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
center for american progress
100+ Civil Society Groups Condemn Trump Attack on Democratic Establishment Think Tank
"We stand with the Center for American Progress, not in agreement with every view they hold, but in steadfast support for their rights to voice those views freely and without political retribution."
Sep 01, 2026
A diverse coalition of around 150 organizations on Tuesday collectively spoke out against US President Donald Trump's recent attack on the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with ties to the Democratic Party establishment.
The Republican president, through one of his lawyers, threatened to sue the center last month over its July report concluding that there was no evidence his deployment of the National Guard in Washington, DC did anything to reduce violent crime.
"Since our nation's founding, the rights to free speech, association, and the press have been the bedrock on which American democracy has thrived," begins the coalition's statement, spearheaded by Nonprofits Together. "We reaffirm, as has each generation before us, our unqualified commitment to the First Amendment and its foundational protections."
"In so doing, we stand in strong solidarity with the Center for American Progress (CAP), a nonpartisan think tank, and its right to publish expert analysis on the impact of the Trump administration's—or any administration's—policies," it continues. "The free exchange of ideas—including ideas that are inconvenient to those in power—is critical for Americans to understand the nature and impact of the actions of their government."
Trump's legal attack on CAP is just "the latest salvo in the administration's ongoing efforts to suppress the speech of organizations that challenge their policies, defend the rule of law, and protect civil rights and vulnerable communities," the coalition noted.
Other authoritarian attacks—as detailed last December in the Free Press report "Chokehold: Donald Trump's War on Free Speech & the Need for Systemic Resistance"—include the White House taking control of the presidential press pool, legal action such as Trump's lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and the The Wall Street Journal over reporting on the president's ties to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and the administration working to deport foreign scholars and journalists who criticize US policy.
First it was law firms, then universities, and now Trump has threatened a research organization in an attempt to silence them.We're proud to join 150+ organizations standing up for @americanprogress.bsky.social and the First Amendment. Read the full statement: nptogether.org/press/cap-st...
[image or embed]
— American Oversight (@weareoversight.bsky.social) September 1, 2026 at 12:14 PM
Stressing that there are often disagreements "even within think tanks," the coalition warned Tuesday that attempting to silence sources of information "degrades our free exchange of ideas, and risks leaving only distortions in the public square."
"This is infinitely more damaging to our democratic ideals when done for purely political purposes," the groups argued. "There are few issues more fundamental to the First Amendment than the right of an independent organization to publish evidence-based analysis of a government policy and how it is or is not working."
"This is not about ideology or partisanship," the organizations continued. "This is true regardless of who is in power, and who is issuing public critiques of that power. We stand with the Center for American Progress, not in agreement with every view they hold, but in steadfast support for their rights to voice those views freely and without political retribution."
The signatories range from environmental, labor, and legal groups to those focused on faith, housing, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive freedom, and more. They include the ACLU, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Drug Policy Alliance, Economic Policy Institute, Giffords, Greenpeace USA, Human Rights Campaign, Indivisible, National Education Association, Oxfam America, Public Citizen, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
“The free exchange of ideas—including ideas that are inconvenient to those in power—is critical for Americans to understand the nature and impact of the actions of their government.” CAC stands with @americanprogress.bsky.social: nptogether.org/press/cap-st...
[image or embed]
— CAC (@myconstitution.bsky.social) September 1, 2026 at 11:30 AM
CAP was founded in 2003 by John Podesta, who has served in various roles under former Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. The center's current president, Neera Tanden, has also worked for key party leaders. In response to Trump's threat last month, she emphasized that the think tank "is an independent, nonpartisan research organization, and our work is grounded in rigorous, evidence-based research and analysis."
Blasting the threatened lawsuit as "baseless" and "a transparent attempt to silence us," Tanden pledged that "we will neither cower nor bend in the face of it."
