

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.
His comments came one day after the largest power grid in the US announced massive rate hikes and said the "primary driver of that growth is data centers."
After New York’s Democratic governor enacted a temporary ban on the construction of large data centers to curb their enormous power consumption, President Donald Trump’s energy secretary, Chris Wright, made the evidence-free claim that the facilities are actually the “greatest tool” for reducing the sharp increases in energy prices.
On Tuesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order barring for one year the construction of "hyperscale" data centers that can consume 50 megawatts of power or more, saying that unchecked expansion "threatens to hike up utility bills, deplete our natural resources, and create uncertainty for New Yorkers."
New York was the first state to place a moratorium on data center development, and more than a dozen other states have considered enacting moratoriums as evidence has mounted that data centers tend to spike power demand and drive up costs.
But as the rapid growth of data centers has sparked furious backlash in communities of all political stripes, the industry has maintained a steadfast ally in the Trump administration, which has continued to champion rapid data center buildout by fast-tracking permits, opening federal land to developers, promoting new energy infrastructure, and offering federal financing and tax incentives to new projects.
On Wednesday morning, Wright took to Fox News to blast Hochul's block on data center development.
"Gov. Hochul has it exactly backward," he said. "Data centers are the greatest tool we have right now to stop the rise of electricity prices and ultimately to bring them back down."
Wright, a former fracking executive, protested that “Democrat green energy policies” were responsible for driving up energy prices in New York, pointing to its ban on fracking, the blocking of a major natural gas pipeline, and an “insane climate law” requiring the state to transition away from fossil fuels by 2040.
"Energy is extremely expensive in New York and now sparse because of bad Democrat policies," he said. "Nothing to do with data centers."
Wright did not elaborate on how exactly data centers could be used as a "tool" to bring down energy prices. But if this is the case, nobody has informed the energy companies themselves.
His comments came just a day after PJM, which serves 67 million customers and is the nation's largest electric grid operator, released the results of an electricity auction that added $6.3 billion in costs to consumers' energy bills in 2028-29 due to growth in energy demand.
"The primary driver of that growth is data centers," the company said in a press release. "New data center facilities and expansions of existing sites can be developed quickly, up to two to three times faster than many of the electricity generation technologies that are necessary to serve them and allow PJM to maintain the reliability customers expect."
That increase is not confined to the future. It has already begun. According to Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, since 2024, the auctions have added $29 billion in costs to the customers across the 13 states plus Washington, DC, where it operates. New York is not one of the states supplied by the PJM grid.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has found that recent PJM auction increases have added as much as $20-30 to monthly bills in some parts of the company's regions, and projects that continued data-center growth could eventually add roughly $70 per month for an average household.
The labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union, which has published many pieces documenting the effects of data centers on American communities, called Wright's claim "one of the most blatant lies we’ve ever heard."
"Data centers are pushing energy prices up," the outlet said. "That is not a matter of debate, it’s a fact."
Private creditors’ current power to disrupt sovereign debt resolution has negative ripple effects on our own people in the US, especially the most vulnerable.
Amid a succession of financial shocks, the Middle East war being only the most recent, developing countries’ debt levels are alarmingly high and continuing to rise. These burdens make it even more difficult for governments in the Global South to meet the basic needs of their populations. And because the world is interconnected through international trade and financial markets, these developing country debts boomerang back to harm ordinary people in the United States and other advanced economies as well.
To effectively address this growing crisis, we need to recognize that the debt landscape is very different today than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when global leaders agreed on relief initiatives worth more than $130 billion. Back then, private creditors held only about 5% of developing country debt. The rest was in the hands of public creditors, including the United States, UK, Germany, and other Group of 7 rich country governments, as well as multilateral financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which the G7 largely control.
