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
Biden-Era Law That Trump Has Attacked Delivers Price Cuts for 15 More Drugs Under Medicare
"Medicare drug price negotiation is about to deliver tangible lower costs to seniors in Medicare, unlike Trump’s ceremonial events with Big Pharma CEOs in the Oval Office," said one Democratic senator.
Nov 26, 2025
The Trump administration on Tuesday announced newly negotiated prices for more than a dozen prescription drugs covered by Medicare, an achievement made possible by a Biden-era law that has faced relentless attacks from the pharmaceutical industry, GOP lawmakers, and the Republican president.
The announcement marks the end of the second round of Medicare drug price negotiations required under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a measure passed in 2022 without the support of a single Republican in Congress. Last year, House GOP leaders said the law was "disastrous" and decried what they called "the mandate from bureaucrats to artificially set prescription drug prices."
The new list contains 15 drugs, including the diabetes and weight loss medication Ozempic, the breast cancer drug Ibrance, and the prostate cancer drug Xtandi. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated that if the new prices—which take effect in 2027—had been in effect last year, Medicare would have saved $12 billion.
President Donald Trump campaigned on rolling back the IRA, which for the first time allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. Since taking office, Trump has taken steps to weaken the law, including by signing a measure that will exempt certain high-priced drugs from Medicare negotiations—a multibillion-dollar handout to Big Pharma.
But in statements on Tuesday, Trump-appointed officials hailed the newly negotiated prices. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, said the negotiation results stemmed from a Trump directive to "stop at nothing to lower healthcare costs for the American people."
CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz declared that the second round of negotiations was more successful than the first, which was held under the Biden administration. Experts said that claim is specious at best.
Democratic lawmakers were quick to highlight Republican opposition to the IRA, and continued attacks on the law, in response to the newly negotiated prices.
"Democrats took on Big Pharma by giving Medicare the power to negotiate on behalf of the tens of millions of seniors that want lower drug prices while every Republican voted against it,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. “Today’s announcement is a result of that effort by Democrats to lower health costs for older Americans."
"Medicare drug price negotiation is about to deliver tangible lower costs to seniors in Medicare, unlike Trump’s ceremonial events with Big Pharma CEOs in the Oval Office," Wyden added. "Republicans neutered future Medicare drug price negotiations by adding delays and exemptions to some of the most expensive drugs, especially cancer drugs like Keytruda."
Tuesday's announcement came less than a week after the pharmaceutical industry suffered its 16th defeat in court as it continues its legal campaign against the Medicare price negotiations. The industry is also lobbying aggressively in support of legislation that would further weaken the IRA price-negotiation provisions.
"Drug corporations already secured a $9 billion giveaway from President Trump and congressional Republicans paid for by taxpayers and cancer patients through the Big Ugly Bill, and they are trying to go even further to delay and exempt price negotiations for more blockbuster drugs," said Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen.
"Policymakers must reject these efforts to undermine Medicare drug price negotiations," Knievel added. "Instead they should build on the program’s success by providing everyone access to negotiated prices, negotiating lower prices for more drugs sooner, and ensuring drug corporations can no longer rip us off by charging the highest prices in the world for medications."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Pharma Army of 500 Lobbyists Is Coming for Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiations, Watchdog Warns
Lobbyists working to pass Pharma-backed legislation currently outnumber lobbyists working to oppose it by more than 20-to-1, estimates Public Citizen.
Nov 19, 2025
Government watchdog Public Citizen is warning that the pharmaceutical industry is preparing an all-out blitz aimed at sabotaging government efforts to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs.
In a report released on Wednesday, Public Citizen said it found that the major pharmaceutical companies this year have hired more than 500 lobbyists to push for the passage of three pieces of legislation that would undermine the provisions allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices contained in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
The first piece, called the ORPHAN Cures Act, was passed by Congress in July after being stuffed into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. According to Public Citizen, the law will "delay and exempt some of the most profitable drugs—including cancer treatments—from negotiations, representing tens of billions in annual Medicare spending."
The other two pieces of legislation—the EPIC Act and the MINI Act—have not yet been passed, and Public Citizen says that they "would lengthen the already long delay period before small molecule drugs are eligible for negotiation—effectively excluding many medicines from negotiations entirely or shortening the period patients have access to lower negotiated prices to only one or two years."