"In America, profound disagreements over public policy are resolved through robust public debate, not through threats or intimidation," she added. "Independent data, evidence, and analysis are essential to that debate. Efforts to silence independent research because its findings are unwelcome by an administration or president should alarm every American."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Threatens to Sue Think Tank Over Study That Exposed Folly of His DC National Guard Deployment
"Efforts to silence independent research because its findings are unwelcome by an administration or president should alarm every American."
Aug 21, 2026
President Donald Trump is threatening to sue a liberal think tank after it published a report last month casting doubt on the purported effectiveness of his deployment of the National Guard in Washington, DC.
The New York Times reported on Friday that Alejandro Brito, one of the president's personal lawyers, sent a letter to the Center for American Progress (CAP) this week demanding that it retract a study it published on July 13, which concluded that there was no evidence the National Guard's presence in the nation's capital did anything to reduce violent crime.
Brito threatened to file a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against CAP if it did not retract the report and offer a personal apology to the president, according to the Times.
CAP president Neera Tanden said the organization was standing by its work and would not back down in the fact of legal threats from the president.
"This threatened lawsuit’s attack on facts and evidence is baseless," said Tanden. "A fundamental protection of the First Amendment is to allow for the publication of facts and analysis that is contrary to the arguments and claims of any administration. A lawsuit is a transparent attempt to silence us."
Tanden added that "efforts to silence independent research because its findings are unwelcome by an administration or president should alarm every American."
CAP's report notes that crime has been declining in major US cities across the country over the last two years, and it finds that declines in Washington, DC over that period were not significantly greater than in cities where there was no National Guard presence.
"Despite multiple tests using multiple data sources, measures, and windows of time," the report concludes, "there is no compelling evidence that these deployments reduced homicides, violent crime, or gun violence."
The report adds that the goal of the deployment was never about fighting crime but rather "a dangerous power grab by the Trump administration."
CAP isn't alone in questioning the effectiveness of Trump's DC National Guard deployment.
Reuters on Wednesday published an investigation finding that National Guard soldiers have been mentioned in just 1.3% of cases brought before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which processes nearly all prosecutions in the city.
What's more, the investigation found that National Guard soldiers were mostly deployed to wealthier neighborhoods in the city, where they responded to minor incidents.
After examining court records, Reuters investigators "could find no reference... to soldiers doing any kind of law enforcement in the neighborhoods where about 82% of the city’s 859 murders occurred over the past five years."
Deploying the National Guard in DC is also an expensive endeavor. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) earlier this month revealed that keeping soldiers deployed in the city is projected to cost taxpayers an extra $1.4 billion through the end of Trump’s term.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Accused of ‘Mugging’ Americans as War on Clean Energy Set to Cost US Economy $55 Billion a Year
“Trump is getting Americans coming and going. He’s forcing higher power bills on them by blocking clean energy, then he’s fattening the wallets of his cronies," said former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.
Jul 10, 2026
President Donald Trump's obsession with canceling clean energy projects is bad not just for the climate, but for the US economy as a whole.
An analysis released Thursday by nonprofit green energy advocate E2 and conducted by consulting firm BW Research estimates that clean energy projects that have been shut down or downsized during Trump's second term would have added $55 billion to the annual gross domestic product (GDP).
The analysis finds that, in addition to delivering a hit to GDP, scrapping the projects lead to 470,000 fewer jobs, including 42,000 construction jobs related to battery storage, 33,000 construction jobs related to solar projects, and 28,000 construction jobs related to electric vehicle projects.
The cancelations will also hit governments' coffers, as they are projected to deliver a $12 billion annual reduction in tax revenues.
The report points to two big components in Trump White House's attack on clean energy: the Republican Party's 2025 budget law, which rolled back tax credits for clean energy programs, and the administration's own policies, including payoffs to companies to halt project development and a permitting ban on new solar and wind projects.
Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, said the numbers outlined in the analysis show that "making it harder to build clean energy projects means lost jobs, lost investments, lost electricity supplies, and lost local tax revenues."
