FOSSIL FOOLS

'Catastrophic Blow': GOP and Three Democrats Confirm Zeldin for EPA


"This dangerous agenda that Zeldin will oversee will roll back vital pollution limits that protect us, abandon clean energy investments, and lock the country into reliance on dirty, expensive fossil fuels," said one campaigner.


Lee Zeldin, then-nominee to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, greets Sens. John Boozman (R-Ark.), right, and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) before his Senate Environment and Public Works confirmation hearing on January 16, 2025.
(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Climate and public health advocates were outraged on Wednesday after a trio of U.S. Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to confirm President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, former New York Congressman Lee Zeldin.

Critics have warned that Zeldin—like other Cabinet nominees—will serve billionaire polluters, not the American people and the planet, since Trump named him in November. They renewed those warnings after Democratic Sens. John Fetterman (Pa.), Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), and Mark Kelly (Ariz.) voted with Republicans to confirm him as EPA administrator.

After Zeldin's confirmation, the youth-led Sunrise Movement called him "a disaster for our planet and a win for Big Oil."



Climate Action Campaign director Margie Alt said in a statement that "Lee Zeldin's confirmation as EPA administrator is a catastrophic blow to the health of Americans, the climate, and the economy. Under Zeldin's leadership, the Environmental Protection Agency will no longer protect the American people and our communities—it will protect polluters."

Pointing to the new administrator's record and public statements, Alt said that "this dangerous agenda that Zeldin will oversee will roll back vital pollution limits that protect us, abandon clean energy investments, and lock the country into reliance on dirty, expensive fossil fuels that cost families at the gas pump."

"Americans didn't vote for dirtier air, more asthma attacks, or rising healthcare costs, yet that is exactly what Zeldin's EPA will deliver. Vulnerable communities, especially children, and seniors will bear the brunt of these policies, while a few fossil fuel executives rake in profits," she continued. "Zeldin's confirmation is a tragic failure for all Americans."

Marc Yaggi, CEO of Waterkeeper Alliance, declared that "this is a make-or-break moment for clean water, and the American people deserve leadership that puts their needs above the influence of corporate polluters."

While praising Zeldin's past rejection of offshore oil drilling and support for "sensible policies" on "forever chemicals," Yaggi said that "his history of voting against critical infrastructure and environmental funding and opposing clean water and air protections raises serious concerns about his commitment to effectively leading the Environmental Protection Agency."

Moms Clean Air Force suggested a rebrand for the EPA under Zeldin and Trump: Extreme Pollution Agency.




Since returning to the White House just 10 days ago, Trump has already taken various executive actions to attack the planet.

"The EPA's stated mission is to protect human health and the environment," Sierra Club legislative director Melinda Pierce said. "In the wake of Donald Trump's dangerous executive orders and illegal push to freeze all federal funding, the new EPA administrator will face a decision of whether to carry out the necessary duties of the role, or fold to Trump's deadly fossil fuel-backed agenda and broken promises."

"The American people want to breathe clean air and drink clean water," she stressed. "They want a healthy environment for their families today and the future generations of tomorrow. And they want to know that their government is doing everything in its power to protect them from the destructive impacts of the climate crisis that we sadly witness more and more of each day. That is now Lee Zeldin's charge, and we will do everything in our power to hold him accountable to the American people."

'Oil Industry Wins' as Trump Transportation Chief Targets Biden Clean Car Rules



"Sean Duffy is selling American families out to Big Oil, burdening us with higher fuel prices and more polluting gas-guzzlers that harm our health," said one campaigner.



U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy signs a directive on January 28, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: U.S. Department of Transportation)

Brett Wilkins
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


In a move decried by climate and environmental advocates, newly confirmed Republican U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Tuesday directed agency staff to immediately begin the process of rescinding or replacing former President Joe Biden's historic clean car pollution standards.

Duffy's first official act after being confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 77-22 vote was to sign a memo acknowledging Republican President Donald Trump's policy of promoting fossil fuel use and ordering National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personnel to "commence an immediate review and reconsideration of all existing fuel economy standards applicable to all models of motor vehicles produced from model year 2022 forward."



The memo singles out Biden's finalized Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which regulate how far vehicles must travel on a single gallon of fuel. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) officials estimated the new standards would have pushed the average fuel efficiency of new cars and sport utility vehicles over 50 miles per gallon by 2031. The Biden administration subsequently weakened the rules.

"The memorandum signed today specifically reduces the burdensome and overly restrictive fuel standards that have needlessly driven up the cost of a car in order to push a radical Green New Deal agenda," Duffy said in a statement. "The American people should not be forced to sacrifice choice and affordability when purchasing a new car."

However, according to a 2024 NHTSA analysis, Biden's CAFE standards would have saved consumers nearly $23 billion in fuel costs and avoided the burning of approximately 70 billion gallons of gasoline through 2050.

Critics of the Trump administration's fossil fuel agenda also underscored the importance of CAFE standards in reducing gasoline and diesel consumption and combating planetary heating, which is driven primarily by burning fossil fuels. Some also noted that Duffy questions whether human activity is causing climate change.

"These commonsense, popular fuel economy standards save drivers money at the pump and reduce dangerous pollution from vehicles," Karen García, director of the Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All campaign, said in a statement Wednesday. "Drivers spend excessive amounts of money to fuel their cars, and it's often a large part of household expenses."

"Sean Duffy is selling American families out to Big Oil, burdening us with higher fuel prices and more polluting gas-guzzlers that harm our health," García added.



Duffy's announcement is part of a wider Trump administration push to roll back Biden's efforts to boost electric vehicles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is also taking aim at California's plan to ban the sale of gasoline-only new vehicles by 2035.

"As sad as it is, it's no surprise that climate denier Sean Duffy's first act at DOT is to advance Trump's harmful deregulatory agenda and roll back fuel economy standards," Will Anderson, electric vehicle policy advocate with Public Citizen's Climate Program, said Wednesday.

"Such a rollback would not only hinder consumer choices for more fuel-efficient vehicles while putting the U.S. auto industry further behind global competitors, it would raise consumer's costs when fueling—all to boost oil and gas industry profits," Anderson added.

Amnesty Urges Canada, Mexico Not to Help Trump Attack Asylum-Seekers

"President Trump will only be able to implement his harmful policies if countries in the Americas agree to play along."


A girl waits with her mother to be processed by the Mexican Refugee Commission, following the cancellation of CBP One appointments in the United States, in Tapachula, Mexico, on January 27, 2025.
(Photo: Jose Torres/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Ten days into U.S. President Donald Trump's second term, Amnesty International Americas director Ana Piquer on Wednesday urged the Canadian and Mexican governments to refuse to participate in the Republican's attacks on migrants seeking safety.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has taken various executive actions to advance his far-right immigration agenda, including declaring a national emergency, attempting to end birthright citizenship, enabling U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to arrest people in sensitive locations like schools and churches, reinstating the Migrant Protection Protocols—also known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy—and effectively halting asylum by shutting down CBP One, a mobile application that migrants used to schedule appointments with Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry.

"The executive actions adopted by President Trump severely impact the rights of people seeking safety and place countless lives at risk, fabricating nonexisting threats to expand militarization, externalization of borders, generalized use of immigration detention, expedited removals, and criminalization of migrant rights defenders," said Piquer. "These policies make it near impossible for individuals to seek asylum in the United States and will result in thousands of people being forcibly returned to places where their lives or safety are at risk."

"President Trump is also calling for the use of criminal prosecutions for people crossing irregularly into the United States, a policy that resulted in the mass separations of families during Trump's first term," she noted. "To this day, there are families—mostly from Central America—who have still not been reunited from the first iteration of this cruel policy."

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, toldThe Guardian earlier this month that "given the lack of records, it's impossible to know precisely how many families remain separated" due to the policy from Trump's first term, but "we think there may be around a thousand families or more that we can't confirm have been reunited."



Nodding to a weekend dispute between the Trump administration and Colombia, Piquer said that "the United States is also pressuring countries to accept deportation flights with individuals that are not nationals of those countries and threatening sanctions on those countries that refuse. All these policies have implications for countries throughout the Americas, continuing the troubling trend of the United States entering into bilateral agreements aimed at deterring migration."

The Amnesty leader specifically took aim at the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires most people seeking refugee protection to do so in whichever of the two nations they enter first. The treaty has been in effect since 2004.

"The agreement has forced individuals to attempt dangerous border crossings and has pushed people underground in order to seek safety," Piquer stressed. "As the United States becomes increasingly unsafe for asylum-seekers, the Canadian government must withdraw from the agreement immediately."

The treaty has withstood legal challenges in Canada, but the global human rights group isn't alone in continuing to call on the Canadian government to ditch the deal. After Trump's inauguration, Jon Milton wrote for the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, a progressive think tank, that the U.S. president had "declared war on migrants."

"The situation is bleak, and Canada has responsibilities—both moral and legal—to act. The first thing it should do is immediately withdraw from the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States," Milton argued. "If Trump actually does even half the things he has promised to do to migrants in the United States, it will trigger a humanitarian crisis—and Canada has the responsibility to act to protect people fleeing persecution."

While Trump's return to power may impact Canadian immigration policy, most migrants enter the United States at the southern border. Amnesty is pressuring the Mexican government to refuse to participate in any reiteration of the Remain in Mexico policy. Piquer pointed out that the version imposed during Trump's first term "trapped asylum-seekers in camps along the U.S.-Mexico border where they were at serious risk of human rights violations, with thousands of reports of people being assaulted, raped, kidnapped, and extorted."

Already, she said, "the shutdown of the CBP One application has created an insurmountable barrier for approximately 270,000 vulnerable individuals attempting to seek safety in the United States. They are now stranded in Mexico with no clear pathway to protection."

According to Doctors Without Borders, also known as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the app shutdown "triggered a wave of despair and uncertainty." Ramón Márquez, coordinator for the group's Comprehensive Care Center in Mexico City, said that "a patient we treated this week suffered an acute anxiety attack after her previously approved asylum appointment in early February was canceled... Our therapeutic teams are ramping up interventions to support those in emotional crisis."

Adriana Palomares, general coordinator for MSF in Mexico, said last week that "migration and seeking asylum are rights, not crimes. Governments across the region, including the U.S. and Mexico, must urgently implement migration policies that prioritize people and their protection."



Similarly demanding swift action, Piquer said Wednesday that "following the termination of CBP One, the Mexican government must urgently adopt measures to ensure the safety and security of those who had been waiting in Mexico for CPB One appointments, including allowing them to apply for international protection in Mexico and travel freely throughout the country."

"President Trump will only be able to implement his harmful policies if countries in the Americas agree to play along," she emphasized. "Amnesty International urgently calls on the governments of the region to refrain from participating in policies that undermine the rights and dignity of those seeking safety."

Piquer also called on the U.S. government to "respond to this moment of global displacement with funding and policies of welcome, to respond to the crisis with policies that are humane rather than those that hurt." However, such calls seem unlikely to be heard by Trump—who has threatened both Canada and Mexico with tariffs—or the Republican-controlled Congress.

Trump on Wednesday afternoon is set to sign the first bill of his second term—the Laken Riley Act—which congressional Republicans recently passed with help from a dozen Democratic senators and 46 Democrats in the House of Representatives. The legislation will expand mandatory federal detention of undocumented immigrants who are accused of even relatively minor crimes.

That includes locking up "undocumented children who have never been charged with or convicted of a crime," Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) noted after voting against the bill. "We've seen time and again the damage the federal government can cause our children with dangerous immigration policies like this."

Rescinded Funding Freeze Memo 'Just a Taste' of Chaos Vought Would Unleash

Trump's decision to halt funding for a variety of federal programs is "straight out of Project 2025, the far-right blueprint crafted by Russell Vought," said one lawmaker.

Russell Vought testifies before the Senate Budget Committee on his nomination to be the director of the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, D.C. on January 22, 2025.
(Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


The confusion and chaos triggered earlier this week by the Trump administration's federal funding freeze were compounded Wednesday when the Office of Management and Budget issued a new memo rescinding the previous announcement.

Shortly after White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the OMB had rescinded only the memo—not the funding freeze—in an effort to "end any confusion created by" a federal court's injunction blocking the directive, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said one thing was clear.

"No responsible senator of any party should vote to confirm [Russell] Vought to OMB," said the congresswoman.

The original order, which said all federal grants and loans would be halted starting at 5:00 pm ET Tuesday and which resulted in Medicaid payment portals being shut down across the country, and its subsequent rescission, offered "just a taste of the chaos Russ Vought would unleash," added Ocasio-Cortez, urging Americans to demand that their senators vote against President Donald Trump's nominee for OMB director.




Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) echoed Ocasio-Cortez, saying the attempt to freeze federal grants was "straight out of Project 2025, the far-right blueprint crafted by Russell Vought."


Vought, who led the OMB during Trump's first term, is a co-author of the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, which calls for the president to "ignore laws that safeguard Congress' constitutional power of the purse," said Boyle.

That was what Monday evening's order did, critics have said this week, when it called for federal agencies to conduct a "comprehensive analysis" of their spending to ensure the use of grants and loans comply with Trump's executive orders, including those banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and denying that transgender people exist.

Leavitt refused to answer a question at a press briefing Tuesday regarding whether the directive would impact Medicaid—but before the briefing was over, Democratic lawmakers said that payment portals for the healthcare program for low-income households and people with disabilities had been disabled due to the OMB memo.

Head Start early childhood education programs also saw an immediate impact, and Democrats warned that clinical trials could promptly be canceled without funding.

As Democratic lawmakers vowed to fight the administration's freeze and some called for the Senate Budget Committee to halt consideration of Vought's nomination on Tuesday, nonprofit groups and businesses filed a legal challenge, leading U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan in the District of Columbia to grant a "brief administrative stay" directing the OMB not to freeze funds until a hearing scheduled for February 3.

Democrats and progressive advocates were briefly elated Wednesday afternoon when the OMB announced it was rescinding the previous memo—but Leavitt's subsequent comments soon added to the confusion over whether or not programs such as Meals on Wheels and Medicaid would be able to continue operating.

"In light of the injunction, OMB has rescinded the memo to end any confusion on federal policy created by the court ruling and the dishonest media coverage," said Leavitt. "The executive orders issued by the president on funding reviews remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented by all agencies and departments. This action should effectively end the court case and allow the government to focus on enforcing the president's orders on controlling federal spending. In the coming weeks and months, more executive action will continue to end the egregious waste of federal funding."

Mike Ollen, senior political adviser to Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who spoke out vehemently against the funding freeze on Tuesday, said the White House had been "clear as mud" about how Americans would be impacted by president's executive orders.

"Kick elderly folks off of Meals on Wheels, kick kids off of their healthcare, and then rescind the memo detailing it but not the policy itself," said Ollen. "Great work all around."

Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy for the Center for American Progress, said the rescission of the memo was "a profoundly welcome step," but noted that it's clear the White House is moving forward with "other illegal impoundments," including foreign assistance, Inflation Reduction Act, and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds.

"This won't be the last time they try to override the will of the American people," said Boyle. "Even now, the White House is still withholding funding that was approved on a bipartisan basis—including critical infrastructure investments. We must remain vigilant—because Trump and his far-right allies will continue to try and put programs that millions of middle-class families rely on at risk."

As Part of 'Authoritarian Takeover,' Trump Signs Order to Deport Pro-Palestine Students

"Trump and his cronies do not care about Jewish safety—in fact, they and the white nationalists who support them are themselves the greatest threat to American Jews," said one campaigner.


Pro-Palestinian students gather on the campus of Wayne State University to protest the Biden administration's support for Israel in Detroit, Michigan on May 6, 2024.
(Photo: Adam J. Dewey/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Jan 29, 2025

COMMON DREAMS

An executive order signed Wednesday by Republican U.S. President Donald Trump authorizing the deportation of noncitizen students and others who took part in protests against Israel's annihilation of Gaza was condemned by civil rights defenders as an overzealous bid to smear the movement for Palestinian rights under the guise of combating antisemitism.

Before publishing the order—which is titled "Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism"—the White House accused "pro-Hamas aliens and left-wing radicals" of waging "a campaign of intimidation, vandalism, and violence on the campuses and streets of America" and the Biden administration of turning "a blind eye to this coordinated assault on public order."

Trump's office said the new directive "takes forceful and unprecedented steps to marshal all Federal resources to combat the explosion of antisemitism on our campuses and in our streets since October 7, 2023."

"To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice... we will find you, and we will deport you," the White House said, adding that the Trump administration "will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before."

The White House vowed "immediate action" by federal prosecutors in response to "terroristic threats, arson, vandalism, and violence against American Jews"—without providing any examples of these alleged crimes.



While analyses have shown that pro-Palestine student protests have been nearly 100% peaceful, violence by police and pro-Israel counter-demonstrators was reported on numerous campuses.

