

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Carroll Muffett, President: 202.742.5772, cmuffett@ciel.org
Amanda Kistler, Communications Director: 202.742.5832, akistler@ciel.org
New research by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) not only confirms that the tobacco and fossil fuel industries used a shared playbook, but also suggests that playbook originated not with tobacco--as long assumed--but with the oil industry itself.
As evidence mounts of the oil industry's decades-long campaign of climate deception and denial, its allies have dismissed any parallels to the tobacco industry's campaign of cancer denial. More than 100 industry documents drawn from the Tobacco Industry Archives demonstrate not only the legitimacy of the comparison between big oil and tobacco, but also reveal direct connections between these industries that go back far earlier than previously thought.
"From the 1950s onward, the oil and tobacco firms were using not only the same PR firms and the same research institutes, but many of the same researchers," said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. "Again and again we found both the PR firms and the researchers worked first for oil, then for tobacco. It was a pedigree the tobacco companies recognized, and sought out."
In one notable example, Stanford Research Institute - which proved instrumental in oil industry attacks on smog science in the 1950s and warned industry execs of climate risks in the 1960s - was funded under secret tobacco industry accounts to build a machine to test for workplace carbon monoxide. Similarly, mathematician Theodor Sterling, recognized by both tobacco executives and investigators as one of the industry's most important assets in the fight against cancer science, worked on behalf of oil company interests before joining the tobacco fight.
"Big Oil created the organized apparatus of doubt," Muffett said. "It used the same playbook of misinformation, obfuscation, and research laundered through front groups to attack science and sow uncertainty on lead, on smog, and in the early debates on climate change. Big Tobacco used and refined that playbook for decades in its fight to keep us smoking - just as Big Oil is using it now, again, to keep us burning fossil fuels."
Today's release scratches the surface of a vast trove of more 14 million formerly confidential documents in the Tobacco Industry Archives, many of which remain under seal. "These documents represent, at most, half of the story: the tobacco half," notes Muffett. "The rest of this story--including vital truths about the history of climate deception - remains hidden in the oil industry's files. Six decades of denial and deception is six too many. We owe it to ourselves, and to future generations, to bring that truth to light."
Below are some highlights from the findings:
In the late 1970s, Sir Richard Dobson served simultaneously as Chair of British American Tobacco and on the board of Exxon. Dobson is notorious for once suggesting that cigarette smoking in moderation is beneficial, asserting "the tobacco industry, in total, does more good than harm." During the late 1970s, BAT alone shared Board members with at least three different oil companies.
Oil companies were testing cigarette smoke for toxins as early as the 1950s, including in partnership with research funded by the tobacco industry.
Exxon and Shell patented and actively promoted their own cigarette filters repeatedly from the 1960s through the 1990s, and entered into joint research agreements with tobacco firms to bring them to market.
Stanford Research Institute, which was instrumental in the oil industry's Smoke and Fumes efforts, carried out similar efforts for tobacco spanning more than a decade, including psychographic analysis; testing filters for carbon monoxide absorption; and designing portable testing equipment to discretely analyze cigarette smoke.
A former Standard Oil executive recommended numerous oil-connected scientists for the Tobacco industry's Scientific Advisory Board, many of whom went on to work for tobacco.
Theodor Sterling, recognized by both tobacco companies and Justice Department prosecutors as one of tobacco's most important scientific assets for two decades, did similar work for oil companies fighting lead regulation before his work with tobacco.
Tobacco companies closely monitored research and developments on smog, lead, and other petroleum-linked air pollutants.
Since 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has worked to strengthen and use international law and institutions to protect the environment, promote human health, and ensure a just and sustainable society.
Cecilia Vega, one of several journalists ousted from the show, said many of her colleagues "have had to fight to maintain editorial independence" under CBS News' new Trump-aligned corporate owners.
A group of veteran “60 Minutes” journalists was fired on Thursday as CBS News’ recently installed right-wing editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, moves to reshape the network in her image. Some of the ousted employees are describing their mass firing as a clear act of political “censorship.”
News had already broken earlier this week that correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi was on the way out after more than ten years on the flagship news program, after she'd publicly criticized Weiss' decision to delay her story on the Trump administration's deportation of immigrants to a notorious Salvadoran torture prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), late last year.
But Alfonsi's departure was rumored to be part of a larger shakeup by Weiss, who has been accused of molding the network into a mouthpiece for the Trump administration following the government-approved acquisition of CBS's parent company, Paramount, by billionaire David Ellison, owner of Skydance.
On Thursday, the hammer finally fell. In addition to the formal firing of Alfonsi, The Washington Post reported that Weiss had also fired Tanya Simon, who’d worked on the show for a quarter-century and had recently taken on the role of executive producer. Correspondent Cecilia Vega—who had also covered CECOT for the network before Weiss' arrival—was canned as well, even though her contract was not set to expire until March 2027. So was executive editor Draggan Mihailovich.
In a memo to staff on Thursday, Weiss and CBS News President Tom Cibrowski said the firings were the result of them “building a show that thrives in the 21st century.”
“That requires a new approach,” they said, outlining their goals of “expanding ‘60 Minutes’ beyond a one-hour television broadcast, deepening its role across CBS News, and holding everything we produce to the ambition, fairness, and fearlessness that have defined ‘60 Minutes’ at its best.”
To fill the role of executive producer, Weiss brought in a network outsider, Nick Bilton, a former technology columnist at The New York Times and producer of documentaries for HBO and Netflix. Weiss called him “one of the most entrepreneurial journalists of our time and the perfect leader for one of the most entrepreneurial news brands of all time.”
Though Weiss reportedly viewed Simon as a “bad leader” who “couldn’t control the staff,” according to one source who spoke anonymously with The New York Post, Simon announced her departure with warm words for those who’d continue working on “60 Minutes.”
“While leadership has decided it is time for a new chapter—I want to be unequivocally clear about one thing: It has been an immense privilege to lead this broadcast, and I could not be prouder of what we have built, fought for, and delivered together over the last year," Simon said in a statement published Thursday. "'60 Minutes' has always been more than just a broadcast: It is an institution built on independence, grit, and rigorous search for the truth.“
But Vega gave a more candid explanation for her and her colleagues' firings.
"In recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories," she said in a statement Thursday. "Reporting teams have held back on submitting story pitches about important news topics out of fear of the internal repercussions."
"Let's call this what it is: censorship, both imposed and self-driven," she continued. "It is dangerous for the show and dangerous for democracy."
Vega's criticisms mirror those made earlier this week by Alfonsi, who said her firing was "a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting."
In December, Weiss abruptly pulled Alfonsi's story featuring the testimony of some of the men who were tortured in the CECOT prison shortly before it was set to air, citing a lack of commentary in the segment from Trump administration officials, who had repeatedly ignored the journalists’ requests for an interview. At the time, Alfonsi said Weiss had effectively given the government a “kill switch” on critical reporting. The segment eventually went to air the next month with some editing.
Following her ouster on Thursday, Vega described her own efforts to oppose what she viewed as politically-motivated meddling by network higher-ups.
"I held the line and refused to incorporate suggestions that offend the conscience," she said. "I know from many conversations with colleagues that many producing teams and correspondents working on the show today have had to fight to maintain editorial independence with regularity."
“I am far from the only ‘60 Minutes’ correspondent who has asked herself, ‘What is my personal red line? How much can I push back before I pay the price?'" Vega added.
She said she was proud of her work at '60 Minutes' and cited her reporting on CECOT for the program, which won a DuPont Columbia journalism award, as one of her finest achievements.
Weiss' overhaul of '60 Minutes' comes as Ellison eyes the merger of Paramount with another major media conglomerate, Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.
President Donald Trump has said it's “imperative” that any acquisition of Warner Bros. includes CNN and has publicly denounced a rival bid for the company by Netflix.
Earlier this week, Reuters reported that antitrust regulators at the Department of Justice appeared ready to approve a $110 billion takeover by Paramount following meetings with Ellison and other company executives.
A group of journalists—including tech reporter Kara Swisher, former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, and NBC News legal analyst Katie Phang—warned at an event hosted earlier this week by a coalition of press freedom groups that, especially in the wake of Alfonsi's firing, the government-approved consolidation of media posed a dangerous threat to the future of journalistic freedom.
“I think what’s happening right now is pretty dangerous,” Acosta said. “To essentially announce the departure of Sharyn Alfonsi from 60 Minutes is a very in-your-face move by some people who don’t care very much about the First Amendment.”
“Folks need to use a little bit of their imagination here to recognize what may be coming down the pike,” he said, warning that the Trump administration was building a “strange oligarchical empire… attempting to do state media.”
"Unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins," said one expert.
The head of the US Agriculture Department on Thursday celebrated that millions of people have lost federal nutrition assistance under the second Trump administration, declaring that families who have seen their modest aid disappear are closer to realizing "the American dream."
Speaking at an event in Arizona, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins—who has an estimated net worth of around $15 million—said that the Trump administration has "moved about 4 million off of SNAP," referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Rollins suggested, without evidence, that some of those who have lost SNAP benefits were receiving them fraudulently.
But others, claimed Rollins, are "moving into the American dream and off of welfare."
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), wrote in response that "unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins."
Watch Rollins' remarks:
Brooke Rollins: "As we've moved about 4 million off SNAP, we don't have the exact data of how much of that is fraud, how much of that is people moving into the American dream and off of welfare." pic.twitter.com/oSFkCtS79I
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 28, 2026
Trump administration officials, including President Donald Trump himself, have repeatedly used euphemistic language to describe the large-scale loss of food aid following passage of the Republican budget reconciliation package last summer. That measure contains $186 billion in SNAP cuts over the next decade—the largest in the program's history.