"Add it all up and it’s clear," Keefe added, "that federal actions to stop clean energy are costing all of us—consumers, businesses and our national economy—big time."
Michael Timberlake, director of research and publications at E2, commented that Trump's policies are "hitting exactly the kinds of projects America needs most: domestic manufacturing, battery storage, solar, wind, and electric vehicles."
“The losses go far beyond the direct jobs announced by companies," Timberlake said. "Every cancelled factory or power project means fewer construction workers on site, fewer suppliers filling orders, fewer dollars flowing through local economies, and fewer tax revenues for schools, fire departments, roads, and public services."
A Friday report in The Guardian similarly highlighted the economic damage being done by Trump's war on clean energy, with a particular focus on the Trump administration's unprecedented policy of paying energy companies to relinquish leases for offshore wind projects they had already purchased.
Jenny Rowland-Shea, senior director for conservation policy at the Center for American Progress, told The Guardian that the administration is "trying to snuff out an entire form of energy," which she said was a particularly irrational thing to do when Americans' utility bills are spiking.
"It’s at a time when the United States needs more energy," said Rowland-Shea. "As people’s rates are going up for electricity, as we see data centers gobbling up more energy."
Former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, whose 2020 presidential campaign focused heavily on combating the climate crisis, accused Trump and his administration of "mugging" the American public by forcing them to needlessly pay more for energy.
“Trump is getting Americans coming and going,” said Inslee. “He’s forcing higher power bills on them by blocking clean energy, then he’s fattening the wallets of his cronies—all with billions of our tax dollars.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
States Have Found a Way to Fight Back Against Citizens United
Federal attempts to overturn the ruling by amending the US Constitution or legislating against corporate spending have repeatedly failed. But now several states are experimenting with new ways to get this flood of corporate money out of politics.
Jun 05, 2026
More than 15 years ago, the Supreme Court removed limits on corporate political spending in its notorious Citizens United decision, ushering in an era of unprecedented influence by moneyed interests.
As a result, a small group of ultra-wealthy donors have skewed the political system to their advantage—and today, social scientists link the growing gap between rich and poor to that seminal 2010 decision.
Federal attempts to overturn the ruling by amending the US Constitution or legislating against corporate spending have repeatedly failed. But now several states are experimenting with new ways to get this flood of corporate money out of politics.
The state of Hawaii just passed a first-of-its-kind law redefining corporations as entities that aren’t allowed to spend money in elections anywhere within the state. The effort could kick off a powerful state-by-state pushback that succeeds where federal efforts failed.
Curtailing corporate influence on the political system is essential at a time when corporations are thriving while ordinary Americans struggle to make ends meet.
This simple idea is the brainchild of Tom Moore, senior fellow for democracy policy at the Center for American Progress. “It’s not regulation; it’s redefinition,” Moore told me. “States create corporations, and they give powers to all the corporations that operate within their states.”
So if the federal government and the Supreme Court enable corporations to influence elections, states can counter that merely by changing the definition of a corporation. And that’s precisely what Hawaii did. Effective starting July 2027, corporations doing business in the state are redefined to “not include the power to spend money or contribute anything of value to influence elections or ballot measures.”
The novel approach is well-protected against legal challenges. Moore explained, “The Supreme Court has said consistently for 200 years that [the power to define corporations] is a matter of state law, that the federal courts don’t have anything to do with that.”
The impact of this on Hawaii’s politics are likely to be monumental. “Basically, in Hawaii politics, local, state, and federal, every dollar that’s spent will be from an individual human being,” said Moore. “It’ll be disclosed, it’ll be voluntary. And that is a gigantic difference from what we have right now.”
Hawaii’s law doesn’t overturn Citizens United—it makes the 2010 ruling meaningless within its borders.