Trump signed two additional executive orders late Wednesday; one promoting so-called "school choice" policies critics say are meant to destroy public education, and another ending federal funding for public schools accused of "indoctrination... including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned Trump's antisemitism order as "a dishonest, overbroad, and unenforceable attempt to smear college students who protested against the Israeli government's genocidal war on Gaza in overwhelmingly peaceful ways."

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)—which led an unprecedented nationwide wave of Jewish-led protests for Palestinian rights—said Trump's order "is pulled directly from the pages of the far-Right Heritage Foundation's 'Project Esther' report, which is a blueprint for using the federal government and private institutions to dismantle the Palestine solidarity movement and broader U.S. civil society, under the guise of 'fighting antisemitism.'"

"These tactics are built to disrupt the historic movement for Palestinian liberation across the U.S.—including on college campuses—before then using those same tactics to attack a wide range of progressive social justice movements," JVP added.

JVP executive director Stefanie Fox said in a statement, "We stand with the student protestors who so bravely put their bodies and academic careers on the line to save lives and demand an end to the Israeli military's destruction of Gaza."

"As Jews, we refuse to be pawns in the far-right's authoritarian takeover," Fox added. "Trump and his cronies do not care about Jewish safety—in fact, they and the white nationalists who support them are themselves the greatest threat to American Jews. They are waging a campaign against all those who are brave enough to challenge their power."

Trump Signs Sweeping Xenophobic Bill, Rescinding Due Process for Millions

"The Laken Riley Act capitalizes on a horrible tragedy in order to advance President Trump's anti-immigrant agenda by scapegoating people seeking safety," said one campaigner.

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a signed copy of the Laken Riley Act in Washington, D.C. on January 29, 2025.
(Photo: Pedro Ugarte/AFP via Getty Images)


Brett Wilkins
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Human rights defenders decried U.S. President Donald Trump's signing of legislation Wednesday that critics warn will strip due process rights from millions of people while harming some of the most vulnerable members of society, including migrant children, victims of sexual violence, and survivors of domestic abuse.

Trump signed the Laken Riley Act—named after a young woman murdered last year by a Venezuelan man who, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), entered the United States illegally—calling it a "landmark law" that "will save countless innocent American lives."

"The Laken Riley Act is based upon false, xenophobic narratives that dehumanize and criminalize an entire group of people due to the actions of one person."

However, Amy Fischer, director of the ACLU's Refugee and Migrant Rights Program, said in a statement Wednesday that "the Laken Riley Act capitalizes on a horrible tragedy in order to advance President Trump's anti-immigrant agenda by scapegoating people seeking safety and stripping away their right to due process."

"This legislation mandates the arrest and detention of our undocumented neighbors for being convicted or charged of any theft, shoplifting, burglary, or larceny offense," Fischer noted. "Mandatory detention solely for being accused of theft strips people of their right to due process and constitutes arbitrary detention under international human rights law."

"The Laken Riley Act is based upon false, xenophobic narratives that dehumanize and criminalize an entire group of people due to the actions of one person," Fischer added. "It will separate families and make our communities less safe. It is simply unconscionable for Congress to create a new mechanism that gives people the power to falsely accuse immigrants of theft knowing their detention is mandatory."
delete

As the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area, which called the law "shameful and unconstitutional," noted Wednesday: "This bill does not require a conviction—simply being accused of a crime is enough to force individuals into mandatory detention without review by any judge. In doing so, the law strips due process protections and allows for discrimination against vulnerable immigrant communities."

The group continued:
The federal government already has the power to detain and deport individuals who commit criminal acts. But in our legal system, judges act as a constitutionally required check on police actions. This new law removes that check. It is a direct attack on the constitutional rights of immigrants and communities of color, and it erodes the civil liberties of American society at large. It will incentivize racial profiling and divert law enforcement resources away from real threats, making our communities less safe.

"Lawyers' Committee and our partners vow to challenge this unconstitutional law in court," Bianca Sierra Wolff, the group's executive director, said in a statement. "We will not stand by while the rights of immigrants and communities of color are trampled for political gain."

Writing for Common Dreams Wednesday, National Center for Youth Law senior director Neha Desai and NCYL attorney Melissa Adamson lamented the Laken Riley Act's passage and urged Congress, both chambers of which passed the law with bipartisan support, to "do the right thing" by introducing "new legislation to protect children from this draconian law."

"Policymakers on both sides of the political aisle seem all too eager to support legislation that ignores that immigrant children are human beings, worthy of the same care and protections that their own children enjoy," Desai and Adamson contended. "It is deeply disheartening to see lawmakers shift with the political winds rather than hold true to fundamental values. Congress must not acquiesce to a country in which the rejection of children's rights is the norm."

Shares in private prison companies have skyrocketed since Trump won last November's election, partly in anticipation of a boom in business due to the Laken Riley Act and the broader campaign of mass deportations now underway.

On Wednesday, Trump also said he would instruct the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security to prepare a detention facility—some critics called it a "concentration camp"—capable of holding 30,000 migrants at the notorious offshore Guantánamo Bay prison run by the U.S. military in Cuba.

'Momentous Victory for Climate Justice': Rosebank, Jackdaw Oilfields Ruled Unlawful

"There can be victories in the world of climate protest," said one organizer. "This is a big one."


Climate activists demonstrate against Rosebank and Jackdaw fossil fuel projects outside of the court of session on November 12, 2024 in Edinburgh, Scotland.
(Photo: Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jan 30, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

After winning a landmark lawsuit to stop oil and gas production at two North Sea fossil fuel projects in the United Kingdom Thursday, the global climate action group Greenpeace called for applause for the campaigners who have spent years demanding no new pollution-causing developments.

"This is game-changing," said Greenpeace U.K. "And it's ONLY been possible thanks to YEARS of fighting by THOUSANDS of climate campaigners! Power to the people."

The comments came after Judge Andrew Stewart of Scotland's Court of Session ruled that Equinor and Shell, the fossil fuel giants behind the Rosebank oil and gas field and the Jackdaw gas project, respectively, cannot move ahead with extraction because the government did not take into account the emissions that would result from the projects.

The companies have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Rosebank and Jackdaw, with Equinor saying it had lined up $2.7 billion in contracts for the former field, with an estimated 300 million barrels of oil and gas expected to be extracted beginning in 2026 or 2027.

The Stop Rosebank coalition, made up of grassroots campaigners and organizations, said the climate pollution from Rosebank "would be more than the combined annual CO2 emissions of all 28 low-income countries in the world, including Uganda, Ethiopia, and Mozambique."

"In other words, emissions from this one U.K. field would be more than those created by the 700 million people in the world's poorest countries in a year," said the coalition. "These are among the same countries that have contributed the least to the climate crisis but are already experiencing the worst impacts of a warming planet."

Stewart said in his ruling that "the public interest in authorities acting lawfully and the private interest of members of the public in climate change outweigh the private interest of the developers."

The campaign group Fossil Free London promptly organized a rally outside the Norwegian embassy in the U.K. capital to celebrate the verdict and call on Norway-based Equinor not to appeal the ruling.

"There can be victories in the world of climate protest," said one organizer. "This is a big one."





The ruling was in line with a decision handed down by the U.K. Supreme Court last year, which said local authorities must consider the full environmental impact of all new fossil fuel projects before they are approved.


Thursday's ruling is the latest evidence, said Freya Aitchison, oil and gas campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scotland, that "new oil is over."

"This signals the beginning of the end for fossil fuel production in the U.K.," said Aitchison. "Political attention must immediately turn to developing an urgent and fair transition plan for workers."

"This is a momentous victory for climate justice. It shows the power of the hundreds of thousands of people who have fought against the climate-wrecking Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields for years. The U.K. Government must now end this disastrous project, rule out all new oil fields and fossil fuel developments and focus on delivering a planned, funded transition for oil workers," added Aitchison. "This ruling is a turning point, we can and must choose a better future."

Carla Denyer, a Member of Parliament for the Green Party, called on the U.K. government, now led by the Labour Party, to "refuse consent for the 13 other oil and gas drilling projects licensed by the previous government."

Global Justice Now said the government should also turn its attention to the entire planet and support calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"This is a huge milestone towards a livable planet and away from polluting fossil fuels," said Liz Murray, head of the group's Scottish campaigns. "Now we need global coordination to end new oil and gas not just here but around the world. The U.K. government should back calls from some of the most climate vulnerable countries for a fossil fuel treaty to plan a clean energy future that leaves no worker, community or country behind."

THE ONE GOOD THING THE IRS DOES

Exposed: Republicans Trying to Kill Free 'Direct File' Program Funded by For-Profit Tax Prep Industry

"Direct File should be expanded, kept permanent, and be held up as a model for government programs enacted to help average Americans—not corporate America."



Advocates gather in Washington, D.C. to call out tax prep companies like Intuit TurboTax and H&R Block for blocking simplified filing and to support Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exploration of alternative free tax filing on April 17, 2023.
(Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Economic Security Project)

Julia Conley
Jan 30, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


The popular, free Direct File program introduced by the Internal Revenue Service in 2024 is being expanded this tax season despite the objections of dozens of congressional Republicans—but an analysis released Thursday reveals why GOP lawmakers are so intent on ensuring the Trump administration ultimately eliminates the program and forces taxpayers to rely on services from private tax filing corporations.

The 29 Republicans who sent a letter to President Donald Trump in December asking him to end Direct File with a "day-one executive order" have received more than $1.8 million in campaign contributions over the course of their careers from "Big Tax Prep and their proxies," said the consumer advocacy watchdog Public Citizen.


The companies that have donated to the lawmakers include Intuit and H&R Block, as well as the American Coalition for Taxpayer Rights—a group of lobbying firms that work on behalf of the tax filing industry.

With Direct File offered to taxpayers in 25 new states starting this week—after being available in 12 states last year—Public Citizen revealed that in 2024, the industry and its lobbying firms contributed more than $700,000 to the Republican lawmakers who wrote the letter.

Lobbyists and lobbying firms contributed most of the money detailed in the report—more than $1.5 million of the total. The remaining money was donated by political action committees (PACs) for H&R Block, Intuit, and the lobbying firms.

"The new administration must stand up to greedy Big Tax Prep giants and their army of hired lobbyists by continuing to build on the popular Direct File program beyond this tax season."

U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), who spearheaded the letter claiming Direct File poses a "threat to taxpayers' freedom from government overreach," received the second-most campaign donations of any of the signatories.

The tax filing industry and lobbying firms have given Smith $224,350 over the course of his career, second only to Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), who received $242,256.


Both also received more money from tax filing interests in 2024 than any other lawmaker.

Public Citizen noted that 12 of the signatories represent five of the states with Direct File pilot programs in place last year.

"According to data from the Economic Security Project, a combined 15.2 million taxpayers in these states were eligible for the program in the first year," reads the report. "Had they all used the program, these taxpayers would have saved more than $2.4 billion in filing fees."

With the 12 lawmakers having taken more than $640,000 from "the Direct File opposition and their proxies throughout their career... these Republicans are putting the interests of their donors ahead of their constituents," said Public Citizen.

"Direct File is a commonsense government program that was overwhelmingly well-liked by the filers who used it during its 2024 pilot," said Susan Harley, managing director for Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. "Eligible filers in 25 states now have an option to directly e-file their taxes for free to the IRS. The new administration must stand up to greedy Big Tax Prep giants and their army of hired lobbyists by continuing to build on the popular Direct File program beyond this tax season."

According to the report, donations from the tax filing industry have particularly flowed toward Republicans who sit on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over the IRS and taxation.

"Together, these signers have received more than $1.3 million over their careers including more than $500,000 during the 2024 cycle," said Public Citizen. "These members account for nearly two-thirds of the Republican majority on the committee."


People in 25 states will be able to save hundreds of dollars by filing their taxes without paying a private company or giving a cut of their refund to Intuit or H&R Block, noted Public Citizen.

"These savings can provide some financial relief at a time when budgets are stretched thin," said the group. "Direct File should be expanded, kept permanent, and be held up as a model for government programs enacted to help average Americans—not corporate America."

RFK Jr Pressed on Whether He and Trump Will 'Cave to Big Pharma' on Medicare Drug Prices


"Will you defend the law in the Inflation Reduction Act which already is negotiating prescription drug prices?" Sen. Bernie Sanders asked Kennedy during his second confirmation hearing.

THE RASPY VOICE OF A CARTOON VULTURE

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's nominee to be secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, testifies in front of the Senate Finance Committee on January 29, 2025.
(Photo: Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Jan 30, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Senate Democrats and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday pressed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Health and Human Services Department, to pledge that the new administration won't give in to the pharmaceutical industry's attacks on a popular Medicare drug price negotiation program that has already yielded significant results.

