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
inflation reduction act
Trump EPA Moves to Cancel $7 Billion in Solar Grants for Low- and Middle-Income Households
"At a time when working families are getting crushed by skyrocketing energy costs and the planet is literally burning, sabotaging this program isn't just wrong—it's absolutely insane," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Aug 05, 2025
In a move denounced by climate and environmental justice defenders, the Trump administration is planning to claw back $7 billion in federal grants for low- and middle-income households to install rooftop solar panels, people briefed on the matter told The New York Times on Tuesday.
According to the Times, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is drafting termination letters to the 60 state agencies, nonprofit groups, and Indigenous tribes that received the grants under the Solar for All program. The move is part of the Trump administration's efforts to cancel billions of dollars in climate- and environment-oriented grants included in former President Joe Biden's landmark Inflation Reduction Act, signed in 2022.
Solar for All was launched by the Biden administration in 2023 in conjunction with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The program aimed to "develop long-lasting solar programs that enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from distributed residential solar, lowering energy costs for families, creating good-quality jobs in communities that have been left behind, advancing environmental justice, and tackling climate change."
The program was meant to help around 900,000 low- and middle-income households go solar.
Ripping away the Solar for All program means more families paying more on their bills—because God forbid people actually save money. www.nytimes.com/2025/08/05/c...
[image or embed]
— Climate Power (@climatepower.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 10:57 AM
The Trump administration froze Solar for All funding in February after President Donald Trump issued a day one executive order mandating a review of all Biden-era climate spending. The funds were reinstated in early March after EPA "worked expeditiously to enable payment accounts," according to the agency.
Responding to the Times report, Sanders said in a statement: "I introduced the Solar for All program to slash electric bills for working families by up to 80%—putting money back in the pockets of ordinary Americans, not fossil fuel billionaires. Now, Donald Trump wants to illegally kill this program to protect the obscene profits of his friends in the oil and gas industry. That is outrageous."
"Solar for All means lower utility bills, many thousands of good-paying jobs, and real action to address the existential threat of climate change," Sanders continued. "At a time when working families are getting crushed by skyrocketing energy costs and the planet is literally burning, sabotaging this program isn't just wrong—it's absolutely insane."
"We will fight back to preserve this enormously important program," he added.
Other Solar for All proponents also slammed the reported EPA move.
"Canceling these investments makes no sense," Adam Kent, green finance director amt the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement reported by The Washington Post. "Every investment will save families at least 20% on their energy bills. Members of Congress need to step up and defend a program that focused on lowering energy bills for hardworking Americans."
"The Solar for All program has been embraced by both red and blue states and has so much promise."
Kyle Wallace, vice president of public policy and government affairs at the solar company PosiGen, said on social media: "This would be a shocking and harmful action that will hurt vulnerable families who are struggling with rising energy costs. The Solar for All program has been embraced by both red and blue states and has so much promise. EPA should not do this."
Solar for All defenders vowed to fight the EPA's move.
"If leaders in the Trump administration move forward with this unlawful attempt to strip critical funding from communities across the United States, we will see them in court," Kym Meyer, litigation director at the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center, told the Times.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why We Can't Simply Celebrate Medicare's 60th Birthday
Let's not allow President Trump and congressional Republicans to shred one of the greatest legacies of LBJ's Great Society.
Jul 30, 2025
Medicare turns 60 years old today. Former U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on July 30, 1965, giving seniors a guarantee of health coverage that never existed before. Prior to Medicare's enactment, it was nearly impossible for older people to obtain health insurance, as they were considered a "bad risk."
Medicare provides universal coverage to Americans over 65 years of age. The law created Medicare Part A as a national hospital insurance program. Part B is a voluntary program for doctor visits and other medical services. Medicare Part C is another name for the privatized, for-profit version of the program called "Medicare Advantage." And Part D is the prescription drug program enacted in 2003.
The Hospital Insurance portion is funded through workers' payroll contributions. At the signing ceremony in Independence, Missouri, LBJ said, "Through this new law, every citizen will be able, in their productive years when they are earning, to insure themselves against the ravages of illness in his old age."
Lyndon Johnson paid tribute to former President Harry S. Truman, presenting him with the very first Medicare card. It was Truman who, 20 years earlier, had proposed a form of universal medical coverage for the American people.
LBJ quoted Truman's remarks from the 1940s:
Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. And the time has now arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that protection.
It turned out that the time had not yet arrived. Truman's proposal failed to gain traction during a time of retrenchment from the expansions of the New Deal, and a Republican majority on Capitol Hill which he famously labeled the "Do-Nothing Congress."
President Johnson's determination to enact his Great Society agenda (of which Medicare was a large part) and sheer political muscle—not to mention solid Democratic control of Congress—pushed Medicare (and its sister program, Medicaid) into being.
Naturally, Medicare faced strong opposition from conservatives. None other than Ronald Reagan made the ludicrous prediction that if Medicare were enacted, "You and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free." Sixty years later, we are no less "free" because of Medicare. In fact, having guaranteed healthcare makes seniors and people with disabilities (and their families) much more free—from disease, from worry, and financial ruin.
Today, 68 million people rely on Medicare for health coverage, including 12 million who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare isn't perfect: The for-profit Medicare Advantage (Part C) program is extremely problematic (see below). The Medicare Part A trust fund will become depleted in 2033 if Congress fails to take action to strengthen it. Traditional Medicare still doesn't cover basic hearing, vision, and dental care—which we have been pushing for many years. But most concerning of all—President Donald Trump and his party have spent this 60th anniversary year actively undermining both Medicare and Medicaid.