Residents of Montana are pushing a similar effort. Activists there are gathering signatures to place a measure on the November ballot to similarly redefine corporations so they can’t spend money in elections. If the measure passes, it will go into effect in January 2027, six months before Hawaii’s law takes effect.
In fact, according to Moore, Hawaii’s legislators borrowed the language for their bill from Montana’s ballot measure and sped it through their legislative process, pleasantly surprising advocates. Moore is confident the Montana effort will succeed. “They’re in very, very good shape, they’re incredibly well-organized,” he said.
At least 14 states, including New York and California, are currently considering similar bills, and Hawaii’s new law prompted interested lawmakers from two other states to contact Moore. “We’ve had outreach from folks in almost every state,” he said. Given the fact that it’s been less than a year since Moore first published his idea, the speed at which it’s caught on has been remarkable.
Curtailing corporate influence on the political system is essential at a time when corporations are thriving while ordinary Americans struggle to make ends meet. “At the end of the day, corporations don’t actually work for their shareholders, they work for us because we create them through our legislatures, through our laws,” said Moore.
“And if corporations are doing something in our state that we don’t like, we have the power as citizens and working through our legislators to do something about that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Big News’: Hawaii Targets Citizens United With Law Clarifying Corporations Are Not People
"The far-right Supreme Court hijacked the Constitution to let corporations spend in our elections. But we are not powerless. We can fight back," said US Rep. Greg Casar.
May 15, 2026
The state of Hawaii has passed a law that poses a direct challenge to the infamous 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which opened the door to unlimited corporate spending in US elections.
Democratic Hawaii Gov. Josh Green on Thursday signed into law a bill that takes aim at the court's ruling that corporations are effectively people with full free speech rights who can face no limits on what they can contribute to political organizations.
As explained by More Perfect Union, the law, which is set to take effect next July, classifies corporations as "artificial persons" who do not have a constitutional right to make political donations.
"The bill could limit the influence of super PACs," noted More Perfect Union, "and be a model to challenge the influence of money in politics."
Democratic Hawaii state Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole, a supporter of the law, said on Thursday he was proud that Hawaii has become "the first state in the nation" to take direct action challenging Citizens United.
"As elected leaders, we do not serve artificial entities," Keohokalole said. "We serve the people."
“We do not serve artificial entities. We serve the people.” @SenatorJarrett on Hawaii making history by getting dark and corporate money out of politics. #CitizensUnited pic.twitter.com/Se6HQyvRu8
— American Progress (@amprog) May 14, 2026
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, hailed the law as "big news" that should inspire opponents of limitless corporate political spending across the US.
"The far-right Supreme Court hijacked the Constitution to let corporations spend in our elections," said Casar. "But we are not powerless. We can fight back."
The new law passed despite opposition from Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, who argued that defending it in court could be difficult and expensive.
The law's passage earned praise from campaign finance watchdogs who have long called for overturning Citizens United and reestablishing guardrails for corporate cash in US democracy.
Michael Beckel, who directs the Money in Politics project for the advocacy group Issue One, said the Hawaii law is a "model for the country" that other states should rush to emulate.
"This measure... is among the most innovative and impactful ideas to curb corporate and dark money spending in campaigns since the Supreme Court’s disastrous Citizens United ruling in 2010," Beckel said. "Those looking to bring more transparency and accountability to elections should embrace this powerful proposal and follow Hawaii’s lead."
End Citizens United, the nonprofit campaign finance reform organization dedicated to overturning the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, also pushed other states to look at Hawaii's law as a roadmap for their own legislation.
"Hawaii has provided a blueprint for how to prevent super PACs from spending dark money by passing state law," the group said in a social media post. "Let this win be a testament to the ability states have to put power back in the hands of everyday people by neutralizing the effects of the Citizens United ruling."