Today, more than 60% of developing country debt is owed to private creditors who typically have the power to sue for full payment even when collective talks or international community initiatives for debt relief are ongoing. The mere threat of litigation gives these private creditors disproportionate leverage that puts debtors at a disadvantage and erodes debt relief gains. During Ethiopia’s prolonged struggle to access debt reductions under the G20 Common Framework, for example, private bondholders threatened to sue rather than make an effort similar to that of public creditors.
What can be done? One promising approach involves working the levers of power in the jurisdictions that govern private debt contracts. More than 90% are issued in New York and the UK. And over the past year, a bill to crack down on predatory private creditors gained real traction in the New York legislature. The “Champerty Fix Act” would prevent private creditors with debt contracts in that state from purchasing heavily discounted debt and then litigating to collect in full, instead of constructively engaging in debt negotiations. The bill would also significantly cut the high interest rates that debt crisis countries pay on claims under litigation.
Lifting the burden of unsustainable debts is the morally right thing to do—and it is in our interest.
With support from a coalition of religious, business, union, anti-poverty, environmental, development, and diaspora organizations, the bill passed the New York Senate and had enough support to pass in the Assembly, but that chamber’s leader chose not to bring it up for a vote by the time the session ended in early June. Supporters continue to demand that the Assembly be re-opened for a vote on the matter before the end of the year.
This legislation would be a huge win for the billions of people in countries where high debt payments divert essential financing for poverty reduction, social services, and development progress. It would also benefit workers, savers, consumers, and taxpayers in advanced economies—including the United States. Private creditors’ current power to disrupt sovereign debt resolution has negative ripple effects on our own people, especially the most vulnerable.
When debt crises affect US trade partners, jobs and wages that depend on import- and export-dependent companies in the United States inevitably suffer. And when inflation goes up due to supply chain disruptions in countries undergoing debt crises, consumers quickly feel it in the prices of their groceries and other everyday goods.
Pensions and other savings vehicles in the United States have exposure to indebted developing economies either directly—when they invest in instruments they issue—or indirectly—when they invest in US companies that have trade or investment in such countries. Reducing the time it takes a country to go from a debt crisis to a lasting restructuring—which currently averages 10 years—would significantly improve returns for our pensions and savers.
Taxpayers also have a stake in ensuring that taxpayer-funded debt relief does not bail out private creditors unwilling to negotiate fairly. In current restructuring deals, private creditors typically get repayments that are 20 percentage points higher than those received by public lenders.
Debt relief for the poorest has strong religious foundations that cut across multiple faith traditions and has been a landmark bipartisan pillar of US policy under every administration since the late 1990s.
Last year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his counterparts in all G20 countries adopted a declaration on debt sustainability. As the United States took over this year’s Presidency of the G20, he reaffirmed this direction by making the improvement of debt restructurings and debt transparency a priority. Building checks on private creditors in jurisdictions whose courts they use as leverage would go a long way toward supporting these goals by facilitating successful debt renegotiations.
Lifting the burden of unsustainable debts is the morally right thing to do—and it is in our interest.
"The American people—in New York and all across this country—are sick and tired of status quo politics... of a rigged economy... of billionaires and their super PACs buying elections."
Democratic socialist firebrand US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday welcomed a wave of progressive primary victories in New York as proof that Americans "are sick and tired of status quo politics" and "want to end the corrupt campaign finance system, which enables billionaires to spend huge amounts of money to elect candidates who will represent their interests and go to war against working-class people."
Sanders (I-Vt.) said so in a video posted on social media, as New York voters and progressives around the world celebrated Tuesday wins by Claire Valdez in New York's 7th Congressional District, Brad Lander in the 10th District, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in the 13th District.
As Common Dreams reported earlier Wednesday, the trio campaigned on affordable housing, Medicare for All, stronger union protections, and an end to US military support for Israel's genocidal assault on Palestinians—and all three were backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist supported and even sworn in by Sanders.
"What we saw last night in New York City and what we've been seeing for the last few months all across this country—the message is pretty clear," said the Brooklyn-born senator, who last year launched his Fighting Oligarchy Tour and this year has backed progressive candidates at various levels of government in the lead-up to the November midterm elections.