Public Citizen estimates that there are currently 501 lobbyists who are pushing to pass these laws, while just 24 lobbyists are working to block their passage. In total, notes Public Citizen, this means opponents of the legislation are outnumbered by a ratio of more than 20-to-1.
Steve Knievel, Public Citizen's access to medicines advocate, called on elected representatives to "reject the demands of pharma lobbyists and instead work to make prescription drugs more affordable" for their constituents.
"Instead of handing drug corporations billions of dollars by helping them evade price negotiations," Knievel said, "Congress should pass legislation to empower Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices on all costly medicines and allow all patients to access lower, negotiated prices, even if they don’t have Medicare."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Quietly Dishes Out More Tax Breaks to Rich Investors While Slashing Food Aid for Millions
"Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or Bitcoin? Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Nov 08, 2025
The Trump administration is quietly waging an all-out regulatory war on a Biden-era corporate tax that aimed to prevent large companies from dodging their tax liabilities while reporting huge profits.
The corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) was enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democratic legislation that former President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. The CAMT requires highly profitable US corporations to pay a tax of at least 15% on their so-called book profits, the figures reported to shareholders.
As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has explained: "Many of the special breaks that corporations use to avoid taxes work by allowing companies to report profits to the IRS that are much smaller than their book profits. Corporate leaders prefer to report low profits to the IRS (to reduce taxes) and high profits to the public (to attract investors)."
But since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has issued guidance and regulatory proposals designed to gut the CAMT. The effort is a boon to corporate giants and rich private equity investors at a time when the Trump administration is relentlessly attacking programs for low-income Americans, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "with its various tax relief provisions, the administration is now effectively adding hundreds of billions of dollars in new breaks for big businesses and investors" on top of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.
"The Treasury is empowered to write rules to help the IRS carry out tax laws passed by Congress," the newspaper added. "But the aggressive actions of the Trump administration raise questions about whether it is exceeding its legal authority."
Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or bitcoin?
Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks.
We've gone from a system where the rich must pay taxes for public services, to one where they must pay the president for private favors.
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) November 8, 2025
The administration's assault on the CAMT has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress.
In a September 8 letter to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a group of Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) warned that the administration's guidance notices "create new loopholes in the corporate alternative minimum tax for the largest and wealthiest corporations."
"Most troubling, Notice 2025-27, issued this June, allows companies to avoid CAMT if their income—under a simplified accounting method—is below $800 million," the lawmakers wrote. "The Biden administration previously set the safe harbor threshold precisely at $500 million in its proposed CAMT rule after calculating that a higher safe harbor threshold would risk exempting corporations that should be subject to CAMT under statute."
"Now, less than nine months later and with zero justification, this new guidance summarily asserts that an $800 million safe harbor will not run that risk," they continued. "We are seriously concerned that this cursory loosening of CAMT enforcement will simply allow more wealthy corporations to avoid paying their legally owed share."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Say They'll Stand Firm Against Budget Deal Unless GOP Halts Attack on Healthcare
Health insurance premiums are expected to rise significantly for approximately 22 million Americans after Republicans ended a tax credit for those enrolled in programs under the Affordable Care Act.
Sep 11, 2025
Democratic leaders said Thursday that they plan to hold up negotiations on a potential government shutdown unless Republicans agree to forfeit a policy change that is expected to dramatically raise health insurance premiums for millions of Americans.
Health insurance premiums are expected to rise significantly for approximately 22 million Americans enrolled in Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plans after Republicans refused to extend enhanced tax credits when passing Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" in July.
In remarks on Capitol Hill Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he and Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) were in total agreement not to negotiate unless Republicans agree to extend the tax credits.
“On this issue, we’re totally united. The Republicans have to come to meet with us in a true bipartisan negotiation to satisfy the American people’s needs on healthcare, or they won't get our votes, plain and simple,” Schumer warned at a press conference.
"We will not support a partisan spending agreement that continues to rip away healthcare from the American people. Period. Full stop,” Jeffries said.
The enhanced tax credits, which were created in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act and later extended through the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, are credited with reducing the insurance premiums of millions of people who purchase health insurance through government exchanges.
The tax credits have reduced insurance premiums by 44% on average—over $700 per enrollee—and have contributed to the number of people purchasing insurance on the exchanges more than doubling to over 24 million in 2025.