Tom Moore, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, praised the Hawaii law in an interview with The Associated Press, calling it "a brave and bold step to get corporate and dark money out of America’s politics" that "will send a powerful message that will be heard loud and clear across the Pacific and across the mainland."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fewer Jobs, Higher Inflation, and $300 Billion in Lost Output: Analysis Details Woeful Trump Economy
"This economy could be delivering lower inflation, more jobs, and stronger growth, but instead, it’s being dragged in the wrong direction by this president’s policy choices."
Apr 15, 2026
With US consumer sentiment hitting an all-time low, the Center for American Progress on Wednesday released a report pinning the blame for Americans' economic gloom on President Donald Trump.
In total, the CAP analysis projects that by the fourth quarter of 2026, Trump's policies will lower real GDP by 1.3% while adding 1.39% to personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation.
The report also estimates that the economy would have created an additional 2 million jobs 2026 were it not for the Trump's tariffs, mass deportations, and war of choice with Iran.
Although the unemployment rate at the moment is low, the report explains, US employers are also hiring far fewer people, as "both labor demand and labor supply have fallen, leaving a job market with fewer opportunities and less resilience against downturns."
Trump's policies have also made borrowing more expensive, and CAP says that interest rates are now 60 basis points higher than they otherwise would have been without the president's policies.
Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at CAP and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden, said the analysis shows "this economy could be delivering lower inflation, more jobs, and stronger growth, but instead, it’s being dragged in the wrong direction by this president’s policy choices."
Bernstein said Trump's tariffs were the primary culprit for higher-than-expected inflation in 2025, while the oil supply shock that came after Trump launched a war with Iran is expected to add even more inflation throughout 2026.
The end result, said Bernstein, is a kind of "stagflation," with low economic growth and higher-than-average inflation. He also warned that "longer-term costs from reduced investment in both people and public goods will also take a toll on future growth."
Job growth in the US has largely stalled ever since Trump announced his "liberation day" tariffs more than a year ago, and a CAP analysis published earlier this month found that the economy has created an average of fewer than 22,000 jobs per month over the last year.
The latest Consumer Price Index report released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics found that prices in March rose by 3.3% from the previous year—the highest annual inflation rate since April 2024.
Despite this, Trump has continued to insist that he has created the "greatest" economy in the history of the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Johnson Vows Gas Price Hikes ‘Just a Temporary Blip.’ Expert Analyses Warn Otherwise
"Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar have no bypass capability whatsoever," said one expert. "Their shipments are wholly reliant on Hormuz transit."
Mar 11, 2026
House Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to downplay the rise in gas prices caused by President Donald Trump's war with Iran, but energy analysts are warning that Americans are in for significant pain at the pump.
Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, Johnson (R-La.) said that the rise in gas prices was a small price to pay for achieving American military objectives in Iran, which he baselessly claimed was about to strike the US if the US didn't strike first.
Johnson also predicted that the rise in gas prices, which on Wednesday reached an average of $3.58 per gallon in the US, would be short lived.
"Most of this is because the Strait of Hormuz has been closed by the regime down there," Johnson said. "But it will be reopened, and it will take a couple of weeks, but gas prices will come back down... So this is a temporary blip in an extraordinary trend of a return to American energy dominance."
Despite Johnson's rosy assessment, energy experts Trevor Higgins and Akshay Thyagarajan of the Center for American Progress published an analysis on Wednesday explaining why there will be no quick fix for high gas prices.
What's more, the analysts said that the Iran conflict appeared ready to raise prices on much more than just gasoline.
"Many parts of the US economy are still dependent on fossil fuels, and higher prices for oil and gas increase the prices for gasoline, electricity, fertilizer, food, and more," they noted. "As long as this war continues—and perhaps for some time thereafter—American households will pay higher prices at the pump, on their utility bills, and on their grocery bills."
Higgins and Thyagarajan documented how the Iran war's impact on oil prices was already greater than the impact that Russia's invasion of Ukraine had in 2022, and they warned it would only grow more severe the longer the conflict persisted.
