

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.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized weakened rules regulating methane emissions from new and modified oil and gas extraction operations. The rollbacks threaten to increase the already-dangerous levels of methane in the atmosphere, but even worse, they jeopardize future efforts to control methane and protect the climate and public health, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
Below is a statement by Julie McNamara, senior analyst in the Climate and Energy Program at UCS:
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that can accelerate climate change, and today, methane levels in the atmosphere are the highest on record. We should be doing everything we can to drive down methane emissions--but instead, the administration is weakening standards and enforcement, putting us all at risk. It's a deliberate decision to let the fossil fuel industry pollute with impunity, pocketing short-term profits while leaving communities to deal with the damage for decades to come.
Indeed, the administration's approach isn't a simple matter of weakening one tool--it's an astonishing assortment of favors straight off the polluter wish-list to permanently undermine methane rules, including directly questioning whether the agency has the authority to do anything to control methane emissions at all.
These rollbacks distort and defy basic principles of science, economics, and policy design--an embarrassing admission that there's no real defense for the administration's demolition of meaningful methane rules.
Companies extracting fossil fuels should be held accountable for controlling the harmful pollution they leak into our atmosphere, but the administration thinks this basic competency is too much to ask. The idea that the oil and gas industry will control these emissions on their own, without strong standards and enforcement, doesn't pass the laugh test. Even ExxonMobil admits that a voluntary framework won't actually solve the problem of methane leaks. EPA's political leaders are using the pretense of voluntary self-regulation to evade their own responsibility to protect public health and the climate.
If oil and gas company leaders want to get credit for thinking ahead, to a clean and sustainable future, they'll return this gift unopened, end trade-group lobbying for weak rules, and support methane standards that actually match the urgency of the climate crisis.
For more on these new rules and the threat they pose to the climate, see McNamara's latest post on the UCS blog.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
Senior officials have warned that an invasion of Iran’s Kharg Island could cause many American casualties. But Trump said the US would “make a fortune.”
While promising more strikes against Iran on Thursday, President Donald Trump suggested that the US would soon be "taking" Kharg Island in an imperialist bid to seize "total control" of the country's oil and gas market, an operation that would likely require ground troops.
“The United States will be hitting Iran (Whose Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most of its offensive capability, are GONE!), VERY HARD TONIGHT,” the president wrote in a Truth Social post, following days of strikes that hit military infrastructure and also damaged a pair of reservoirs that left around 20,000 people without drinking water.
“At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America,” he added.
It's not the first time Trump has threatened to take the island, which handles about 90% of Iran's crude oil exports and is of paramount importance, as Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the US-Israeli war has sent oil prices skyrocketing and resulted in the most severe inflation the US has seen in over three years.
Like in Venezuela, where Trump said the point of the US operation to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro was to "get the oil flowing" to US corporations, the president said his objective in taking Kharg Island was explicitly about enriching the US by using raw force to commandeer Iran's natural resources.
Trump: "My preference has always been to take Kharg Island. I don't know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with it. You'd make a fortune." pic.twitter.com/5ub1HK4WMH
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 11, 2026
"My preference has always been to take Kharg Island," he said on a phone interview with Fox News on Thursday morning. "I don't know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with you. You'd make a fortune..."
“We did it with Venezuela,” he continued. "Venezuela’s worked out great for everybody. We’ve taken millions and millions of barrels of oil out of Venezuela. We’ve brought them to Houston and various other places, Louisiana. Refineries that we have that are incredible, they’ve gone 24 hours a day. Making a fortune.“
However, he said he wasn't sure that the country, which is strongly opposed to strikes against Iran according to recent polls, "has the appetite" for it.
As senior CNN political correspondent Aaron Blake explained, "it's widely assumed that taking and keeping Kharg Island would require ground troops," an idea that just 18% of Americans said they supported in a May survey from the Institute for Global Affairs. Even Republicans were more likely to oppose boots on the ground than to support them, according to that poll.
The Trump administration has had plans drawn up to invade the island as far back as March, but they were reportedly shelved as US officials feared large numbers of American casualties, especially as Iran had prepared for an invasion by laying anti-personnel and armor mines.
Despite being aware of the plan's unpopularity with the American public, Trump said on Thursday that taking Kharg Island would be "a guarantee if I want to do it."
President Trump is now publicly claiming that the United States will SEIZE KHARG ISLAND. What are the advantages to doing so, what are the disadvantages, and is this a viable strategy?