"People want change," asserted Sanders, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020. "Our job is to grow that movement. Volunteer. Run for office. Stand up and fight. We can win this thing if we stand together."
While establishment Democrats in Washington, DC "downplayed the results, denying they reflected any major leftward shift nationally," according to NOTUS, other congressional progressives joined Sanders in cheering the results in New York.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "last night in New York, we saw progressives win. And win big. Voters are making their voices heard—they're done with the status quo, and they're ready for a progressive majority. Happy to see our movement rising and to see the power of true grassroots organizing. Congratulations."
Another Massachusetts Democrat, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, declared: "That’s right, a little louder for the folks in the back NY! The people demand and deserve elected officials who fight for working families, stand against genocide, reject corporate greed, and reject anti-Blackness. A more just America is possible, we're building it together."
Congratulating the trio along with Micah Lasher, the Democratic primary winner in New York's 12th District, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Emerita Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that "something powerful happened in New York last night. Four bold, people-powered candidates took on the Democratic establishment and won."
"They ran on Medicare for All. On a public option for housing. On a foreign policy that centers human dignity over political convenience. And they won," she continued. "This is what happens when movements build power. People-powered movements win."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat who has become a leading progressive voice in Congress since her 2018 primary upset and overwhelmingly won in the 14th District on Tuesday, congratulated those four, plus Cait Conley in the 17th District, "on their impressive primary victories."
"I look forward to working together as a delegation as we fight for working families across New York," she said.
Beyond Capitol Hill, Ben Davis—who worked on the data team for Sanders' 2020 campaign and is an active member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—tied the developments in New York to Chris Rabb's win in Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District last month, after which "the left won across Los Angeles" and "swept the elections in the District of Columbia."
Noting that in New York on Tuesday, DSA's "down-ballot slate also swept across the board, taking out four incumbent state legislators," Davis wrote for The Guardian that "the Democratic electorate has moved radically to the left over the past four years, and this will shape politics this year and for decades to come. There are a number of factors at play here, many of them long-term, but the magnitude of this shift shows a rapid movement among Democratic primary voters. This is spurred first by the second Trump administration."
"The second major factor that needs to be mentioned is the impact of Israel's assault on Gaza and its mass exposure," he continued. "Democratic voters have turned sharply against Israel—within the Democratic coalition, this is now an 80/20 issue, while the party establishment and elected officials trail, having completely missed the moral outrage felt by the Democratic base and across the political spectrum."
"Democrats are also moving to the left because of a generational shift. Sanders won large margins with Democrats under 35 in 2016. The oldest of those voters are now 45, but still voting the same," he added. "Lastly, the left surge is based on a return to mass politics, specifically, DSA as a democratically run, member-funded organization."
He concluded that "after the last month, Democratic leadership should be seriously taking stock of their position. The energy is on their left. The people are on their left. Democrats want fighters, and they want a politics rooted in the collective struggles of the masses, not decided in smoke-filled rooms. We still need moderate Democrats to win those pesky median voters, for now. But the party's leadership is deeply out of touch with its base. A leftist wave is cresting across the country."
Current Affairs editor in chief Nathan Robinson wrote Wednesday that "I feel like I've been waiting for this moment for 10 years. Back in 2016, it was frustratingly obvious that Sanders-style leftism, which centered the material needs of working people, was the best way to fight back against the Trumpian right. But Sanders could not defeat the party establishment in 2016 or 2020."
During Democratic former President Joe Biden's sole term, he noted, "DSA membership declined. Mamdani's victory was an exciting moment, and he's showing how democratic socialist politicians can both win and govern effectively. But I’m almost more excited by the congressional victories, because they show that the movement is growing beyond Mamdani, albeit with his help."
