, but also economically, because I am the breadwinner for the home," he explained. "Since my arrest, I have lost tens of thousands of dollars, and my company, the news channel MGNews, is on the verge of bankruptcy."
"But I have to remain strong and confident that the United States still has some caring and decency left and that in the end justice will prevail," he added. "Hopefully, soon all my tears and my family's tears will be wiped away, and we can have fun and smile, triumphant, as we did before, together and in absolute freedom."
Guevara's legal team and press freedom groups have emphasized that his case is bigger than a single reporter. As ACLU of Georgia legal director Cory Isaacson put it on Friday, "If Mr. Guevara is deported it will be a devastating outcome for a journalist whose initial detention was a gross violation of his rights."
"The immediate release of Mr. Guevara is the only way to correct this injustice that has immeasurably harmed his well-being and the well-being of his family, the community, and the people of Georgia," Isaacson added. "In a democracy, journalists should not be arrested for exercising their constitutional rights to report the news."
Mario Guevara is here legally and is not facing any criminal charges.He is being thrown out of the country for nothing but reporting news.
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation (@freedom.press) September 19, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Other free press advocates also responded with alarm to the Board of Immigration Appeals' Friday decision.
"We are outraged that journalist Mario Guevara was initially detained for almost 100 days because the government believes that livestreaming law enforcement poses a danger to their operations," Committee to Protect Journalists US, Canada, and Caribbean program coordinator Katherine Jacobsen said in a Friday statement.
"This latest move allows the government to circumvent addressing the reason why Guevara was detained, in retaliation for his journalism," Jacobsen continued. "Instead, authorities are using the very real threat of deportation to remove a reporter from the country simply for doing his job and covering the news."
Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at PEN America, similarly said that "if carried out, this ruling would mark a dangerous moment for press freedom, with the United States—long considered a beacon for free speech—moving to deport a journalist in direct retaliation for his reporting."
"This mirrors the tactics of authoritarian governments the US has long condemned and sends a chilling message to reporters everywhere, especially those covering vulnerable communities or government abuses of power," he added. "We urge the court to reconsider and to allow Mario Guevara to remain in the country and continue his reporting free from fear of deportation or retaliation."
US President Donald Trump campaigned on the promise of mass deportations, and since returning to power in January, his administration has sought to deliver on that. On Friday, Free Press senior counsel Nora Benavidez warned, "Deportation without due process—that would be the new normal set by Mario Guevara's removal from the United States."
"Horrific and lawless, this is the environment the Trump administration created to promote a singular approved narrative, remove critical news coverage for communities, and chill journalists' freedom should they dare hold power to account," she said. "Mr. Guevara's case is happening live, with breaking updates occurring under a sealed case shrouded in secrecy, upon which his removal and ability to report depend."
Ahead of the developments on Friday, Benavidez had tied Guevara's case to the government's effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil over his protests against Israel's US-backed genocide in Gaza, and Disney yanking late-night host Jimmy Kimmel off the air after the Trump administration objected to his comments about the fatal shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"Mahmoud Khalil was just ordered to be deported for his free speech," she said Thursday. "Mario Guevara is in detention for filming police. Jimmy Kimmel taken off air for his speech. TikTok [is] being bought by Trump cronies. All of it moves towards one singular narrative Trump approves. We must resist."
Ahead of this month's United Nations General Assembly and November's UN Climate Change Conference in Brazil, climate and social justice defenders around the world are taking part in a global week of action culminating in weekend events "to draw the line against injustice, pollution, and violence—and for a future built on peace, clean energy, and fairness."
Hundreds of thousands of people in more than 100 countries are expected to take part in this weekend's demonstrations, which will mark the climax of the "Draw the Line" week of over 600 worldwide actions.
Actions are set to take place in cities including Berlin, Buenos Aires, Dhaka, Istanbul, Jakarta, Johannesburg, London, Manila, Melbourne, Mumbai, Nairobi, New Delhi, New York, Paris, São Paulo, Suva, Tokyo, Wellington, and Belém—where the UN Climate Change Conference, also known as COP30, is scheduled to kick off on November 10.
"United under a call from Indigenous leaders of the Amazon and the Pacific, people across more than 90 countries are joining marches, rallies, strikes, and creative actions to demand an end to fossil fuels, a just transition, and real climate justice," Draw the Line said in a statement.
"The mobilizations highlight escalating climate impacts, rising food and energy costs, deadly floods and heatwaves, and growing insecurity driven by fossil fuels and conflict," the campaign added. "Protesters are also uplifting community-led solutions: renewable energy systems, debt cancellation, fair taxation, and land rights for Indigenous peoples and traditional communities."