According to a report released Wednesday by KFF:
Nine in 10 enrollees (92%) receive some amount of premium tax credit. If these enhanced tax credits expire at the end of 2025, out-of-pocket premiums would rise by over 75% on average for the vast majority of individuals and families buying coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces.
The increases come as insurance companies, citing "slumping share prices," per the Financial Times, are planning the largest hike to premiums in 15 years, including an 18% increase for those buying from ACA exchanges.
These increases will come on top of those already expected as a result of a Trump administration rule passed in June, which increased the maximum percentages of income and raw dollar amounts that insurance plans could charge patients out-of-pocket for care.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, these changes "will make coverage less affordable for millions of people." The CBPP estimates that "a family of four making $85,000 will have to pay an additional $197 in premiums for coverage in 2026" while a "family of two or more people on the same plan could face an additional $900 in medical bills if a family member is seriously ill or injured in 2026, and an individual enrolled in self-only coverage could face an additional $450 in medical bills."
In all, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in May that as a result of these mounting costs, over 5 million people will no longer be able to afford their health insurance plans.
"The death star of American healthcare, the insurance companies are preparing to blow up the lives of millions of middle-class families," warned journalist David Sirota in a podcast for The Lever.
Republicans in Congress are facing mounting pressure to extend the tax credits and stave off the premium hikes. Last week, 11 Republicans in Congress signed onto a bill that would extend the credits through 2026, allowing them to avoid the issue until after the midterm elections.
A survey conducted in July by two of Trump's most trusted pollsters, Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward, found that for Republicans in the most competitive districts, "a 3-point deficit becomes a 15-point deficit" against the generic Democrat if they allow the healthcare premium tax credit to expire.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has stayed coy about whether he and the Republican caucus plan to support extending the credits.
"I'm not going to forecast that right now," Johnson told reporters earlier this week, while also saying, "There's a lot of opposition to it as well."
Democrats, meanwhile, have proposed a competing bill to make the subsidies permanent and are hoping to use this month's budget showdown to force Republicans to make concessions on the issue.
As David Dayen wrote Monday for the American Prospect, it sets up a challenging strategic and moral dilemma for Democrats:
On the one hand, Democrats fighting for healthcare benefits speaks to an issue where they have the highest level of support from the public. They would credibly be able to tell voters that they fought for lower costs during an affordability crisis and won, and that more of that will happen if they are given power in the midterms.
On the other hand, Republicans willingly drove the healthcare system toward the point of oblivion, and some may question why Democrats would offer a lifeline to bail them out. In this reading, relieving Republicans of the consequences of their health care plans would be harmful to Democratic midterm chances; Trump would take credit for keeping health care costs low.
What's clear, Dayen said, is that "unless action is taken, it will be an enormous example of Trump's failure to rein in the runaway cost of living."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, urged Democrats to stand firm as the fight over a potential government shutdown heats up.
"If Republicans refuse to negotiate and move away from their cost-increasing agenda, then it is Republicans who will be forcing a government-wide shutdown," Gilbert said. "There should be no deal without assurances that the budget will be honored and not impounded, and one that returns care to the American people.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Justice Is Under Siege; Help Us Defend It
Why we can’t afford to lose the progress frontline communities have built.
Aug 26, 2025
The climate justice infrastructure dedicated to serving vulnerable communities across the United States took decades to build. And it is now at risk.
After nearly 20 years working in frontline communities on environmental justice and community development, I joined Emerald Cities Collaborative as president and CEO in April 2022. Hope around renewed commitments to climate justice, community resilience, and economic opportunities was palpable, as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act had just been signed into law shortly after my start. With an influx of federal investments and mandates for racial equity, the promise of that moment energized the climate justice and environmental justice movements.
Today, a coordinated attack on the environmental nonprofit sector and diversity, equity, and inclusion threatens to dismantle the physical and social support networks that serve frontline communities. It is imperative that we understand what’s at stake, who benefits from the current infrastructure, and what the consequences of inaction could be.