Let’s start with the disadvantages first, because… it’s grim. And stupid.
One of the key… pic.twitter.com/yZeVAPRB3D
— Brett Erickson (@BrettErickson28) June 11, 2026
Brett Erickson, a sanctions and geopolitical-risk expert who serves as managing principal of Obsidian Risk Advisors, said the idea was "grim and stupid."
“Their exports [from the island] are not even close to what they were prior to the war, or even throughout March and the first half of April,” he explained. “In the last five weeks, Iran has loaded a whopping one vessel at Kharg Island.”
He added that since the island is a "fixed position," it "would constantly come under fire from drones and missile barrages."
"We would likely, in the absolute best case, lose hundreds of lives," he said. Worst case? Well into the thousands. Would it change anything about the war? No. It literally would not matter."
The only thing to be gained, he added, would be "a lot of Americans dying for an oil export hub that is not being used, and that is blockaded anyway."
Asked by reporters on Capitol Hill about Trump's threats to invade the island, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hardly seemed bullish on the idea. He said he believed Trump was "communicating directly with our adversaries over there," adding, "I would not put too much stock in the details of that right now."
But the idea does have its cheerleaders. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is credited with helping Israel persuade Trump to launch the war in the first place.
The notorious war hawk, who previously compared taking Kharg Island favorably to the World War II Battle of Iwo Jima, where the US suffered 26,000 casualties, said on Thursday that Trump was “right to put on the table the taking of Kharg Island” and thanked the president for “going the extra mile to obtain a diplomatic solution to the Iranian conflict.”
US Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) argued that invading the island without approval from Congress "would be brazenly unconstitutional."
"American troops would die during the invasion," he said. "And then every day Iran would try to kill more American troops on Kharg Island."
Four Republicans joined every Democrat last week to pass a war powers resolution meant to halt Trump's ability to wage war against Iran without approval from Congress.
In the wake of Trump's threats to invade the Island, Lieu said the "Senate must pass the House’s war powers resolution."
"Destroying a drinking water facility is not an attack on a target of war, but a mafia-style operation designed to harm the Iranian people," said one academic.
As temperatures in the village of Bemani, Iran, near the Strait of Hormuz, reached above 100°F this week, two water facilities were struck by bombs, cutting off the drinking water supply for 20,000 people in the area.
An analysis by The New York Times late Wednesday indicated that the attack on the drinking-water storage facilities appeared to be a precision strike by the US, raising questions about whether the Trump administration intentionally attacked civilian infrastructure, which would constitute a war crime under international law.
As the provincial water authority in the area reported that two storage tanks had been destroyed in an attack early Wednesday, US Central Command said on social media that the US Air Force and Navy had used "precision munitions" to strike "Iranian air defense, ground control stations, and surveillance radar sites near the Strait of Hormuz."
Esmaeil Baqaei, a spokesperson for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, posted a video of damage to one of the facilities, whose light blue pipes were consistent with water infrastructure.
"As part of its aggression against Iran, the US military has deliberately struck vital civilian water infrastructure in Sirik, Hormozgan, destroying two reservoirs with a combined capacity of 2,500 cubic meters," said Baqaei. "These facilities supplied drinking water to more than 20,000 residents across ten villages. This is not collateral damage—it is a calculated war crime and a flagrant violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. The US must be held accountable for committing such systematic brutal attacks on civilian life-sustaining infrastructure."
The analysis of the strikes came as the US waged more attacks Wednesday night and early Thursday, including on an oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman and against Iranian radars and air defenses.
In its analysis, the Times said commercial satellite imagery showed two water facilities in Bemani whose descriptions matched those given by Abdolhamid Hamzehpour, the chief executive of the province’s water authority, on Wednesday, when he reported the structures had been damaged by missiles.
Hamzehpour said in a statement that the high temperatures in the area were “unbearable” for residents without drinking water, and said that mobile water tanks had been deployed to nearby villages.
The roof of one of the facilities collapsed, according to videos released by Iranian state media, and the center of the roof of the other structure appeared to have been struck by a bomb.
The Times noted that both buildings were remotely located, with no other infrastructure located in the immediate vicinity, suggesting a likely precision strike.
Tasnim, a semiofficial news agency in Iran, released photos of bomb fragments that it said were recovered from the site. Researchers with the Open Source Munitions Portal identified the fragments as parts of a GBU-39 bomb, which is used by the US Air Force.