From Indonesia and Turkey, to London and South Africa, activists and campaigners are raising the call to ✍️____ Draw the Line against injustice, pollution, and violence, and building the moment for the global weekend of actions starting tomorrow⚡#DrawTheLine
[image or embed]
— 350.org (@350.org) September 18, 2025 at 9:35 AM
According to the climate action group 350.org:
This global moment comes at a critical time when the rich and the powerful countries and corporations continue their colonial and extractivist agenda, while world leaders fail to prevent and stop the genocide taking place in Palestine, Sudan, and Congo, and the governments across the world are veering towards authoritarianism, undoing decades of progress. With every tenth of a degree of global heating, the consequences for people and ecosystems multiply, as seen in the devastating wildfires, typhoons, cloudbursts, floods, and extreme heatwaves already sweeping across continents this year.
“We are drawing the line against deceptive tactics led by rich nations and big corporations to perpetuate fossil fuel dominance and delay the equitable just transition to a fossil-free and healthy planet," explained Lidy Nacpil, coordinator of the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development.
"We demand a complete coal phaseout in Asia by 2035 and a rapid and just energy transition out of fossil fuels and to 100% renewable energy before 2050," Nacpil added. "We demand the full delivery of climate finance obligations of the Global North to the Global South for urgent climate action including just transition. This is a crucial part of their reparations for historical and continuing harms to our people.”
The Draw the Line actions coincide with Disrupt Complicity Weekend of solidarity with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights and against Israel's genocide, forced famine, apartheid, occupation, ethnic cleansing, and settler colonization in Palestine.
Read the full statement: bdsmovement.net/news/disrupt...
[image or embed]
— BDS movement (@bdsmovement.bsky.social) August 28, 2025 at 4:38 AM
“In the current, most depraved, induced starvation phase of the US-Israeli livestreamed genocide against... Palestinians in the Gaza ghetto, Palestinian civil society stands united in calling on people of conscience and grassroots movements for racial, economic, social, climate, and gender justice worldwide to help us build a critical mass of people power to end state, corporate, and institutional complicity with Israel’s regime of settler-colonial apartheid and genocide, particularly through effective BDS actions and pressure," BDS movement co-founder Omar Barghouti said in a statement this week.
"We are not begging for charity but calling for true solidarity, and that begins with doing no harm to our liberation struggle, at the very least, as a profound moral and legal obligation," he added.
The Draw the Line actions come as the world is on track to overshoot the best-case 1.5°C warming target established under the landmark Paris climate agreement. Experts argue that staying below that limit significantly reduces the likelihood of catastrophic weather events, protects vulnerable ecosystems, lowers the risk of devastating food and water insecurity, and curbs climate-related economic harms.
Not only is the planet on track to exceed the 1.5°C target, a key United Nations climate report published last October warned that the world is on course for between 2.6-3.1°C of "catastrophic" heating over the next century, unless urgent action is taken to dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions by more than half within the next decade.
Trump-appointed Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano on Friday drew immediate fire from many progressives after he said raising the retirement age for American workers was on the table.
During an interview on Fox Business, host Maria Bartiromo asked Bisignano if he would "consider raising the retirement age" to shore up Social Security's finances.
"I think everything's being considered," he replied.
He said that he would need Congress' help to officially raise the retirement age and acknowledged, "That will take a while," before adding, "But we have plenty of time."
Bartiromo: Would you consider raising the retirement age?
Social Security Administration Commissioner Bisignano: I think everything will be considered pic.twitter.com/kqfMm5Prif
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 19, 2025
Advocacy organization Social Security Works immediately pounced on Bisignano's statement, which it noted contradicted statements made by President Donald Trump during the 2024 election campaign.
"That's a betrayal of Trump's campaign promise to protect Social Security," the organization said in a social media post. "Raising the retirement age by a year translates to a 7% Social Security benefit cut. Forcing us to work longer, for smaller checks, and a shorter retirement is unconscionable!"
In fact, as flagged by former Biden White House Senior Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates, Trump said in 2024 that "I will not cut one penny from Social Security or Medicaid and I will not raise the retirement age by one day."
Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich also rebuked Bisignano for floating a retirement age increase, and he proposed an alternative way to improve Social Security's fiscal health.
"A worker making $50,000 a year contributes to Social Security on 100% of their income," he wrote. "A CEO making $20 million a year contributes to Social Security on less than 1% of their income. Instead of raising the retirement age, we should scrap the Social Security tax cap."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) noted that Bisignano's call to potentially raise the retirement age came just months after Republicans passed massive tax cuts through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans.
"Republicans gave away trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy," he said. "Now they are asking Americans to work longer. We won’t stand for it."
The social media account for United Auto Workers delivered a pithy two-word response to Bisignano: "Hell no!"