Climate justice infrastructure provides the framework for implementing equitable climate investments for all that advance racial justice, economic justice, and environmental justice. This infrastructure includes the physical investments—such as green buildings, solar panels, green infrastructure—and the social supports necessary to ensure their equitable implementation. From community organizing to capacity building for grassroots nonprofits and workforce development programs, environmental nonprofits serve as the backbone of this social infrastructure. These efforts address both climate change and the systemic inequality that leads to disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities.
We must stand up for nonprofits and the future that they help build—a climate future that is not only green but just.
Significant public and private investments in greener, more resilient energy, water, food, and housing infrastructure—driven by the urgency of climate change—created an unprecedented opportunity to address the environmental, income, wealth, and health disparities within low-income communities and communities of color. Realizing the full potential of these rapidly accelerating investments required a coordinated strategy that integrated local coalition building, policy, project, workforce, and small business development support. This is where the environmental nonprofits stepped in. Environmental nonprofits provided their expertise, on-the-ground leadership, capacity building, and connective tissue to support community-led climate projects, advocacy, and policy.
The breadth of organizations building this critical climate justice infrastructure is remarkable—from national nonprofits and statewide advocacy groups to grassroots organizations and volunteer community groups. We are grateful for their commitment! At Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC), our history, experience, and dedication to climate justice, along with our support for coalitions and partnerships, equity-centered clean energy policies, and economic inclusion efforts, uniquely positioned us to serve as an intermediary within the broader ecosystem. ECC deployed a coordinated strategy of local coalition building, policy education, project implementation, workforce initiatives, and contractor development to connect disadvantaged communities nationally and in our primary regions (Northwest, Northern California, Southern California, DC-Maryland-Virginia, and Northeast) to the growing clean energy economy. We connected federal and state funding to grassroots implementation and translated new federal initiatives into community-accessible dialogue. The overarching goal was to ensure that the climate and economic benefits of the emerging clean economy were reachable to low-income communities and communities of color.
As a result of the efforts of national nonprofits, community-based organizations, and institutions, many organizations and communities historically left out were able to access federal funding for community climate investments, many for the first time. Communities that have borne the brunt of environmental injustice have benefited from stronger leadership, enhanced organizational capacity, and new tools for community education and organizing.
These gains are all at risk due to the growing attack on environmental nonprofits, the rollback of climate policies, and the disintegration of environmental justice funding. Legal and reputational attacks, such as naming Emerald Cities Collaborative in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Exploring the Green Group Giveaway Behind the Biden-Harris Environmental Justice Programs report, demonstrate how politically motivated attacks are being used to sway public opinion. This, coupled with the outright illegal termination of environmental justice grants, has had a chilling effect on our work.
However, the impacts are not evenly distributed. Grassroots organizations and BIPOC-led nonprofits are disproportionately vulnerable to these attacks compared with large national organizations with greater resources and political capital. Fear and misinformation have caused some philanthropic funders to pull back. Organizations are being forced to divert resources from mission-critical work to legal defense and crisis communications. And this does not include the mental and emotional toll that environmental justice and climate justice leaders are experiencing.
The stakes are high. Without the valuable work of these organizations, climate solutions may revert to top-down, extractive models that center profit over community. The loss of high-road jobs, apprenticeships, and clean energy workforce programs, along with increased vulnerability to extreme climate events, will unduly affect frontline communities already facing the greatest risk. At the same time, the voices of Black, Indigenous, and immigrant-led movements are in danger of being systematically excluded from the climate conversation.
For us to meet our national climate goals and the just transition agenda, we need strong local, community-driven infrastructure. How can we ensure that the momentum for equitable climate investments in frontline communities is not entirely lost? Will we use this moment to accelerate climate justice—or allow fear and misinformation to dismantle it?
Now is the time for philanthropy, government, and the public to stand in solidarity with national and frontline organizations. Philanthropy must fund general operating support and legal protections for national BIPOC-led and frontline nonprofits. We must resist and roll back state-level attacks on nonprofit speech and operations, as well as the easing of climate policies. And we must educate audiences, donors, and lawmakers about the irreplaceable role of climate justice organizations.
The attack on climate justice infrastructure is about PEOPLE, PROGRESS, and PRINCIPLES! We must stand up for nonprofits and the future that they help build—a climate future that is not only green but just. We must stand up for communities that are resilient and thriving, not just surviving. The alternative is not an option.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Artificial Intelligence Is on a Collision Course With the Green Transition
The choice now is whether the United States continues to aid and abet Silicon Valley’s environmental rampage or to fight it.
Aug 23, 2025
The tech industry’s accelerating buildout of infrastructure to power artificial intelligence is rapidly turning an industry once lauded as “clean” and environmentally friendly into an air polluting, ecosystem destroying, water guzzling behemoth. Now, there’s an intensifying rift on the left about how to approach what was, until recently, a steadfast Democratic ally.
Progressives are now at a fork in the road with two very different options: a political reckoning with Silicon Valley or a rapprochement paid for with environmental havoc.
Some pundits and industry figures have counterintuitively argued that the proliferation of data centers to power AI is a good thing for the environment. The massive energy demand for training artificial intelligence will, in this telling, necessarily prompt a massive investment in clean energy and transmission infrastructure to meet that demand, thereby catalyzing a world-altering transition toward renewable energy. This argument, already suspect years ago, is entirely untenable now.
Following US President Donald Trump and company’s evisceration of the clean energy investments from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the narrow path of AI buildout being aligned with a green transition is now completely walled off. The choice now is whether the United States continues to aid and abet Silicon Valley’s environmental rampage or to fight it.
At present, there is simply no way to have the scale of AI buildout that the United States is seeing without terrible environmental downsides.
Even prior to Republicans torpedoing the IRA, AI electricity demand was growing faster than both renewable energy production and overall grid capacity. Without strong additionality regulations to require that new data centers be powered by the construction of new renewable energy generation, the AI boom will continue to increase consumption of fossil fuels.
Much of the increased energy demand was already being met by natural gas before the Republican spending package. It’s only going to get worse now. Without the clean energy tax credits, the advantages of incumbency that fossil fuels enjoy mean that the AI energy boom will further hook us on unsustainable resource consumption.
The firms building out AI infrastructure know this and often point to major investments in clean energy to protest characterizations of data centers as environmentally disastrous. But there are two major problems there. First, those investments may be in totally different locations than the actual data centers, meaning the centers are still consuming dirty energy. Second, and more importantly, at our present juncture in the climate crisis, we need to be actively decreasing our use of fossil fuels, not just containing increases in dirty energy production. (It’s worth noting that AI is also being used to enable more fossil fuel extraction.)
And the environmental destruction doesn’t stop there. The Trump White House recently moved to exempt data centers from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, paving the way for tech companies to despoil local environments without a second thought, and limiting opportunities for the public to gain information about data centers’ environmental impacts.
Perhaps nothing captures the excesses of AI quite so clearly as its water usage. Despite some pundits glibly claiming that there’s actually tons of water to go around, data centers threaten to worsen already dire droughts. We’re already beginning to see this in arid places like Chile and the American Southwest.
The Colorado River’s mismanagement is the stuff of public policy legend at this point. Aquifers across the Western US are being depleted. People were not mulling the idea of partially rerouting the Mississippi River for giggles. There is, unequivocally, a water crisis unfolding. And those data centers are very, very thirsty. A single data center can use millions of gallons a day.
There are already more than 90 data centers in the Phoenix area alone. That’s hundreds of millions of gallons of water a day. Protesting that “there’s plenty of water” is not just detached from the drought-stricken reality, it’s dangerous.
Data centers are being built in arid places intentionally; the low humidity reduces the risk of corrosion for the processor stacks warehoused there. Fresh water supplies, when depleted, are not easily renewed. Devoting more of it to cooling GPUs means less for drinking, irrigation, fighting wildfires, bathing, and other essential uses.
And there isn’t a way to bring water to the arid environments to mitigate that, either. Some people point to desalination, but that isn’t tenable for multiple reasons. To start, most of these data centers tend to be inland, as the sea air has similar corrosive effects as humidity. That, in turn, means that even accepting desalination as a cure for water scarcity, data centers would require transporting massive quantities of that purified water over significant distances, which would require complex energy-and resource-consuming engineering projects unlikely to proceed within the hurry up and go of our AI bubblish moment. (Desalination also has its own serious environmental harms.)
At present, there is simply no way to have the scale of AI buildout that the United States is seeing without terrible environmental downsides. The only choice left is whether to get out of Silicon Valley’s way or whether to slow the industry’s pace.
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Means Bigger Electric Bills for Millions
The elimination of tax credits for clean energy will have a disastrous impact on consumers... and potentially on the GOP’s chances in the midterms.
Jul 19, 2025
Millions of Americans across the country will receive higher electric bills because of President Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which was signed into law on July 4.
The culprit here is that the OBBB eliminated tax credits for solar and wind energy. According to research done by the group Energy Innovation, average electric rates could rise by an additional 18% by 2035. For an average household this translates into $170 a year. Some states will experience even larger increases in electric bills. For example, in Oklahoma, a state which generates a lot of its energy from wind, annual prices will go up as much as $540 a year.
Ironically, the increase in electric rates may well hit Republican states harder than their Democratic counterparts. The five biggest losers from the OBBB in terms of increased electric bills are Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. The conservative Washington Examiner points out:
With the One Big Beautiful Bill Act now law, there could be a spike in consumer energy bills in states represented by Republicans and handouts to blue-state residents. That is terrible news for everyday Americans and for members of the GOP hoping to hold on to their narrow majority in the Senate. However, it could have been much worse. In theory, it should have been easy for congressional Republicans to work with the White House on a spending plan that lowers prices and taxes with the added benefit of protecting vulnerable GOP senators in Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina. But because states generate electricity differently, this would mean reversing a perhaps too hastily made, ill-thought-out campaign promise: the elimination of the renewable tax credits put in place by the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.
The Trump administration’s mistaken focus on eliminating tax credits for clean energy flies in the face of two trends in the energy market. First, demand for energy is rising to an all-time high in the United States and clean energy (wind and solar) is making up an increasingly large share of energy production. So, just when this increased energy is needed, the cost will go up significantly because of the elimination of the tax credits for wind and solar energy under the Inflation Reduction Act. Jesse Jenkins, who leads the Princeton ZERO Lab, puts it quite simply, “We’re effectively raising taxes on the country’s main sources of new power at a time when electricity prices are already rising.”
The rise in electric prices because of the OBBB are just simply arithmetic . How could the Trump administration be so misguided? The answer is simple and disturbing at the same time. President Trump and his administration simply do not understand how renewable energy works. As an example of this line of thinking, I point to an op-ed that Energy Secretary Chris Wright did for the New York Post:
How much would you pay for an Uber if you didn’t know when it would pick you up or where it was going to drop you off? Probably not much. Yet this is the same effect that variable generation sources like wind and solar have on our power grids. You never know if these energy sources will actually be able to produce electricity when you need it—because you don’t know if the sun will be shining or the wind blowing. Even so, the federal government has subsidized these sources for decades, resulting in higher electricity prices and a less stable grid.
Wright’s argument also misses the point that the fossil fuels part of the American energy market is increasingly unreliable. Research from the Center for American Progress points out that “the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme heat, wildfires, winter storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events is straining the grid, while also highlighting the vulnerabilities and lack of preparedness from conventional fossil fuel generation.”
The good news here is that clean energy advocates are fighting back and letting people know that their electric rates are going up—and who is responsible. Politico reports that “one such group, Clean Energy for America, is deploying billboard ads next week targeting seven of the lawmakers considered most vulnerable in the 2026 races. The ads in lawmakers’ districts say the Republican ‘just voted to raise your electricity bill’ and directs readers to RepublicanRateHike.org, a website the organization created. The ads target Reps. Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.), Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), David Valadao (R-Calif.), Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) and Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa).”
It is essential to view the rate increases from the OBBB on top of those utility rate increases already in the pipeline. The group Powerlines points out that “Q2 2025, utilities requested or received approval for over $9 billion in rate increases, including approximately $7.3 billion in new requests and $1.7 billion in approved rate increases. This brings total requested and approved rate increases for the first half of 2025 to approximately $29 billion.”
For consumers energy issues come down to the bottom line. Millions of Americans will be paying much more for their electricity because of Trump’s OBBB. This burden will fall disproportionally on those on fixed or low incomes. According to research by Columbia University, roughly 34 million Americans are energy insecure, meaning that they went without food or medicine to pay utility bills or they set their heating or cooling at an unhealthy level.
By all accounts, the 2026 midterm elections will be close. A few thousand votes here and there may well decide who controls the House of Representatives. The OBBB’s boost of electric prices may be the one thing that pushes Democrats over the top.
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