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
sheldon whitehouse
As Trump Discovers Gas Price Gouging, Democrats Offer a Solution: Tax Big Oil
"Mr. President: I have a windfall excess profits bill you could support," said one Democratic senator.
Jun 24, 2026
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he has directed the US Department of Justice to investigate fossil fuel companies for not lowering gasoline prices as the cost of oil declines amid the prospect of an end to the Iran War.
"The big Oil Companies are not dropping their price at the pump commensurate with the sharply lower prices they are paying for Oil. Those prices are dropping like a rock! In other words, customers are being 'gouged,'" Trump said on his Truth Social network.
"I have instructed the DOJ to immediately start looking into this," he added. "Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I’m seeing!"
While benchmark West Texas Intermediate and Brent Crude oil prices have fallen to their lowest levels since Trump launched the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran on February 28, the average price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline in the United States was $3.93 per gallon on Wednesday, around one-third higher than it was the day before the war started but down from a high of $4.52 a month ago, according to the American Automobile Association.
"The price of fuel is not only a national security issue, it impacts the wallet of every American," an unnamed Trump administration official told ABC News on Wednesday following the president's post. "We will always commit to ensuring affordability in this nation."
Responding to Trump's post, US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) noted on social media that he has a solution for Big Oil price gouging.
In March, Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act “to curb profiteering by oil companies and provide Americans relief at the gas pump.”
The legislation—which only applies to large oil companies—would impose a per-barrel tax “equal to 50% of the difference between the current price per barrel of oil and the average price per barrel last year, when big oil companies were already earning large profits.”
Democrats in both chambers of Congress have also called for the prosecution of corporations that use the war as a pretext for price gouging.
Polling has shown that Americans largely support a tax on Big Oil windfall profits, which, according to The Guardian, amounted to $23 billion in the first month of the war alone—or $30 million per hour.
NEW: As Americans face rising oil costs, Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner has released an energy plan aiming to “End Big Oil Price Gouging.”We find voters support key elements of the plan, including an oil windfall tax to freeze or lower electricity rates.
[image or embed]
— Data for Progress (@dataforprogress.org) June 18, 2026 at 11:49 AM
Trump has been a staunch supporter of fossil fuel companies. While running for reelection on a "drill, baby, drill" energy platform, he reportedly promised Big Oil executives that he would eviscerate climate regulations enacted by the Biden administration if they gave $1 billion to his campaign.
Fossil fuel interests spent nearly $450 million during the 2024 election cycle on campaign contributions, lobbying, and efforts supporting Republican causes and candidates, including Trump.
As pump prices soared and Americans suffered amid Trump's war, the president—who promised gas under $2 a gallon and no new wars—said that “when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money."
Last week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated that Americans have paid nearly $54 billion extra for gas and fuel—more than $400 per household—than they would have if the war never happened.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Interrogate Big Oil Over 'Egregiously High Prices at the Pump' During Iran War
"While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran War imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
Jun 15, 2026
As President Donald Trump reached an interim peace deal with the Iranian government and Oxfam International revealed that 41 energy industry tycoons collectively increased their wealth by $23.5 billion since the war was launched in late February, a pair of US senators on Monday released their letters demanding answers from fossil fuel giants about their windfall profits and soaring gasoline prices during the conflict.
Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Committee on Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) last Thursday wrote to BP America chair and president Orlando Alvarez, Chevron chair and CEO Mike Wirth, ConocoPhillips chair and CEO Ryan Lance, Continental Resources president and CEO Robert Lawler, ExxonMobil chair and CEO Darren Woods, Occidental Petroleum president and CEO Richard Jackson, and Shell USA president Colette Hirstius.
"We write to question why American families are paying egregiously high prices at the pump while the fossil fuel industry collects massive windfall profits thanks to the Trump administration's war in Iran," Warren and Whitehouse wrote amid peace talks last week, noting that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for fossil fuels, led to what that the International Energy Agency (IEA) called "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market."
"Gasoline prices rapidly increased by as much as 52%," the pair highlighted. "Before the Iran War, oil cost $71.32 per barrel. Since then, it has cost as much as $138.21 and currently sits at $98.29 per barrel. The Iran War has allowed 27 oil and gas companies to rake in over $40 billion in profit since the Iran War began."
Warren and Whitehouse also emphasized that "the opportunity to profit from high oil prices did not occur in a political vacuum. In April 2024, then-candidate Trump solicited a billion dollars from fossil fuel executives at a private dinner at Mar-a-Lago, promising in exchange to roll back environmental regulations, issue desired permits, and expand drilling opportunities."
Also pointing to Trump's invasion of Venezuela, abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, and takeover of the country's nationalized oil industry, the senators said that "the pattern is consistent: While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran War imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
The pair requested answers to their questions on profits, pricing, federal policy, and communications with the Trump administration about the Iran War by June 25, They explained that the information "will aid our assessment of the appropriate scope, rate structure, and enforcement mechanisms as we actively consider the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act," reintroduced by Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, just weeks in to the war.
The information will also assist with investigations into "the extent to which Trump administration military, regulatory, and policy decisions benefited the oil industry and the extent to which any of these were the product of quid pro quo solicitations," as well as "whether oil and gas companies had advance knowledge of or ability to shape the administration's decision to go to war in Iran."
"Congress has a constitutional duty to investigate each of these matters and to legislate as necessary to protect the American people," the pair added. Both chambers are controlled by the GOP and have refused—largely along party lines—to pass war powers resolutions intended to prevent or end Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's illegal assault on Iran.
In response to Trump's new deal with Iran to extend a ceasefire reached in April and reopen the strait, oil prices dropped and the stock market rallied. Specifically, as The Associated Press detailed, "the S&P 500 rose 1.7%," while "the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 468 points, or 0.9%, to a record, and the Nasdaq composite jumped 3.1%."
Allie Rosenbluth, US program manager at the advocacy group Oil Change International, said Monday that "any agreement that reduces further violence is welcome. But this announcement should not be mistaken as the end to the crisis, given Israel has vowed to remain in occupied areas of southern Lebanon indefinitely, while violence continues in Gaza and the West Bank. As attention turns to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and falling oil prices, we should not lose sight of the devastating human toll this conflict has inflicted across the region, nor the profound economic disruption it continues to cause around the world."
Rosenbluth continued:
The rapid rise and fall of oil prices in response to military escalation and diplomatic announcements is a reminder of how exposed the global economy is to fossil fuel volatility. For millions of people, this crisis has meant loss, displacement, food insecurity, and higher cost of living. For fossil fuel companies, it has meant windfall profits.
Oil Change International estimates that if US oil prices average around $90 per barrel through the end of the year, US oil companies could make an additional $38 billion in windfall revenues from crude oil exports alone as a result of Trump and Netanyahu's war on Iran. While households around the world have been hit by higher fuel, energy, and food costs, oil companies are cashing in billions.
The Strait of Hormuz may be reopening, but this crisis has once again exposed fossil fuels as a source of conflict, chaos, volatility, and disruption. While communities bear the costs, oil companies profit from the instability. Once renewables are installed, sunlight or wind does not become more expensive because of geopolitical conflict. The most durable form of energy security is reducing exposure to fossil fuels altogether, and making a just transition to renewable energy.
As Group of Seven leaders, including Trump, gathered in France on Monday, and Oxfam International released its report about how G7 energy billionaires have pocketed $300 million per day since the start of the Iran War, the organization's executive director, Amitabh Behar, argued that representatives from the other six countries, or G6, "can't plead powerlessness."
"They can cancel debt. They can tax windfall profits and extreme wealth. They can advocate for a new issuance of special drawing rights. They can provide poorer countries with aid," Behar added. "Refusing to act simply because Washington will not join them is not diplomacy, it is cowardice. And it will only accelerate the G6's slide into global irrelevance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Western Groups Warn Democrats: 'No Deal With Devil on Permit Reform'
The coalition organizer called on party leaders "to withdraw from negotiations and stand with us and the public lands, waters, and wildlife of the West to build momentum for a progressive permit reform effort."
Apr 16, 2026
Amid permitting reform negotiations and votes in the Republican-led Congress this week, dozens of organizations from the US West on Thursday urged Democratic leaders to reject "a reactive capitulation to energy and technology industry demands and the Trump administration's deliberately engineered regulatory chaos."
"There is simply no precedent for what this administration has wrought, and permitting reform proposals under consideration—which scapegoat environmental laws—will only deepen the harm," warned 73 community, conservation, faith, and Indigenous groups in a letter to the top Democrats in each chamber, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), as well as those on two relevant Senate panels.
In December, 11 Democrats came under fire for voting with nearly all Republicans in the US House of Representatives to advance the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act. Led by retiring Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Committee on Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), it would amend the crucial National Environmental Policy Act, a frequent target of climate polluters and their allies in Congress.
With the SPEED Act pending in the Senate—where the GOP generally needs some Democratic support to advance legislation, due to its narrow majority and the filibuster rule—House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) took to the chamber's floor on Wednesday to promote three other bills. The FENCES Act, FIRE Act, and RED Tape Act, he said, "are an essential part of the committee's broader efforts on permitting reform and align with White House permitting priorities."
The House passed the FENCES and RED Tape bills on Thursday. Golden and Democratic Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Adam Gray (Calif.), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) joined Republicans in backing the former. Those Democrats, plus Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), also voted with the GOP for the latter.
Meanwhile, in the upper chamber, Republicans on Thursday passed a House-approved resolution to reverse a 20-year moratorium on mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Still, Senate Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) told Politico's E&E News earlier this week that "we're making steady progress" on permitting reform talks, "and it would not be unreasonable to have something to show our caucuses by the August recess."
The coalition of Western groups argued Thursday that "given Congress' ideological composition and alignment with the Trump administration's agenda, any permitting legislation that could conceivably emerge from this Congress and be signed into law by the president would unacceptably erode bedrock community and environmental safeguards, exclude the public from federal decision-making, and diminish the transparency and accountability now demanded of government agencies by federal law."
The groups pointed to various examples, including what critics called President Donald Trump's recent $1 billion "taxpayer-funded bribe" to get TotalEnergies to cancel its planned wind farms in favor of oil and gas projects, as well as his so-called God Squad's unprecedented exemption allowing fossil fuel operations in the Gulf of Mexico to ignore policies intended to protect endangered species. The letter also stresses that "Congress has not checked this abuse—it has enabled it."
"Rather than press forward with ill-fated legislation in this fraught moment, we therefore ask that you stand with us in defense of climate action and the public lands, waters, and wildlife, and communities of the West," the coalition wrote to Whitehouse, Schumer, Jeffries, and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Martin Heinrich (D-NM).
"It is this fight—in this moment—that can build shared trust and set the conditions for constructive legislation that strengthens and revitalizes the federal government's capacity to serve the public interest," the coalition continued. "This means, to us, the build-out, protection, and restoration of green infrastructure (built or natural) and the full integration of ecological and community considerations into climate and energy policy as a precondition of our ability to thrive in kinship with an abundant world."
The letter urging "no deal with [the] devil on permit reform" was authored by Western Environmental Law Center executive director Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, who stressed in a statement that "the first rule of negotiation is that it's impossible to reach workable solutions with bad-faith actors."
"Today's Republican Congress has shown unprecedented hostility to climate, environmental, and community protections," he said. "It is glaringly obvious that any changes to our bedrock environmental laws signed by President Trump would sacrifice far too much and compromise the imperative to foster a just and equitable transition to an economy powered by renewable energy."
Schlenker-Goodrich called on Heinrich and Whitehouse "to withdraw from negotiations and stand with us and the public lands, waters, and wildlife of the West to build momentum for a progressive permit reform effort with stronger bargaining power after the midterm elections" in November.
Other signatories include leaders at the Center for Biological Diversity, Climate Justice Alliance, Friends of the Shasta River, GreenLatinos of New Mexico, Orange County Coastkeeper, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club Montana Chapter, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Umpqua Watersheds, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Wyoming Wilderness Association, and more.
"Deregulatory permitting reform right now only means the fossil fuel industry will be forever dominant in this nation, which is why they are the biggest cheerleader for making a deal now," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Democrats must focus on fighting the lawless Trump administration and the fossil fuel industry, not cut deals with people that only seek to destroy clean energy and a livable future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Oil Windfall Tax Would Return ‘Egregious’ Iran War Profits to Struggling US Families
“Trump’s war of choice in Iran is not just a moral mistake but an economic blunder that is skyrocketing gas prices for working Americans," said Rep. Ro Khanna.
Mar 18, 2026
With Big Oil poised to profit from a price spike driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran, congressional Democrats on Wednesday revived an excise tax that proponents say would put money back in the pockets of struggling American workers.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act "to curb profiteering by oil companies and provide Americans relief at the gas pump."
The legislation—which only applies to large oil companies—would impose a per-barrel tax "equal to 50% of the difference between the current price per barrel of oil and the average price per barrel last year, when big oil companies were already earning large profits."
As Democrats on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works explained: "Revenue raised from the windfall profits of Big Oil companies will be returned to consumers in the form of a quarterly rebate, which would phase out for single filers who earn more than $75,000 in annual income and joint filers who earn more than $150,000. At $100 per barrel of oil, the levy would raise approximately $33 billion per year. At that price, single filers would receive approximately $216 annually and joint filers would receive roughly $324 annually.”
The committee Democrats noted:
The price of a gallon of gas is up 80 cents just weeks after the onset of war in Iran, and the price of a barrel of oil has increased 50% from what it was at the start of the year. President [Donald] Trump’s war in Iran has further disrupted an already volatile global oil market by reducing supply and choking key shipping lanes. Qatar has warned that oil prices could surpass $150 per barrel in the coming weeks, far above 2022 highs seen following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Trump—who promised gas under $2 a gallon and no new wars—said last week that "when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money."
As in Venezuela—another oil-rich country attacked by a president who has bombed 10 nations, more than any other US leader in history—Big Oil revenue is projected to surge due to the rising volatility and prices the war on Iran is bringing. The Financial Times reported Tuesday that US oil companies could reap $60 billion in additional revenue this year alone if crude prices remain high.
As one oil industry financial analyst told The New York Times earlier this week, “The oil and gas industry’s financial strategy has been ‘pray for war,’ because those are the conditions under which they make money."
Critics said that while fossil fuel interests—which spent close to half a billion dollars to get Trump and other Republicans elected in 2024—rake in profits, ordinary Americans suffer.
“American consumers are once again getting squeezed at the gas pump as President Trump’s war of choice in Iran sends gas prices soaring and money flowing to his Big Oil donors,” Whitehouse said Tuesday. “We should send any big windfall for Big Oil back to the hardworking people who paid for it at the gas pump."
"Over the longer term, accelerating our transition to clean energy will lower energy costs, insulate consumers from these kinds of price spikes, and reduce America’s dependence on foreign despots and greedy fossil fuel companies," he added.
Khanna said: “Trump’s war of choice in Iran is not just a moral mistake but an economic blunder that is skyrocketing gas prices for working Americans. I’m proud to reintroduce the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act alongside Sen. Whitehouse to stop Big Oil from profiteering off of foreign wars at Americans’ expense and deliver real relief at the pump."
The President shouldn't be a cheerleader for Big Oil companies making fatter profits while Americans pay higher gas prices.We should tax windfall oil profits from Trump's war against Iran and give relief to American families instead.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) March 15, 2026 at 10:38 AM
Green groups and economic justice advocates were among those applauding the reintroduction of the bill, which one 2022 nationwide poll found is supported by 80% of Americans.
“Let’s be crystal clear that when Trump said ‘when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money’, he was talking about billionaire Big Oil executives while ‘we the people’ are stuck paying higher costs," said League of Conservation Voters (LCV) senior federal advocacy campaigns director Leah Donahey.
"A recent analysis estimates the oil industry could rake in over $60 billion in additional profits this year, which would all be paid by consumers struggling with higher energy costs," Donahey added. "Congress should pass this bill as soon as possible to make sure they are putting people over oil CEO profits.”
Mitch Jones, who directs policy and litigation at the watchdog group Food & Water Watch (FWW), said Wednesday that "historical evidence could not be any clearer: Big Oil will undoubtedly leverage the current crisis in the Middle East to maximize profit margins, pinching American families and enriching their executives and Wall Street speculators."
"This demands a policy response—namely, a windfall profits tax... which would recover much of these egregious, opportunistic gains and return them to everyday Americans," Jones added. "At a time when many families are already struggling with skyrocketing energy bills caused by money-driven AI schemes from the tech industry, fossil fuel companies must be held accountable for the profiteering they are orchestrating as we speak.”
LCV and FWW are among the more than 70 groups urging Congress to pass the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act.
“As instability in the Middle East once again drives up oil prices, American families are being asked to pay more for gasoline and other basic necessities,” the groups wrote Wednesday in a letter to congressional leaders. “Meanwhile, the largest fossil fuel companies stand to collect billions in additional profits. A windfall profits tax would ensure that when oil companies benefit from crisis-driven price spikes, some of those gains are returned to the households paying the cost.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Want to Know How Trump's Chief of Staff Got Access to Epstein Files
With the Justice Department under fire for how it's handled the documents, the senators asked Susie Wiles to describe her "role in any process related to the review, redaction, withholding, or release of material."
Dec 30, 2025
Two Democratic leaders in the US Senate revealed Tuesday that they're demanding answers from the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, about her access to federal files on deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and whether she's involved in their "bungled and potentially illegal partial release."
President Donald Trump had a well-documented friendship with Epstein—at least until a reported falling out in 2004. Although the president ultimately signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, it came after he faced intense criticism for his administration not willingly releasing the records, and congressional Republicans delayed passage of the bill, which requires the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to publish materials related to the late financier's sex trafficking case.
Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), ranking member for the Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, began their letter to Wiles by pointing to a two-part Vanity Fair series featuring interviews with Trump's top advisers, including Wiles.
As Chris Whipple reported:
Wiles told me she'd read what she calls "the Epstein file." And, she said, "[Trump] is in the file. And we know he's in the file. And he's not in the file doing anything awful." Wiles said that Trump "was on [Epstein's] plane… he's on the manifest. They were, you know, sort of young, single, whatever—I know it's a passé word but sort of young, single playboys together."
Noting those remarks, the senators wrote to Wiles, "Please be kind enough to explain when and where and under what authority you gained access to this material."
They also sent Wiles the list of questions below and requested her response by January 5:
- What were the materials in "the Epstein file" you referred to in your Vanity Fair interview?
- Had material in the file you reviewed been presented to a grand jury?
- When did you first gain access to "the Epstein file" and what was the schedule of your review of it?
- For what purpose did you gain access to this information?
- Did you share with President Trump any information contained in the file you reviewed?
- Please describe your role in any process related to the review, redaction, withholding, or release of material in the "Epstein file," including any processes involving the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The letter is dated December 22, just three days after the deadline set by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The DOJ has missed the deadline, released files in batches, and faced scrutiny for redactions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Stop Permitting Talks Over Trump's 'Reckless and Vindictive Assault' on Wind Power
"By sabotaging US energy innovation and killing American jobs, the Trump administration has made clear that it is not interested in permitting reform," said Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich.
Dec 22, 2025
The top Democrats on a pair of key US Senate panels ended negotiations to reform the federal permitting process for energy projects in response to the Trump administration's Monday attack on five offshore wind projects along the East Coast.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Martin Heinrich (D-NM) began their joint statement by thanking the panels' respective chairs, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), "for their good-faith efforts to negotiate a permitting reform bill that would have lowered electricity prices for all Americans."
"There was a deal to be had that would have taken politics out of permitting, made the process faster and more efficient, and streamlined grid infrastructure improvements nationwide," the Democrats said. "But any deal would have to be administered by the Trump administration. Its reckless and vindictive assault on wind energy doesn't just undermine one of our cheapest, cleanest power sources, it wrecks the trust needed with the executive branch for bipartisan permitting reform."
Earlier Monday, the US Department of the Interior halted Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind off Virginia, Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind off New York, Revolution Wind off Rhode Island and Connecticut, and Vineyard Wind 1 off Massachusetts, citing radar interference concerns.
Governors and members of Congress from impacted states, including Whitehouse and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), condemned the announcement, with Whitehouse pointing to a recent legal battle over the project that would help power Rhode Island.
"It's hard to see the difference between these new alleged radar-related national security concerns and the radar-related national security allegations the Trump administration lost in court, a position so weak that they declined to appeal their defeat," he said.
This looks more like the kind of vindictive harassment we have come to expect from the Trump administration than anything legitimate.
— Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (@whitehouse.senate.gov) December 22, 2025 at 12:59 PM
Later, he and Heinrich said that "by sabotaging US energy innovation and killing American jobs, the Trump administration has made clear that it is not interested in permitting reform. It will own the higher electricity prices, increasingly decrepit infrastructure, and loss of competitiveness that result from its reckless policies."
"The illegal attacks on fully permitted renewable energy projects must be reversed if there is to be any chance that permitting talks resume," they continued. "There is no path to permitting reform if this administration refuses to follow the law."
Reporting on Whitehouse and Heinrich's decision, the Hill reached out to Capito and Lee's offices, as well as the Interior Department, whose spokesperson, Alyse Sharpe, "declined to comment beyond the administration's press release, which claimed the leases were being suspended for national security reasons."
Lee responded on social media with a gif:
Although the GOP has majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans don't have enough senators to get most bills to a final vote without Democratic support.
The Democratic senators' Monday move was expected among observers of the permitting reform debate, such as Heatmap senior reporter Jael Holzman, who wrote before their statement came out that "Democrats in Congress are almost certainly going to take this action into permitting reform talks... after squabbling over offshore wind nearly derailed a House bill revising the National Environmental Policy Act last week."
That bill, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, was pilloried by green groups after its bipartisan passage. It's one of four related pieces of legislation that the House advanced last week. The others are the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, Power Plant Reliability Act, and Reliable Power Act.
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group's Climate Program, blasted all four bills as "blatant handouts to the fossil fuel and mining industries" that would do "nothing to help American families facing staggering energy costs and an escalating climate crisis."
"We need real action to lower energy bills for American families and combat the climate crisis," he argued. "The best policy response would be to fast-track a buildout of renewable energy, storage, and transmission—an approach that would not just make energy more affordable and sustainable, but create US jobs and bolster competitiveness with China, which is rapidly outpacing the US on the energy technologies of the future.
Instead, Arkush said, congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump "are shamefully pushing legislation that would only exacerbate the energy affordability crisis and further entrench the dirty, dangerous, and unaffordable energy of the past."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fear of ‘Corporate Capture’ at COP30 as Record 1,600+ Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Swarm
"We see the very corporations driving this crisis being given a platform to foist the same false ‘solutions’ that sustain their profit motives."
Nov 14, 2025
A environmental advocacy group is warning about the potential "corporate capture" of the COP30 climate summit being held this week in Belém, Brazil.
In a report released on Friday, the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition said it tallied the “largest ever attendance share” for fossil fuel lobbyists, dimming hopes of reaching a breakthrough agreement to curb emissions.
In fact, KBPO found that fossil fuel lobbyists at the conference outnumber the delegations of every nation attending, with the lone exception being Brazil, which is hosting COP30.
In total, KBPO counted 1,602 fossil fuel lobbyists at the climate summit.
The number of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP30 increased by 12% from last year's COP29 held in Baku, Azerbaijan, and lobbyists represent one out every 25 participants at this year's conference.
The KBPO report puts this into perspective by contrasting the number of lobbyists in attendance with the number of delegates from nations that have suffered the most from extreme weather brought about by human-induced climate change.
"Fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber official delegates from the Philippines by nearly 50 to 1—even while the country is being hit by devastating typhoons as the UN climate talks are underway," the report notes. "Fossil fuel lobbyists sent more than 40 times the number of people than Jamaica, which is still reeling from Hurricane Melissa."
Jax Bongon, climate justice policy officer at the sustainable development advocacy organization International IBON and a member of the KBPO coalition, said the heavy presence of lobbyists is "making a mockery of the process" of trying to negotiate a deal to reduce global carbon emissions.
"Just days after devastating floods and supertyphoons in the Philippines, and amid worsening droughts, heatwaves, and displacement across the Global South," Bongon said, "we see the very corporations driving this crisis being given a platform to foist the same false ‘solutions’ that sustain their profit motives and undermine any hope of truly addressing the climate emergency."
The report also called out several wealthy nations for including fossil fuel lobbyists in their delegations.
" France brought 22 fossil fuel delegates, with five from TotalEnergies, including CEO Patrick Pouyanné," KBPO noted. "Japan’s delegation contained 33 fossil fuel lobbyists, among them Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Osaka Gas; and Norway snuck 17 into the talks, including six senior executives from its national oil and gas giant Equinor."
Although the US under President Donald Trump is not taking part in this year's negotiations, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is attending COP30 as the lone federal representative of the US government.
According to Politico, Whitehouse intends to hammer the Trump administration for continuing to focus exclusively on fossil fuel production at a time when the rest of the world is moving on to producing renewable energy sources.
"Amidst sinking approvals and a shellacking in the most recent elections, it’s no surprise the Trump administration is unwilling to defend the fossil fuel industry’s unpopular and corrupt climate denial lies on the global stage," Whitehouse told Politico.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bondi Dodges Over Whether Trump Border Czar Kept $50,000 in Cash From Alleged Bribe Sting Operation
"I can see that I'm not going to get a straight answer from you to a very simple question," said a frustrated Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse during the hearing.
Oct 07, 2025
US Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday dodged questions related to a $50,000 cash bribe that Trump administration official Tom Homan was allegedly caught on video accepting last year.
During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bondi was grilled by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) about the end of the FBI's investigation into Homan, who reportedly accepted a bag containing $50,000 in cash last year from undercover FBI agents whom he believed to be business executives seeking to win contracts under a second Trump administration.
Whitehouse started off by asking Bondi what became of the money that Homan allegedly took from the agents.
Bondi responded by insisting that "the investigation into Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review by the FBI, agents, and DOJ prosecutors," who "found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing."
"That was not my question," Whitehouse shot back. "My question was, what became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag, to Mr. Homan?"
"Senator, I'd look at your facts," Bondi replied.
After a brief pause, Whitehouse asked Bondi if she was saying that the FBI didn't actually hand Homan $50,000 in cash.
"Senator, as recently stated, the investigation into Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review," Bondi repeated. "They found no evidence of wrongdoing."
"That's a different question," Whitehouse pressed. "What became of the $50,000. Did the FBI get it back?"
Bondi responded by suggesting the senator "speak to the FBI"—which the attorney general ultimately oversees.
Whitehouse: What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI gave to Mr. Homan?
Bondi: The investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review They found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Whitehouse: What became of the $50,000? Did the FBI get it back?
Bondi: You're welcome to… pic.twitter.com/9mFjRTkJrS
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 7, 2025
Whitehouse later asked Bondi if Homan kept the $50,000, to which Bondi repeated her assertion that there was no evidence that Homan committed any crime.
"I can see that I’m not going to get a straight answer from you to a very simple question," the senator finally said.
Democrats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives last month announced that they were launching a probe into the US Department of Justice's handling of the Homan probe, and they asked the agency to preserve "any and all records related to the investigation into Mr. Homan and the decision to close the investigation," and to hand over materials including the FBI’s full investigative file and "any recordings of Mr. Homan receiving cash from undercover FBI agents."
Although Democrats as the minority party in Congress lack power to subpoena these files, they do have the option of conducting voluntary interviews with former Biden administration officials who had been briefed about the investigation into Homan.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate GOP Approve 'Nuclear Option' to Ram Through 'Worst and Smelliest Stinkers' Nominated by Trump
"Congress is supposed to be a check on the Executive Branch, not a rubber stamp," said Sen. Alex Padilla, Democrat of California. "We won’t forget it."
Sep 12, 2025
In a move that allowed for confirmation of a bloc of 48 nominees to a variety of sub-cabinet positions across the executive branch that require Senate approval, Senate Majority Leader John Thune triggered what's been called the "nuclear option" on Thursday by lowering the threshold for passage and allowing group confirmations, an unprecedented change to chamber rules that will now hamper the minorities ability to slow or stop objectionable or unqualified candidates.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the group of nominees "historically bad," and was among those on the Democratic side to warn the move would forever change the nature of the Senate.
As NBC News explains:
The rule applies to executive branch nominees subject to two hours of Senate debate, including subcabinet picks and ambassadors. It will not affect judicial nominations. Republicans say they'll allow their own senators to object to individual nominees in any given block, but the rule will strip away the power of the minority party to do the same thing.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., initiated the process by bringing up a package of 48 Trump nominees, which under longstanding rules has been subject to the 60-vote threshold. The vote to advance them failed due to Democratic opposition. Then, Thune sought to reconsider and Republicans subsequently voted to overrule the chair, setting a precedent and establishing the new rule.
Thune had telegraphed the move for weeks, accusing Democrats of creating an "untenable situation" with historic obstruction of Trump's nominees. The vote was held up for hours Thursday as the two parties engaged in last-ditch negotiations to strike a deal to avoid a rules change.
In the end, those negotiations failed and Thune went ahead with the rule change, which passed along party lines in a 53-45 vote.
"You remember that 'nuclear option' that Republicans warned Democrats to never use because it attacked the fundamental structure of the Senate and put government at risk?" asked Democratic strategist and podcast host Max Burns. "Senate Republicans just used it."
Democratic senators denounced the move in the strongest terms, vowing to remember when political winds shift in the future.
"This 'nuclear' move," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), "allows Republicans to vote through Trump’s unqualified and unfit nominees in bunches—“en bloc”—so they can’t be held directly accountable for the worst and smelliest stinkers in the bunch."
"Republicans have permanently blown up the rules of the Senate to jam through Trump's unqualified nominees," said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). "Congress is supposed to be a check on the Executive Branch, not a rubber stamp. We won’t forget it."
The GOP effort, said Schumer in his remarks, "was not so much about ending obstruction, as they claim. Rather, it was another act of genuflection to the executive branch... to give Donald Trump more power and to rubber-stamp whomever he wants whenever he wants them, no questions asked."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawsuit Seeks to Stop 'Arbitrary and Capricious' Trump Attack on New England Wind Farm
"My experience tells me the discovery phase will be fascinating as the lawyers dig into the true motivations and scheming behind this ugly fossil fuel thuggery," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.
Sep 04, 2025
The attorneys general of Connecticut and Rhode Island on Thursday joined renewable energy companies in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's suspension of an offshore wind farm that, if completed, will power hundreds of thousands of homes in the two New England states.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, both Democrats, announced they are suing "to overturn the baseless stop-work order abruptly issued on August 22, 2025, which halted the construction of Revolution Wind," a project located 15 miles south of the Rhode Island coast.
"Revolution Wind is fully permitted, nearly complete and months from providing enough American-made, clean, affordable energy to power 350,000 homes," Tong said in a statement. "Now, with zero justification, [US President Donald] Trump wants to mothball the project, send workers home, and saddle Connecticut families with millions of dollars in higher energy costs. This kind of erratic and reckless governing is blatantly illegal, and we're suing to stop it."
Acting US Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) Director Matthew Giacona issued the order directing Rob Keiser, head of asset management at the North American branch of the Danish firm Ørsted—the world's largest offshore wind developer—to "halt all ongoing activities related to the Revolution Wind project on the outer continental shelf."
Giacona's order—which cited "concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States"—is to remain in effect pending review by BOEM, which is part of the US Interior Department.
Ratepayers could have saved $400 million last winter if the 3.5 GW of offshore wind in New England was operational.Meanwhile, Trump just halted construction on Rhode Island's Revolution Wind and is trying to ban wind energy entirely. You can thank Trump when your energy bills continue to rise.
[image or embed]
— LCV – League of Conservation Voters 🌎 (@lcv.org) September 4, 2025 at 6:31 AM
At the time of the order, Ørsted said that Revolution Wind was "80% complete, with all offshore foundations installed and 45 out of 65 wind turbines installed."
The lawsuit filed by Revolution Wind—a joint venture between Ørsted and Skyborn Renewables—seeks to lift BOEM's order. An attorney for Ørsted contended Thursday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia that Trump's "apparent hostility toward offshore wind" was behind the stop-work order.
"The project has spent billions of dollars in reliance on these valid approvals," the Revolution Wind filing states. "The stop-work order is invalid and must be set aside because it was issued without statutory authority, in violation of agency regulations and procedures and the 5th Amendment's due process clause, and is arbitrary and capricious."
US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who previously condemned the stop-work order, said Thursday that "if Trump's plan is to raise families' energy prices, cut American jobs, turbocharge climate change, and accelerate the Great Climate Insurance Crisis, he's knocking it out of the park with his all-out attack on American offshore wind."
"Wind power is one of the fastest, safest, cheapest ways to meet rising electricity demand and cut energy prices," the senator continued. "The only winners here are the corrupt fossil fuel donors who bankrolled Trump's campaign."
In a separate social media post on Thursday addressing the new lawsuit, Whitehouse said that "my experience tells me the discovery phase will be fascinating as the lawyers dig into the true motivations and scheming behind this ugly fossil fuel thuggery."
Revolution Wind is at least the second major wind project hit with a BOEM stop-work order during the second administration of Trump, who campaigned on a "drill, baby, drill" pro-fossil fuels platform.
Trump has also antagonized Denmark by threatening to take control of Greenland, a Danish territory. Last month, Denmark's Foreign Ministry summoned Mark Stroh, Trump's charge d'affaires in the Nordic nation, following a report by the main Danish public broadcaster alleging that three Americans with ties to Trump have been attempting to instigate tensions between Denmark and Greenland.
Thursday's lawsuit follows another multistate complaint filed in May by 18 attorneys general seeking to block Trump's effort to pause offshore wind development via an executive order issued on the president's first day in office.
"This arbitrary and unnecessary directive threatens the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in investments, and it is delaying our transition away from the fossil fuels that harm our health and our planet," Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the coalition of states, said at the time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
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