"There is little room for error here," he warned. "Socialists in power must be hyper-competent, so that voters can immediately see a clear contrast between the feckless Democratic establishment, which does not care about them, and the movement that prioritizes their most urgent needs and embodies their aspirations for a livable country. These candidates get that. They know that winning elections is actually the easy part, even though it is very hard. The most difficult work comes after, when you have to demonstrate that socialism is not a bunch of impossible 'pie in the sky' promises, but a set of workable ideas that will achieve results."
"We are facing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to test our politics in practice," Robinson added. "At last, the left has a real shot at taking power in places around the country. It is an exciting, unprecedented, and uncertain moment. Hopefully this new generation of socialists is up for the challenge. But the signs, so far, are encouraging."
"Today we make it clear: The politics of the past end today," said Darializa Avila Chevalier, who defeated five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat.
Three progressive candidates emerged victorious from US congressional primaries in New York on Tuesday, overcoming millions of dollars in spending by corporate interests and AIPAC with grassroots campaigns that centered the working class.
Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller, defeated Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman in New York's 10th Congressional District, nearly doubling the incumbent's vote count with over 90% of ballots tallied. In New York's 13th, Darializa Avila Chevalier—who was recruited by Justice Democrats—defeated five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat. Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember and democratic socialist recruited by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, defeated Brooklyn borough president Antonio Reynoso in the race for the 7th District seat left open by retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez.
The wins marked a clean sweep for Mamdani-backed candidates, each of whom campaigned on Medicare for All, affordable housing, stronger union protections, and an end to US military support for Israel's genocidal assault on Palestinians. The primary wins for Lander, Valdez, and Avila Chevalier essentially guarantee them seats in the US House in the heavily Democratic districts.
"Today we make it clear: The politics of the past end today," Avila Chevalier, a 32-year-old community organizer, said after winning the primary in New York's 13th District, which Espaillat has represented for nearly a decade. The incumbent lost despite millions of dollars in spending by at least seven super PACs—including AIPAC's United Democracy Project.
"What we have delivered here today is a clear mandate that the era of taking a check and cashing a check and calling it representation is over," said Avila Chevalier in her victory speech.
Justice Democrats called Avila Chevalier's win a "seismic victory" and "the biggest primary upset against a Democratic incumbent this cycle."
"Darializa Avila Chevalier is exactly what Democratic voters nationwide are demanding—progressive champions who fight for their communities, not just when it's politically convenient but when it's morally necessary," said Alexandra Rojas, the group's executive director. "While a party machine led by Espaillat has spent decades failing to meet the needs of its voters, Darializa has taken on corporate interests and right-wing extremists to protect working families her whole career."
Mamdani, speaking at Valdez's victory party in Brooklyn, said New York City's mayoral race last year "was not the end of a political movement, it was the beginning."
"Let’s hear it for a politics that will never forget working people," the mayor said to cheers. "For a politics that is ready to write a new chapter in our party’s history. And for a politics that realizes the old politics that got us to this crisis is not gonna get us out of this crisis. It's time for working people to be back at the heart of our politics."
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s full speech at Claire Valdez’s victory party: pic.twitter.com/OdqFX7Daac
— Michael Lange (@MichaelLangeNYC) June 24, 2026
National progressives celebrated the wins in New York, with the advocacy group RootsAction declaring that "voters overwhelmingly rejected corporatist Democrats in favor of candidates who had the moral fiber to use the word 'genocide' and the backbone to stand up to the donor class."
"Now, Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier, and Brad Lander will join the next Congress as three of the most progressive members in that body," the group added. "With these three in Congress, we’re on track to have one of the most progressive Democratic caucuses ever in the House. That means more pressure on the corporatist Democrats, and leaders who are willing to truly stand up to the fascistic Republican Party."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who endorsed Lander and Valdez, applauded their "landslide victories" in a social media post late Tuesday.
"Together," the senator wrote, "we are creating a grassroots progressive movement that will defeat the oligarchs."
The legal strategy—which is not an insanity defense—would be an admission that Mangione killed UnitedHealth's Brian Thompson, but did so under mitigating circumstances.
Luigi Mangione, who stands accused of murdering UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson in 2024, will assert a psychiatric defense in his state murder trial, the New York judge presiding over the case revealed Wednesday.
The Associated Press reported that Judge Gregory Carro of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan said Mangione’s legal team informed him that they will argue that the 28-year-old defendant suffered from “extreme emotional disturbance" when he allegedly gunned down Thompson outside the New York Hilton Midtown Hotel just after dawn on December 4, 2024.
The defense strategy would be an admission that Mangione killed Thompson, but did so due to mitigating circumstances. The precise nature of the claimed psychiatric issue remains under seal, but it has been reported that Mangione suffered chronic back pain for years and harbored deep animosity toward the for-profit health insurance industry that dominate the US system.
Court documents indicate that Mangione's lawyers previously sought additional time to decide whether to pursue a mental health defense.
Extreme emotional disturbance is not the same as pleading guilty by reason of insanity, which would result in a convicted defendant being sent to a psychiatric facility instead of prison.
On Wednesday, Carro revealed that he had held a secret hearing on the matter earlier this month, and that the session's proceedings were sealed "to give the defense an opportunity to determine whether they were going forth" with the extreme emotional disturbance defense.
The June 3 hearing focused on the psychiatric basis for such a defense, its procedural consequences, disclosure obligations, and potential examinations.
Mangione's attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, decried Carro's decision to unseal details of the secret hearing.
“The reason why we asked for the sealing is that this defense is not available federally and Mr. Mangione is being prosecuted federally and this is prejudicial to his defense to the exact same facts,” she said.
Last year, then-US Attorney General Pam Bondi said she would seek the death penalty for Mangione at his federal trial. New York state effectively abolished capital punishment in 2004.
Mangione allegedly shot Thompson, 50, as he walked to the New York Midtown Hilton for UnitedHealth Group’s annual investor conference. Police said the words “delay,” “deny,” and “depose”—a description of how insurance companies avoid paying claims—were engraved in shell casings of bullets used in the attack, which was carried out with a 3D-printed pistol. New York police also said they recovered a three-page handwritten note that expressed "some ill will toward corporate America."
Five days after the shooting, Mangione was arrested after a customer in an Altoona, Pennsylvania McDonald's recognized him and alerted authorities.
Thompson's murder exposed the depth of public rage over corporate greed and a for-profit healthcare system in which thousands of people die each year because they have no insurance, while millions more face financial hardship or bankruptcy.
Mangione is facing state charges of second-degree murder, multiple weapons violations, and possession of a fake ID. More serious charges, including first-degree murder and terrorism, have been dismissed. Mangione's New York trial is set to begin on September 8.
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani said the progressive candidates would create "a Democratic Party driven by big ideas, not big money."
Sen. Bernie Sanders is planning to rally with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to endorse a slate of progressive New York candidates for the US House of Representatives.
The New York Times reported on Friday that Sanders (I-Vt.), who was born in Brooklyn, plans to headline a rally alongside Mamdani and three insurgent progressive candidates—Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier, and Brad Lander—who are in primary races against establishment Democrats.
In promoting the rally, Mamdani said he endorsed the insurgent progressives to create "a Democratic Party driven by big ideas, not big money."
Valdez is currently running for an open seat in New York's 7th Congressional District, where polls show her strongest competitor is Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso.
Avila Chevalier, meanwhile, is challenging five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY) in New York's 13th Congressional District, while Lander is trying to unseat Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) in New York's 10th Congressional District.
Polling released by Emerson College late last month showed Lander with a lead of more than 20 points over Goldman, with Valdez locked in a tight race against Reynoso.
“If current party leadership is unwilling to represent their own voters and the majority of Americans, then it is time for new leadership."
A poll released Monday shows that around 80% of Democratic voters in New York oppose US weapons transfers to Israel, putting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—a stalwart supporter of Israel—way out of step with his voter base.
The survey, conducted by Data for Progress and published by the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, found that 82% of New York Democrats—and 60% of the state's voters overall—believe the US "should restrict taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel until it stops attacking civilians in Gaza." The poll also found that 76% of Democratic voters in the state would favor the US Senate voting to halt the transfer of US bombs to Israel, which has repeatedly used American weaponry to commit grave war crimes.
The poll was conducted roughly a month after Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) broke with the overwhelming majority of their Democratic colleagues in voting against two resolutions aimed at blocking Trump administration sales of 1,000-pound bombs and bulldozers to the Israeli government.
The resolutions were spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who polled more favorably than Schumer among New York voters overall—as did New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible primary challenger to Schumer in 2028.
"New York State voters, especially Democrats, aren’t being represented by their senators," the IMEU Policy Project wrote on social media, adding that "Schumer is far out of touch with New York voters on funding Israel."
A majority of New York voters (51%), and 70% of Democrats, believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, according to the new poll, a position that Schumer has rejected—putting him in conflict with both his own constituents and leading Holocaust scholars and human rights organizations.
“When Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand voted against blocking the bombs and bulldozers Israel is using to destroy Palestinian and Lebanese homes, they were not just voting against the vast majority of their own Senate caucus and Democratic voters, but they were voting against the majority of New Yorkers they’re elected to represent,” Margaret DeReus, the IMEU Policy Project's executive director, said in a statement. “If current party leadership is unwilling to represent their own voters and the majority of Americans, then it is time for new leadership."
"We are fighting back to stop this illegal agreement that threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy,” said New York AG Letitia James.
A group of state attorneys general sued the Trump administration on Tuesday, in an effort to block an unprecedented deal it made to pay an energy company to abandon a pair of large East Coast wind energy projects and invest in more polluting fossil fuel infrastructure instead.
As part of efforts to unilaterally block private wind power construction across the US while revving up fossil fuel production, the Interior Department agreed to pay $928 million in taxpayer funds to the French energy company TotalEnergies to scrap construction plans for a large wind project off the coast of New York and another off North Carolina, the leases for which had been approved back in 2022.
In exchange, the company agreed to halt any future development of clean power in the US and invest hundreds of millions of dollars in oil and gas projects instead.
On Tuesday, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that she was leading a coalition of seven northeastern state AGs—from New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont—in a lawsuit seeking to block the agreement.
James described the deal as an unlawful attempt to get around a previous court rejection of President Donald Trump’s Day One executive order halting all wind energy development in the US.
“The Trump administration is once again trying to kill clean energy projects and destroy good-paying jobs for New Yorkers," James said. "After repeatedly losing in court, this administration cooked up a sham deal to pay a foreign energy company hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to abandon offshore wind and invest in oil and gas instead. We are fighting back to stop this illegal agreement that threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy.”
The canceled New York project was expected to produce up to 1.4 gigawatts of energy for the state, powering more than 700,000 homes annually. According to a press release from James' office, it was projected to save New Yorkers $10 billion over its 25-year lifespan.
Another section of the Bight construction lease was slated for a wind farm projected to provide about 1.3 gigawatts to homes in New Jersey, powering 650,000 homes and generating $3 billion in economic benefits, according to state officials.
The other project set for North Carolina was projected by TotalEnergies to generate more than 1 gigawatt of power, enough for 300,000 homes.
The Oceantic Network, a nonprofit that supports the construction of offshore wind projects, estimated that the cancellation of a single 1-gigawatt offshore wind project costs between $8.5-9.5 billion in US economic output and about 3,350 construction jobs, along with hundreds of millions of dollars in lost wages.
Liz Burdock, the president and CEO of Oceantic, commended the states attempting to stop the Trump administration from killing the projects at a time when oil and gas costs are skyrocketing, largely due to Trump's war with Iran.
"For more than a year, offshore wind has faced an unprecedented and unrelenting campaign of political interference despite billions in private investment, state commitments, and court rulings," Burdock said. "These continued attacks on offshore wind are not just an assault on a single industry—they are an attack on American workers, energy affordability, national security, and the states’ right to shape their own energy future."
The proposed deal "would represent a direct wealth transfer—one that would further strain the already challenging economic circumstances facing New York City’s immigrant communities," said the city's mayor.
With the Trump administration refusing to take substantive antitrust action—reaching a recent deal with a meat company accused of price fixing and settling a Biden-era lawsuit that accused Live Nation of monopolizing live entertainment—New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is using his influential position to urge the blocking of a corporate merger that he says would harm working families across the city.
Mamdani wrote to the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) late last month, outlets are reporting this week, urging the state financial regulator to block Western Union's $500 million merger with International Money Express, or Intermex.
With 4.5 million users, Intermex has a small fraction of Western Union's customer base of 150 million people who use wire transfer services. But Mamdani wrote that over the past decade the smaller company has "nearly tripled its share of remittances sent from the United States"—transfers of money that immigrants send back to their families in their home countries.
"In the US-to-Ecuador and US-to-Nicaragua corridors, Intermex’s market shares are 34% and 36%, respectively," wrote the mayor, showing that it is "winning customers away from Western Union, the historic market leader."
With immigrants increasingly using remittances to secure financial stability in case they are swept up in the Trump administration's mass deportation operation, "remittances are a crucial lifeline for New Yorkers and their communities abroad," wrote Mamdani.
On social media Thursday, Mamdani added that "families shouldn’t pay the price for corporate monopolies."
He told DFS that maintaining competition between providers of the service keeps prices for families "more competitive, encourages compliance with relevant consumer protection and disclosure requirements, and incentivizes reliability."
"The proposed merger would change that. By eliminating competition between Western Union and Intermex, the deal could lead to
higher fees (including those the businesses may fail to disclose), disadvantageous rates, worse terms, poorer service, and other impacts to these communities," wrote Mamdani, who has centered his agenda as mayor on making New York City more affordable for working families. "In short, it would represent a direct wealth transfer—one that would further strain the already challenging economic circumstances facing New York City’s immigrant communities."
The mayor noted that immigrants' access to affordable remittance services are already under threat, after the Republican Party's One Big Beautiful Bill Act imposed a 1% excise tax on cash remittance transactions.
"Now, this merger threatens to impose a new private tax on these same remittances, in the form of higher, supracompetitive prices that will flow directly to Western Union’s corporate coffers," said Mamdani.
Responding to the mayor's call for the merger to be blocked, Western Union claimed in a statement to DFS this week that the companies, should they be permitted to merge, would still provide "accessible and affordable" remittance services.
The mayor cited several US Supreme Court rulings that have found corporate mergers that would substantially lessen competition to be illegal and said that despite legal precedent, "the Trump administration has declined to challenge the merger on antitrust grounds."
"But that is not where the story ends," wrote Mamdani. "Instead, the deal still requires a series of money transmitter license approvals, including from the New York State Department of Financial Services."
"The conditions for disapproval are clearly met here," the mayor continued. "The transaction is manifestly against the public
interest, as it would lead to higher fees and worse rates for hard-working, disproportionately immigrant families, across New York City and the state—all to inflate Western Union’s balance sheet."
Semafor and The New York Times suggested that the influence of former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan may have pushed the mayor to lobby DFS to reject the merger. Khan is an outside adviser to Mamdani and served as co-chair of his transition team.
While working in the Biden administration, Khan blocked and challenged major corporate mergers including Kroger's attempt to acquire Albertsons, Meta's bid to buy virtual reality app company Within, and JetBlue's proposed merger with Spirit Airlines.
Daniel Hanley, a senior legal analyst at the anti-monopoly group Open Markets Institute applauded Mamdani's decision to wade into the debate over Western Union's proposed merger.
"State and local officials can supplement law enforcement," said Hanley, "while the federal government abdicates its fiduciary responsibilities."
Gov. Hochul must reverse course and demonstrate that New York is serious about implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, and that it is committed to building a future powered by renewable energy.
Growing up, my family was nothing if not outdoorsy: summers spent swimming in lakes, winters spent walking on frozen streams. My grandmother taught me to swim before I could walk. But as I reflect on those cherished memories, it’s hard to ignore the disconnect between the natural world as it was then and the reality of it today. All around me, I see the relentless impact of climate change: from more frequent hurricanes to smokey air and extreme heat.
That's why it’s galling to see how New York Gov. Kathy Hochul gutted New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). Despite the clear-and-present danger of climate change, Gov. Hochul watered down the CLCPA by pushing back important emissions deadlines and changing the way we calculate methane. She moved us from a 20-year accounting framework to a 100-year framework. That matters because methane is extremely potent in the short term, so using a 100-year timeline makes fossil fuel emission appear less severe.
When the CLCPA was signed into law in 2019, it represented a high point in New York State’s fight against climate change. For the first time, it introduced emissions targets that the state was legally-mandated to achieve. If actualized, the CLCPA promised to meaningfully reduce our state’s climate emissions—bringing cleaner air to our communities and a better shot at a more livable future for us all.
But Gov. Hochul seems to have abandoned those goals. Instead, her ongoing effort to defer the CLCPA is moving us in the wrong direction; it’s locking New York into a fossil fuel-based energy infrastructure. She has also delayed the ban on oil and gas in new buildings, halted the cap and invest program that would fund the energy transition, and cut successful solar initiatives. While the governor claims these decisions are motivated by an “all of the above” approach to rising energy costs, the reality is that she has largely neglected investing in renewable energy. And that’s despite the fact that renewables are, increasingly, the most affordable source of new electricity.
Gov. Hochul must follow through on the vision the state has already set—and stop trying to delay and dilute the CLCPA.
Moreover, Gov. Hochul’s behavior is also taking place amid relentless misinformation campaigns about renewable energy. President Donald Trump regularly parrots falsehoods—and outright lies—about solar and wind energy. The fossil fuel industry is also waging a public relations campaign of its own against a rapid transition to renewable energy. All of this is stymieing the types of policy initiatives, and clean energy investment, that are absolutely indispensable in this moment.
But here’s the reality we’re facing: Electricity demand is projected to grow significantly in the US. That’s a product of electrification campaigns—buildings, vehicles, and the like—alongside the phenomenal growth in data center construction that’s happening right now across the country. By refusing to invest in renewables, our elected officials are functionally selecting for rising fossil fuel use at precisely the moment when we must be doing the opposite. That will only deepen the climate crisis and expose consumers to higher and more volatile costs in the process.
Meeting this demand with renewable energy, by contrast, offers a path to stable, affordable, and sustainable growth. For businesses considering investments in renewable energy or clean-technology manufacturing, policy matters. To that end, Gov. Hochul must demonstrate that New York is serious about implementing the CLCPA, and that it is committed to building a future powered by renewable energy.
I volunteer with Dayenu, a movement of American Jews confronting the climate crisis with spiritual audacity and bold political action. When I think about my own motivation for taking action, I think about a teaching from the Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah, a Jewish commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. The midrash warns us: “Take care not to spoil or destroy My world, for if you do, there will be no one to repair it after you.” This ancient insight could not be more relevant today. Climate change is already shaping our lives through extreme weather, rising costs, and worsening pollution. The responsibility to act falls squarely on us.
The CLCPA recognizes our responsibility and points clearly toward renewable energy as the path forward. It even embedded climate justice into the energy transition by requiring investments in disadvantaged communities.
As faith communities, we understand the importance of long-term responsibility. Jewish tradition teaches that we are not merely consumers of the world, but also stewards of it. The decisions we make today echo across generations. Choosing renewable energy is one of the clearest ways we can fulfill that responsibility. Gov. Hochul must follow through on the vision the state has already set—and stop trying to delay and dilute the CLCPA. New York helped lead the nation once before. With determination and courage, we can do so again.