One particularly worrisome impact of the Iran war, Higgins and Thyagarajan said, would be putting upward pressure on Americans' utility bills, which have already been rising significantly over the last year thanks to the enormous energy demands of artificial intelligence data centers.
They pointed to the dependence of US power infrastructure on liquified natural gas (LNG), which generates roughly 43% of electricity in the US, as a serious vulnerability.
"Following the start of Operation Epic Fury, both European and Asian LNG futures prices have already skyrocketed," they wrote. "As of March 9, they’ve increased by 77% and 51%, respectively, compared to prices before the event. This price increase is much higher than the increase immediately after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If this increase persists, it could raise utility bills further."
Clayton Seigle, energy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said on Monday that there was very little hope of US gas prices decreasing until Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz for commercial shipping.
Seigle said that Iran could wage a relatively cheap military campaign against ships attempting to traverse the strait using a combination of speedboats, naval mines, and drones.
"Their destructive firepower is less than that of missiles," he wrote, "but sufficient to cause damage and deter commercial shipping."
Seigle also dismissed any plans by other oil-producing nations to ship their products through alternative trade routes, which he said would do too little to ease the oil supply crisis caused by the strait's closure.
" Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar have no bypass capability whatsoever," he explained. "Their shipments are wholly reliant on Hormuz transit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's War of Choice in Iran Has Cost US Taxpayers Over $10 Billion in Just 10 Days
The estimated spending on the Iran war in just over a week amounts to over 1% of the 2026 US defense budget.
Mar 11, 2026
The cost of President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran has already cost US taxpayers billions of dollars, and will cost billions more if the conflict drags on.
Anadolu Ajansı on Monday published an estimate that the Iran war cost $10.35 billion over its first 10 days, or more than 1% of the entire 2026 US defense budget.
The US spent an estimated $779 million in the war's first 24 hours alone, and Anadolu noted that daily costs have gone up since then.
Specifically, Anadolu found that as "the campaign has expanded, operational spending has climbed into the billions, based on estimated flight hours, maintenance costs, and munitions expenditures derived from the US Department of Defense’s 2025 and 2026 budget requests."
In the days since Anadolu published its estimate, the estimated cost of the war has soared past $11 billion, according to a tracker that assumes the assault is costing the US $1 billion per day, based on preliminary figures from the Pentagon.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that the US Department of Defense estimated that it burned through $5.6 billion worth of munitions in the initial strikes on Iran, raising questions about whether the war has seriously eroded US military readiness.
Due to the conflict's rapidly escalating costs, the Trump administration is expected to ask US Congress for a $50 billion supplemental funding bill to keep the war going.
Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, and Damian Murphy, senior vice president of national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress, released a memo on Monday explaining why Congress should not agree to any White House requests for supplemental funding.
First, the memo notes that polling shows that the Iran war is unprecedentedly unpopular, being the first US war ever to have a net negative approval rating at the outset of the conflict.
"Lawmakers in Congress have the upper hand both morally and politically in opposing the war in Iran," the memo states. "The public does not want to be drawn into another forever war that threatens American lives, kills children, destabilizes the Middle East, and whose costs could easily balloon to hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars."
The memo then argues that the massive increase in defense spending contained in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was passed by Republicans in last year and signed into law by Trump, should be more than enough to cover the cost of replacing munitions.
"The 'Big Beautiful Bill' provided an additional $153 billion for defense just eight months ago," the memo explains, "on top of the annual defense budget of around $900 billion. The annual defense appropriations bill, also approved only a few months ago, grants the White House the legal authority and flexibility to move around billions of dollars within the Department of Defense to achieve their goals, known as transfer authority."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Estimated Cost of Trump Naval Blockade of Venezuela Climbs Toward $1 Billion
"US military power is being used as a de facto security force for the president's corporate donors and their oil interests, leaving the American taxpayer to effectively subsidize a security force for Big Oil."