During his State of the Union address in February, Trump boasted that his administration has "lifted" millions of Americans off SNAP, falsely suggesting that the mass loss of benefits was attributable to stronger economic conditions rather than deliberate policy changes designed to boot people from the program.
"Economic conditions haven’t been improving as the number of people receiving SNAP has plummeted in recent months, representing the sharpest decline in decades," CBPP noted in a recent analysis. "The last time there was such a steep decrease in participation in such a short period of time (other than temporary spikes following natural disasters) was nearly three decades ago, after Congress enacted very deep cuts to SNAP (then the Food Stamp Program) in 1996."
"SNAP participation has fallen in every state," the think tank added, "and in some, the drop is particularly alarming."
"The government hasn’t 'lifted' Americans facing food insecurity; it’s simply decided to kick them down the elevator shaft."
Arizona, the state Rollins visited on Thursday, saw a roughly 50% decline in the number of people receiving SNAP benefits between January 2025 and February of this year, with hundreds of thousands of people losing benefits.
"We certainly are not seeing a drop in the number of folks that are participating because we’ve solved hunger," Adrienne Udarbe, executive director of the nonprofit group Pinnacle Prevention, told AZFamily earlier this week.
One Tucson, Arizona resident, a single mother of three, told the Unrig Our Economy coalition on Friday that "even working full-time, I’ve been unable to access SNAP benefits since March thanks to Republicans’ cuts."
"Costs are already rising everywhere because of Republicans’ tariffs and their war in Iran, and cutting food assistance is pushing families like mine over the edge," said the mother, identified as Angelica G. "It’s difficult to work so hard to make ends meet just to watch Republicans in Congress give even more tax breaks to billionaires while cutting food services that families like mine rely on.”
In Kansas, more than 21,000 people have lost SNAP benefits since July. Haley Kottler, senior campaign director at the advocacy group Kansas Appleseed, said in a statement Thursday that "these are not just abstract numbers."
"These are Kansas kids losing access to food," said Kottler. "This has real implications for Kansas children to access the nutrition they need to learn, grow, and thrive."
Rollins' comments Thursday came amid a flurry of data showing the weakness of the US economy and the struggles of working-class families under Trump's leadership, from rising inflation to falling personal savings rates.
Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released an analysis showing that the US has seen "a remarkable increase in food insecurity" in recent months, "particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children."
Political analyst Steve Benen wrote in a column for MS NOW on Tuesday that "Republicans seem to think this is worth bragging about."
"Trump’s routine use of the word 'lift' makes it sound as if struggling families were put onto an elevator that carried them to a stronger and more secure position," wrote Benen. "That turns reality on its head: Thanks to the inaptly named One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the government hasn’t 'lifted' Americans facing food insecurity; it’s simply decided to kick them down the elevator shaft, depriving much of the public of food aid."
"More people are going hungry now than at the height of the pandemic. Families are skipping meals, relying on food banks, and turning to SNAP to get by."
An analysis released this week by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that food insecurity in the US has reached levels not seen since the height of the coronavirus pandemic, underscoring the devastating impact of Republican cuts to federal nutrition assistance and President Donald Trump's inflationary economic and foreign policy decisions.
In a blog post, New York Fed researchers detailed their findings of "a remarkable increase in food insecurity, particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children," as well as "a contemporaneous increase in pessimism among the same groups, along with a sharp decline in job-finding expectations."
The researchers cited new data showing increases in the percentage of Americans who reported receiving food donations and skipping meals in recent months, as prices for basic necessities rose. Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that Trump and congressional Republicans enacted last summer are also having an impact, stripping food aid from hundreds of thousands of low-income children and millions of people overall.
Among those who reported skipping meals and relying on food banks, "there is a lower, and more rapidly declining, net share of respondents expecting to be better versus worse off financially a year from now," despite some topline figures indicating a relatively strong economy (such as a low unemployment rate), the researchers observed.
"This means that an increase in the incidence of food insecurity is associated with a deterioration in consumer sentiment," they added.
More people are going hungry now than at the height of the pandemic. Families are skipping meals, relying on food banks, and turning to SNAP to get by. Hunger is rising and Congress cannot look away. https://t.co/ImAFSuTJSg
— Food Research & Action Center (@fractweets) May 28, 2026
The New York Fed's analysis came amid a flurry of new data showing that rising inflation—now at a three-year high—is eroding Americans' paychecks and causing personal savings rates to plummet as households are forced to spend more on gas, food, and other basics.
Following the release of new federal data on Thursday, the nonprofit research group Equitable Growth pointed to "an important milestone: Household incomes are now down year-over-year. American households had more money to spend in April of 2025."
"Although income is down for all households this month, it is falling faster for the bottom 50% households, who have seen their income fall by 1.6% compared to April of last year," noted Equitable Growth visiting fellow Austin Clemens. "This group’s income has fallen in five of the last six months.”