The precision-guided bomb was "consistent with the damage shown in the footage of the damaged building: a clean hole punched through the building’s roof and limited blast damage around it," reported the Times.
Alleged U.S. airstrikes overnight hit two water storage reservoirs in Iran's Sirik County, Hormozgan Province, reportedly leaving many without water.Images of remnants posted by Iranian media show the remains of a U.S.-made GBU-39 air-delivered bomb.osmp.ngo/osmp2336/
[image or embed]
— Open Source Munitions Portal (@munitionsportal.bsky.social) June 10, 2026 at 3:30 PM
The bombing came as President Donald Trump complained that Tehran was taking too long to finalize a peace deal. The US and Iran have each carried out attacks this week, raising doubts about a ceasefire deal that was reached in April following Trump's threats to wipe out Iran's civilization.
"Trump is so angry that Iran will not give him a deal that he is telling the US military to commit war crimes," said Phillips P. O'Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews. "Destroying a drinking water facility is not an attack on a target of war, but a mafia-style operation designed to harm the Iranian people."
“The new Gilded Age won’t end itself," said Oxfam America. "This is a trillion-dollar alarm bell that should wake governments up to the need to take action."
With Elon Musk's SpaceX set to go public on Friday, the world's richest man could soon become the first-ever trillionaire—an achievement that one leading humanitarian group called "a new pinnacle of oligarchy and a dark day for democracy."
Whether Musk reaches trillionaire status in the coming days will depend on the success of SpaceX's initial public offering (IPO), which critics warn is a potentially massive threat to market stability and Americans' retirement savings. The company plans to sell 555,555,555 shares at a price of $135 each, aiming for a staggering $1.75 trillion valuation. Musk, who is the company's board chair and owns 42% of its common stock along with options, will see his net worth skyrocket if SpaceX achieves its IPO targets.
Oxfam America noted in an analysis released Thursday that a $1 trillion net worth would mean that it would take Musk 2,740 years to spend $1 trillion if he spent $1 million per day. The group estimated that a 10% tax on $1 trillion "could end global extreme poverty for a year, lifting over 800 million people above the extreme poverty line."
Nabil Ahmed, senior director of economic justice at Oxfam America, said in a statement that "this moment of dramatically concentrated wealth was not inevitable."
"Musk will be a government-backed trillionaire whose fortune was fueled by an era of regressive public policy choices—decisions rigged by a tiny few to fuel their fortunes, and overwhelmingly supported by political leaders," said Ahmed. "A trillion dollars in the hands of one man is incompatible not only with an affordable economy, but also with a healthy democracy. Economic inequality begets political inequality, and ordinary people bear the brunt while billionaires continue to write the rules for their own benefit."
“The new Gilded Age won’t end itself," he added. "This is a trillion-dollar alarm bell that should wake governments up to the need to take action. Never has it been more urgent to curb the accumulation of extreme wealth—overhauling the economic policies that have created not just trillionaires, but billionaires and the obscene inequality we see today."
Oxfam highlighted Musk's brief but immensely destructive tenure in the US federal government at the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which took a sledgehammer to foreign aid programs and assailed the Social Security Administration, among other actions whose consequences are expected to reverberate for years to come. Oxfam has warned that the Musk-led decimation of the US Agency for International Development means that "a child under 5 could die every 40 seconds by 2030."
Musk was given the role at DOGE after using a tiny fraction of his wealth to boost President Donald Trump and Republican candidates in the 2024 election. Musk is spending big again to boost the GOP in the 2026 midterms.
"Musk’s ability to pour money into elections allowed him to use his wealth and power in ways that embody the corrosive effects of billionaire control," Oxfam said Thursday.
The group's statement came amid mounting anxiety about the impact of SpaceX's IPO, beyond potentially pushing Musk's wealth past the trillion-dollar mark.
In a letter to the US Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) raised "extreme concern" about the possibility that the IPO could flop. Major stock index providers, she observed, are "rewriting their rules to fast-track SpaceX’s entry into their indexes—and into the investment funds that power millions of Americans’ retirement savings."
"The net result could be disastrous," Warren wrote, "a scenario where retirees’ and families’ investment accounts take a hit if SpaceX’s valuation falters, with little recourse for any corporate misconduct, while the wealthiest man on earth becomes even wealthier due to a lack of oversight."