Jan 08, 2026
As Congress weighs action to rein in the Trump administration's assault on Venezuela—as demanded by people across the United States and Latin America—Fortune on Thursday highlighted the rising cost of just the US oil blockade on the country.
The ongoing US naval blockade "has cost an estimated $700 million and counting, with two more oil tankers seized January 7, as President Donald Trump aims to sell more Venezuelan crude oil to American refineries and convince U.S. oil companies to return to embattled nation," the outlet reported.
That's based on a Center for a New American Security analysis that put the cost of operating the USS Gerald R. Ford and its aircraft carrier strike group in the region since October at more than $9 million a day—which does not account for Trump's illegal strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats or the weekend abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
Fortune's article followed December reporting on "the lopsided cost of Operation Southern Spear" from Defense One:
The estimates for every hour of the carrier’s operation is roughly $333,000, while each escort consumes a comparatively cheaper $9,200 per hour.
For the aircraft, the cost per flight hour is roughly $40,000 for the F-35s and the AC-130J; $29,900 for the P-8s; and $3,500 for the Reaper drones.
Then there are the munitions used in the attacks themselves. Analysis of the strike videos show that U.S. forces have fired Hellfire missiles (about $150,000 to $220,000 apiece) AGM-176 Griffins ($127,333 in FY2019 costs), and perhaps GBU-39B Small Diameter Bombs (roughly $40,000 each).
And on the personnel side, there is the pay and benefits for the roughly 15,000 US service members who have been deployed so far in the operation, including 5,000 ashore in Puerto Rico and 2,200 Marines aboard ships.
As for "Operation Absolute Resolve," as the US called the mission to abduct Maduro and Flores, the administration has not disclosed costs, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that nearly 200 special forces took part in the deadly raid.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "the military had been readying for days to execute the mission," and "in the run-up, Delta Force commandos rehearsed the extraction inside a full-scale model of Mr. Maduro's compound that the Joint Special Operations Command had built in Kentucky."
After being abducted, Maduro and his wife pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism charges in a federal court in New York City. Trump has continued to make clear that his costly operations are not actually about drugs, but seizing Venezuelan oil. Senate Democrats are now probing possible dealings between his administration and fossil fuel executives related to the US attack on Saturday.
As the U.S. pursues regime change in Venezuela, it's worth remembering that the U.S.-led post-9/11 wars left millions dead and cost U.S. taxpayers trillions, with no strategic benefit to the citizens of the U.S. or any other nation. www.wsj.com/world/americ...
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) January 5, 2026 at 12:05 PM
On Tuesday, a pair of experts at the Center for American Progress (CAP) noted that the fossil fuel industry gave at least $96 million to Trump's 2024 campaign and super political action committees, "over $100 million to Trump allies and ads supporting policies championed by these allies, and more through undisclosed dark money channels," and then "contributed at least $41 million to either the inaugural fund or Trump's super PAC after the election."
"However, it is unclear whether many American oil companies actually view Venezuela as an attractive prospect: With prices hovering around $60 per barrel of oil, companies have been reluctant to make major new investments," explained CAP's Damian Murphy Allison McManus. "Venezuela's oil infrastructure will require billions of dollars to update in the medium term, and the political instability and potential security breakdowns that come from removing a head of state create a poor environment for long-term investments."
"That isn't to say that companies are completely uninterested: Some US oil companies are looking to collect billions of dollars from the country over decades-old seized oil assets," they continued. "To sweeten the deal, Trump recently has floated the prospect of subsidizing companies for rebuilding infrastructure. Still, this tepid response from the industry only underscores the chaotic and reckless nature of the administration’s foreign policymaking, which has adopted an 'act first, plan later' approach."
The pair also pointed out that "Trump has repeatedly suggested that boots on the ground could be used to guarantee access to oil resources, with the current buildup of forces signaling that a 'second wave' of military action is on standby. In essence, US military power is being used as a de facto security force for the president's corporate donors and their oil interests, leaving the American taxpayer to effectively subsidize a security force for Big Oil."