The "Unfair, Ugly" bill that Trump signed earlier this month slashed nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, which will strip health coverage from an estimated 10 to 16 million lower-income Americans. The new law—projected to add some $4 trillion to the national debt—could trigger cuts to Medicare down the road.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is recklessly taking steps to privatize the entire Medicare program. It has announced a pilot project to involve private companies in conducting prior authorizations for care in traditional Medicare. The administration, under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Director Mehmet Oz, also has announced a plan to automatically enroll new Medicare beneficiaries in the for-profit Medicare Advantage (MA) program—a huge gift to the multibillion dollar insurance industry at the expense of patients.
The problems with Medicare Advantage (MA) have become legendary. Enrollees are basically put into health maintenance organizations run by insurance giants, with limited networks of providers. Unreasonable denials of care are rampant. Patients who become disenchanted with MA plans often find it nearly impossible to switch to traditional Medicare. Meanwhile, some MA Insurers have been overcharging the government for their services and ripping off taxpayers. (Several of these companies are currently under investigation.)
We are watching to see if the Trump administration, which talks a good game about lowering prescription medication costs while simultaneously doing favors for Big Pharma, will honor the provisions of President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which made myriad patient-friendly reforms to the Part D drug program—including out of pocket caps for beneficiaries and empowering Medicare to negotiate prices with the industry.
The bottom line is: Let's not allow President Trump and congressional Republicans to shred one of the greatest legacies of LBJ's Great Society. We and our fellow advocacy groups are pushing back—and so is the grassroots "Hands Off" movement. But we don't want to be fighting this same battle every time Medicare (and Medicaid) mark an anniversary when we should be purely celebrating.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes as Teachable Moments
We need to talk about the choices presented to us by the Texas flooding tragedy—and all the others that will come.
Jul 21, 2025
The deadly Texas floods have receded, leaving lost and shattered lives. U.S. President Donald Trump tells us not to politicize the moment, with spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt calling the floods “an act of God,” meaning no one is responsible. But because the floods and the climate disasters that will follow them make the costs heart-wrenchingly visible, they give us the chance to talk about root causes and the choices we face. If we don’t have these conversations, these teachable moments will quickly fade.
Democratic pushback has focused mostly on cutbacks to the National Weather Service andFederal Emergency Management Agency, leaving critical offices understaffed and undermining the ability to plan. But the pushback has focused less on climate change, even as, the day before the floods, the Republicans paid for massive tax breaks for the wealthiest in part by slashing federal support for wind, solar, battery, electric vehicles,, energy efficiency, and other investments that gave us a chance to join China and Europe in leading the technologies of the future. So we need to talk about the choices presented to us by this tragedy—and all the others that will come.
When Democrats have held power, they’ve raised these issues far too little. No American legislation did more to fight climate change than former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, but the new Republican bill mostly gutted it. And Biden was largely quiet in the face of a succession of epic climate disasters, from the fires that destroyed the Maui town of Lahaina and the Colorado town of Superior, to the North Carolina floods on the eve of the election. He did say Hurricane Ida highlighted the “climate crisis.” But the administration never created a sustained conversation. Former Vice President Kamala Harris also stayed mostly silent, and when climate was raised late in her single presidential debate, she discussed it for only a minute and then moved on. So although the administration addressed the issue in groundbreaking ways, they did far too little to bring it to greater public salience. That led to it receding further in perceived urgency for a public that knows climate change is real but hasn’t made it a priority.
Imagine if Biden, Harris, or other key Democrats had gone to the sites of these disasters and not just offered compassion and government aid, but an honest discussion of our choices. At the least this would have underscored the stakes—and given voters a sense that the Democrats were fighting to address it.
We can mourn the lives lost and communities destroyed, while highlighting both the human costs, and the technologies that offer an alternative.
Consider the campaigns to prevent gun violence. For years, those who wanted common-sense gun rules resisted “politicizing tragedy.” Mass shootings kept happening, but other than those most engaged, not enough people spoke out in their wake, because it felt unseemly. Finally, more started to, including political leaders. They told the stories and drew the connections. As the public began to hear them, support for addressing gun violence increased enough to pass the 2022 bipartisan gun safety bill in the wake of the Uvalde shootings.
Those who recognize that climate change is real and urgent no longer have the bully pulpit of the presidency. Instead, climate information is scrubbed from government sites, including guidance on how to prepare for climate disasters, and scientists are fired for even daring to address the issue. But local and national Democratic leaders and engaged citizen groups can still speak out when disasters hit. We can mourn the lives lost and communities destroyed, while highlighting both the human costs, and the technologies that offer an alternative, with 96% of new global electricity demand being met last year by renewables, as they become more affordable than fossil fuels, complemented by batteries whose cost has dropped 95% in 15 years. We can demand accountability for all the recent cuts and demand that the investments be restored.
We can also use those moments to highlight fossil fuel companies that have bankrolled climate denial. This could mean nonviolent protests at their corporate offices that highlight the recent catastrophes. Or targeting banks that fuel fossil fuel investment. Or the gas stations of companies like ExxonMobil, whose scientists warned of climate change risk nearly 50 years ago, then saw the company bury their warnings and promote denial instead. It also means pressuring media to cover the crisis more robustly, including engaging conservative-leaning podcasters and influencers who shape so much of America’s current understanding, and who have started to question Trump’s immigration raids.
Drawing the links at the times when climate change’s invisible march becomes most manifest isn’t politicizing tragedy. It’s making clear that if we care about the lives that are lost, we need to prevent the tragedies to come.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular