

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.

Environmental, community, and justice groups who have called for greater oversight of the Federal Reserve's (the Fed) lending programs in response to the coronavirus crisis praised two letters sent to the Fed from Democratic lawmakers. Senators sent a letter Monday followed by a letter from members of Congress on Wednesday. Both letters called for greater oversight of the Fed program for which BlackRock was hired as the third-party investment manager, and urged the Fed to take climate risk into account.
"It's critical that federal relief funds are not used as a backdoor bailout for fossil fuel companies," said Sierra Club campaign representative Ben Cushing. "We applaud these Democrats for working to ensure much-needed transparency and accountability."
Both letters ask for full transparency on the terms and criteria guidelines of the program with the senators' letter saying: "We request that you publicly disclose the investment guidelines FRBNY provides its third-party investment manager, BlackRock Financial Markets Advisory; and that you publicly disclose in a timely and ongoing manner the details of all corporate debt purchases over the course of the programs."
Both letters also ask the Fed to take climate risk into account during its Covid-19 response. The senators write "the U.S. financial system's blindness to climate financial risks means that our response to the current economic crisis will make a future climate crisis more likely," and "the Fed should accelerate its efforts to better understand and price climate financial risks before it is too late." The congressional letter also asks the Fed to "submit a plan to Congress within 90 days that demonstrates how the Fed will ensure that BlackRock's activities can build a more resilient economy and diminish the long-term risks of corporate debt and climate change."
A few days after the Fed's programs were first announced in late March, over 30 public interest and environmental organizations issued a letter to the Fed asking for specific oversight of BlackRock's management of the massive new corporate debt purchase program. They also made clear that resilience to climate shocks should be part of the Fed's response to the Covid-19 crisis.
"Getting our economy through this global pandemic is vitally important, but we can't afford to accelerate climate change in the process. It's encouraging to see Senate Democrats pushing for climate risk to be taken into account," said Moira Birss, Finance Campaign Director at Amazon Watch. "Fossil fuels are inconsistent with goals to manage the climate crisis and many were failing before this crisis hit. Propping them up now is unacceptable for any prudent fiscal policy."
Yesterday, Reuters reported that the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) is asking the Fed "to reconsider a provision that bars eligible borrowers from using the cash (from the Main Street Lending Program) to repay other loan balances and requires borrowers to promise to repay the Fed before other debt of equal or lower priority." While this is a different Fed program from the one BlackRock was hired to manage, it shows that the oil and gas industry is now actively seeking bailouts from the U.S. government after oil prices plunged into negatives this week.
"It's good to see Democrats stepping up to call for more oversight, transparency, and climate accountability, even as the oil industry actively lobbies for bailouts and Republicans try to insert a pro-corporate agenda into stimulus efforts," said Rachel Curley, Democracy Advocate for Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. "In a time of crisis we should not be giving no- strings- attached bailouts and lucrative contracts to huge corporations while workers across this country are struggling to provide for their families."
The fossil fuel industry's attempts to profit from the coronavirus crisis and bailout packages have been well-documented by numerous watchdog groups. Last week, the Trump Administration floated the idea of paying oil companies billions of dollars to keep oil in the ground during the economic downturn. The next day, the Environmental Protection Agency weakened mercury pollution standards on coal-fired power plants and oil refineries.
Environmental groups will continue to play a watchdog role on the Fed, BlackRock, and other government agencies who are administering parts of the coronavirus bailout and recovery package. Today's letter is evidence that Congressional Democrats are increasingly on the case, as well.
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500"He’s the Jim Cramer of Iran war predictions," said one critic.
Conservative commentator Dave Rubin, who for months has been a top booster of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, was inundated with mockery on Sunday after a viral video exposed months' worth of his failed predictions about the conflict.
The video, which was posted on social media Saturday, begins with Rubin telling viewers to not listen to any of the prognostications being made by critics of the war, which Trump launched in late February without any authorization from Congress.
"I'm pretty good with predictions," Rubin says. "And my prediction here is that everything the media is now going to say about Iran—it's going to close the Strait of Hormuz, and energy prices are going to go crazy—none of this is going to come to pass."
Iran war: greatest hits from the last 12 weeks pic.twitter.com/9pgXyvmsgF
— Dave Rubin Clips II (Parody) - Retired Jan.20/2025 (@DaveClips) May 24, 2026
The video then cuts to Rubin wrongly predicting that gas prices during the conflict "will continue to come down," before switching to claims that Iran lacks the military capability to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed in the face of US military power.
"If the United States wants to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, which it does," says Rubin, "and Donald Trump says we'll escort ships through if we have to, it's going to stay open."
From there, the video shows Rubin hyping of the prospect of Iranian dissident Reza Pahlavi swooping in to take over the country after the war, and then getting fooled by a fake artificial intelligence-generated video of Iranians giving thanks to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bombing their country.
The video compilation of Rubin's failed predictions drew immediate ridicule from critics.
"He’s the Jim Cramer of Iran war predictions," joked Krystal Ball.
Commentator Adam Mockler wrote of Rubin that "it’s brutal watching him make failed predictions week after week."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald argued that the video should be the last nail in the coffin of whatever credibility Rubin had left.
"Imagine having sat through and listened to all of this Israeli propaganda, which turned out to be (predictably and completely) false," commented Greenwald, "and then thinking there was some value in continuing to listen to this person."
The Bulwark's Tim Miller said that while he knew Rubin was "a smooth-brained hack," he still "couldn’t even fathom how bad these war takes would be."
Political analyst Omar Baddar, meanwhile, said the video should erase any doubt that Rubin is "the dumbest man on the internet."
The Trump administration last week sued Minnesota after it passed a law banning prediction markets from operating in the state.
A Sunday report in The New York Times revealed how the Trump administration is using a key government agency to shut down any efforts to regulate online betting markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
According to the Times, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers at the agency who have expressed interest in providing oversight on prediction markets.
Among other things, the report documented how multiple officials at CTFC have been put on leave simply for asking questions about the betting markets' ties to members of President Donald Trump's family or for having past experience enforcing regulations related to cryptocurrencies.
What's more, the Times found that even being an industry insider isn't enough to guarantee good standing in the agency. Brian Quintenz, who was tapped by Trump to lead CTFC last year, saw his nomination withdrawn after he drew the ire of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for refusing to support their cryptocurrency exchange's complaint against the agency.
Revelations about industry insiders rolling over regulators at CTFC come as the Trump administration is fighting any attempts by states to regulate prediction markets.
As explained in a Thursday report from CNBC, the Trump administration is "fighting a multi-front battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority," with CTFC arguing that it is "the only entity that can regulate" betting platforms.
16 different states are engaged in legal proceedings against the platforms, and Minnesota last week passed a law to ban them outright, which immediately drew a lawsuit from the administration.
The new Minnesota law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, bans prediction markets "from hosting, creating or advertising in the state," according to ABC News.
In an interview with ABC, Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B) said she authored the legislation because she has grown increasingly concerned about young people in the state seeing their finances drained from placing online bets.
"We're seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds," said Greenman, "and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger."
CFTC Chair Michael Selig last month warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would "circumvent the clear directive of Congress."
"Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others," said Selig. "If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you."
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz," said one critic of the war.
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."