Alarmed by Trump's recent actions in and around Venezuela, the Senate on Thursday advanced a bipartisan war powers resolution—but so far, the measure still lacks the Republican support needed to get to a final vote. Even if it passed the upper chamber, the legislation would also need to get through the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Surging Home Building Costs Caused by Trump Tariffs Could Result in 450,000 Fewer Homes by 2030
"With the average home sales price having already risen by 31%—or over $120,000—since 2020, this tariff-induced change could put homeownership further out of reach for millions of Americans," warns a new report.
Dec 16, 2025
After campaigning last year on reducing the cost of living and as he attempts to claim progressive Democrats' push for affordability as his own, President Donald Trump's policies have been directly linked to making life more expensive for people across the US—and along with electricity, healthcare, and groceries, housing costs are set to rise, according to a new analysis out Tuesday, which examines the impact of Trump's tariffs.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) found that the impact on home construction materials by Trump's tariffs could force builders to scale back significantly over the next five years, reducing new home construction by 450,000 homes through 2030.
According to the analysis, the average cost of building a home in the coming years will increase by $17,500 if current home building rates continue.
"With the average home sales price having already risen by 31%—or over $120,000—since 2020, this tariff-induced change could put homeownership further out of reach for millions of Americans," said CAP.
Trump's tariffs are as high as 50% for some countries, and some of the highest levies have been imposed on key building materials, including lumber, copper, aluminum, and steel products. Imports of upholstered products and kitchen cabinets are set to face tariffs that could increase by up to 50%.
The tariffs were unveiled amid a growing housing affordability crisis, with the number of available homes falling short by 2 million units or more, according to some estimates.
Following the Great Recession, home construction has not returned to pre-2008 levels and the country requires "sustained, above-average construction rates to correct" the persistent underbuilding, according to CAP.
"Yet the Trump administration’s tariff policies are pushing home building in the opposite direction by raising construction costs, which will slow new construction activity, raise costs, and worsen housing affordability," reads the report by Cory Husak, Natalie Baker, and Mimla Wardak.
The analysis found that while Trump has insisted that the tariffs will target the countries that import goods to the US, but as with groceries—which have gone up in price by up to 40% at some stores—the levies on home building materials are projected to ultimately impact American families who are already struggling to afford healthcare and other essentials.
The tariffs are expected to add $27 billion to the annual cost of constructing new homes by 2027, effectively raising the cost of building a new home by about 3.3%.
🚨Hot off the presses 🚨 New tariffs are going to kill 450,000 homes over the next 5 yearsTariffs on lumber, steel, cabinets, vanities, copper add an average $17,500 to the cost of building a new home. Yearly home losses will soon total 100k per year-www.americanprogress.org/article/trum...
[image or embed]
— Corey Husak (@chusak.bsky.social) December 16, 2025 at 1:08 PM
From 2030 onward, the number of new homes being built is expected to be down by 100,000 yearly.
"This would be equivalent to eliminating 6 percent of the homes constructed in the five years from 2020 to 2024," said CAP.
If home building falls as CAP projects, the cost of construction will rise to $18,500 per home in 2028, CAP projected.
“Families are already struggling to afford a place to live, and the administration is adding fuel to the housing costs fire,” said Husak, director of tax policy at CAP. “These tariffs are a tax on builders and aspiring homeowners, raising construction costs, slowing the pace of new building, and pushing homeownership even further out of reach for millions of Americans.”
The group urged the federal government to act to stop the tariffs from continuously "driving up construction costs, slowing homebuilding, and worsening the nation’s already severe housing shortage."
"Building new housing supply is crucial to solving the housing shortage," said CAP, "and canceling tariffs on homebuilding materials is a necessary step to bring more housing online and improve housing affordability."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy