

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.

Today, the Public Accountability Institute released a report that maps out how fossil fuel companies, utilities, and fossil-financiers help direct, sponsor, partner with, and fund police foundations.
Today, the Public Accountability Institute released a report that maps out how fossil fuel companies, utilities, and fossil-financiers help direct, sponsor, partner with, and fund police foundations.
Through this mapping, it shows how efforts to defund the police and reinvest in Black and Brown communities, and efforts to divest from fossil fuels and reinvest in environmental justice and a just transition, have a common foe in the fossil fuel industry.
Many companies that are polluting Black and Brown communities - or funding polluting operations - are the same companies helping to prop up and bankroll police foundations in those same communities.
As Little Sis writes,
Oil and gas companies, private utilities, and financial institutions that bankroll fossil fuels are all big backers of police foundations, which privately raise money to buy weapons, equipment, and surveillance technology for police departments, bypassing public police budgets. These corporate actors - from Chevron and Shell to Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase - can be found serving as directors and funders of police foundations nationwide. Furthermore, these companies sponsor events and galas that celebrate the police and remind the public that police power is backed up by corporate power.
On this report, Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, 350.org North America Director, issued the following statement:
"This report confirms what so many of us have known for decades: the police state exists to protect white supremacy with extraction as a primary tactic. Our work as a part of the movement for climate justice is to dismantle racist structures perpetuating continued harm to communities. From policing to financial violence, the road to tackling the climate crisis includes addressing connected predatory systems. As workers risk their lives to keep the economy afloat, the grift and greed of fossil fuel financiers continues. We support the demand to defund and divest from the police and fossil fuels, and to reinvest in the resilience of people and planet for a Just Recovery.
"This report revealing the ways that Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry support police foundations highlights how firms such as Blackrock and JP Morgan Chase routinely act to extract wealth, health and safety from Black, Brown and Indigenous communities. It's past time to defund the police and demand that Wall Street compensate Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities for the irreparable harm they have inflicted," said Maurice BP-Weeks, Co-Executive Director, Action Center on Race and the Economy
"The fossil fuel industry is a sinking ship hellbent on drowning the planet and taking humanity down with it. It will stop at nothing to keep black and brown afraid of mobilizing and it's no surprise they would partner with the same institution terrorizing our communities and Black Lives Matter protesters in the streets," said Lucas Sanchez, Deputy Director, New York Communities for Change.
"It's no surprise that the companies driving a climate crisis that disproportionately kills black and brown people are also major funders of racist police forces that disproportionately kill black and brown people," said Alec Connon, coalition coordinator with Stop the Money Pipeline. "If companies really value Black Lives they need to stop investing in institutions that destroy and terrorize black communities."
"As we have seen too many times, the fossil fuel industry relies on a militarized top-down police to keep the public from protesting their expansion plans; it's past time to move to a new future," said Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org and Stop the Money Pipeline.
"This report sheds a harsh and needed light on the ways police violence and systemic racism intersect with the climate crisis. Rather than address growing public concerns with the dangers of pipelines and petrochemical plants, the fossil fuel industry has responded instead by seeking to criminalize protest, suppress dissent, and mislabel acts of free speech as acts of terrorism. The result is a rising tide of human rights abuses by militarized police forces against environmental and rights defenders. That oil and gas companies are actually funding the forces inflicting those harms is sadly unsurprising and absolutely unacceptable," said Carroll Muffett, President, Center for International Environmental Law.
"There is little public scrutiny when private donors pay to give police controversial technology and weapons. And it is with no surprises that the Public Accountability Initiative & LittleSis report shows how the same financial institutions like BlackRock that are financing the climate crisis and environmental racism in Black and Brown communities, are the same institutions that are backing the growing militarization of police forces that have beaten down black and brown communities with impunity for so long," said Mary Cerulli, co-founder Climate Finance Action.
"Big Surprise: Most of the same banks that fund fossil fuels, redline loans against people of color also fund private prisons for profit, like JPMorgan Chase, BOA and BlackRock," said Mary Kay Benson, 350 Butte County.
"The fossil fuel industry's ties to police foundations show a willingness to ignore the calls of racial justice advocates to dismantle the systemic racism of policing -- despite some oil and gas companies' hypocritical claims otherwise. Fossil fuel companies harm the racial justice movement in their operations, their public relations and their political funding. In reality, they are part of the system that upholds structural racism in the US," said Zorka Milin, senior advisor, Global Witness.
"The Earth and all people are sacred. Violence against black and brown communities is morally abhorrent. Violence against the earth is an offense against life. Extractive industries and the banks that finance them need to stop supporting racist authoritarianism and quit financing the planet's destruction," said Rev. Fletcher Harper, executive director of GreenFaith.
"Chevron has long treated Richmond like a community that can be bought and sold out, be it through our police or elected officials. This new report further outlines what we already know: fossil fuel companies bankroll the police as a bribe, to keep our communities polluted, over-policed and bound to the charity of companies like Chevron. To reinvest in Black and Brown communities and move toward a just transition from the Ecuadorian Amazon to Richmond, CA, we must hold these companies accountable for their ties to the destruction of our climate and the funding of the police," said Ada Recinos, Amazon Watch communications manager and Richmond, CA resident.
"It is no surprise that big banks and fossil fuel companies see it as in their interest to fund the police. They need to ensure that when they want to impose dangerous and polluting projects on Black, Indigenous and brown communities that the police will be there for them and willing and ready to repress community members who seek to protect their families, and their air, land and water," said Paddy McCully, Energy and Climate Program Director, Rainforest Action Network.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
"Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing."
Elon Musk's vault to trillionaire status following the public debut of his rocket company SpaceX came on the heels of an analysis showing the devastating impact of his destruction of the US Agency for International Development on millions of people in countries facing or on the brink of famine.
The analysis, authored by Council on Foreign Relations expert and longtime aid worker Sam Vigersky, noted that Musk's targeting of USAID during his tenure as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) resulted in the transfer of the Food for Peace program to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), an agency "without international humanitarian or disaster-response expertise."
Vigersky found that the USDA this year chose just seven countries to receive American grain under the Food for Peace program: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, El Salvador, and Rwanda. The latter two countries, Vigersky noted, "do not meet an emergency threshold" for assistance.
"Meanwhile, the country facing the largest hunger crisis in the world—Sudan—did not make the list. Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing. In fact, more than 40% of Sudan’s community kitchens, a lifeline for the displaced, have closed in the past six months as funding dried up, according to Islamic Relief," Vigersky reported. "Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Yemen were also passed over. Millions of people in those countries live one step from famine, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the UN-backed monitoring system that uses a standardized five-point scale (five being famine) to measure the severity of food insecurity."
Experts assessing the global impact of USAID's decimation at the hands of billionaire US President Donald Trump and the world's first trillionaire, who bragged publicly about "feeding USAID into the wood chipper," estimate that hundreds of thousands of people have already died as a result of the large-scale loss of humanitarian assistance—and millions more will die in the coming years if swift action is not taken to restore aid.
"The impacts of the cuts were immediate and tragic," Nicholas Enrich, a former USAID employee who became a whistleblower, wrote in The Boston Globe on Friday. "Health clinics and emergency ambulance services shuttered overnight. Clinical trials were deserted. Thousands of healthcare workers lost their jobs. Lifesaving food and medicine was left to expire in warehouses. According to conservative estimates, in the year since USAID was dismantled, 750,000 people have died as a result of the cuts. For the first time in a generation, more children died in one year — 2025—than in the previous year."
Oxfam has estimated that a 10% tax on Musk's $1 trillion fortune would generate enough revenue to end extreme poverty worldwide for a year.
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."