Sanders raised the matter during Kennedy's confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, on which the Vermont senator serves as the ranking member.


"Will you defend the law in the Inflation Reduction Act which already is negotiating prescription drug prices?" Sanders asked, referring to the Biden-era measure that empowered Medicare to negotiate the prices of a select number of prescription drugs directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Declining to provide a yes or no answer to Sanders' question, Kennedy replied that "President Trump wants us to negotiate drug prices" and added that, if confirmed as Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, he would "comply with the laws."

Watch:





The exchange came after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency within HHS, issued a statement Wednesday declaring that "lowering the cost of prescription drugs for Americans is a top priority of President Trump and his administration" and expressing commitment to "incorporating lessons learned to date from the [Inflation Reduction Act] program and to considering opportunities to bring greater transparency in the negotiation program."

"CMS intends to provide opportunities for stakeholders to provide specific ideas to improve the negotiation program, consistent with the goals of achieving greater value for beneficiaries and taxpayers and continuing to foster innovation," the agency added.

While some advocates for lower drug prices cautiously welcomed the CMS statement, Senate Democrats warned Thursday that its choice of language "appeared to open the door to Big Pharma's requests."

"If confirmed as secretary, you will be under tremendous pressure to cave to Big Pharma and undermine Medicare drug price negotiation Republicans have worked in lock-step with Big Pharma by relentlessly attacking Medicare drug price negotiation at every turn," a group of 12 Senate Democrats and Sanders wrote in a letter to Kennedy. "Now, Republicans have unified control of the federal government. They will undoubtedly try to leverage this power to walk back the progress Democrats made to lower drug prices through this important new authority."

The letter pushes Kennedy to answer a number of questions related to the drug price negotiation program, including whether he would recommend that the Trump administration defend the program from the pharmaceutical industry's ongoing legal assault.

"On behalf of the tens of millions of Americans who count on Medicare," the new letter states, "Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee want to know whether the Trump administration will follow through on negotiating with Big Pharma to deliver the lower costs promised to the American people."

After Trump announced his intent to nominate Kennedy as HHS chief late last year, the pharmaceutical lobby made clear its plan to push the new administration to undercut the price negotiation program that is poised to deliver billions of dollars in savings by bringing down the prices of expensive and widely used medications.

Earlier this month, the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly said his company and other drugmakers would ask the Trump administration to pause the price-negotiation program, claiming that "they need to fix it" before proceeding to talks over the next slate of 15 drugs selected in the final days of the Biden administration.

In their letter on Thursday, the senators demanded that Kennedy "confirm in writing" that he "will follow the law and reject

Big Pharma's request to pause Medicare drug price negotiation."

RFK Jr Refuses to Say Healthcare Is a Human Right at Confirmation Hearing

"The problem is that Kennedy isn't 'anti-establishment' in any way that would actually help working-class people at the expense of wealthy plutocrats."

Robert Kennedy Jr., the U.S. secretary of health and human services nominee, testifies during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on his nomination in Washington, D.C. on January 29, 2025.
(Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jan 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's nominee to direct federal health policy, faced the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday having made a name for himself as a public figure bent on "making America healthy again"—pushing anti-scientific warnings against seed oils, falsely claiming as recently as 2023 that "autism comes from vaccines," and pledging to protect Americans from harmful toxins.

But Kennedy's confirmation hearing to be the secretary of health and human services presented the latest evidence that the environmental lawyer and former presidential candidate has little if any concern about how the health of the country is impacted by one significant factor: the fact that Americans rely on a for-profit industry—empowered to deny coverage for lifesaving treatment on a whim—in order to obtain healthcare.

In his opening statement to the committee, Kennedy signaled a lack of interest in discussions about the finances involved in the U.S. healthcare system—one in which the top five health insurers have reported more than $371 billion in profits since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, while increasingly denying medical claims and charging families an average of $26,000 per year in premiums.

"I don't want to make this too much about money," said Kennedy, adding that "the nation has been locked in a divisive healthcare debate about who pays."

He dismissed debates about whether healthcare costs at the point of service should be paid by the government, corporations, providers, or families as "like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" and turned his attention to "chemical additives in our food supply" and "chronic disease."

Ahead of the hearing, political commentator Ben Burgis wrote at MSNBC that while Kennedy has sold himself to the public as an anti-establishment figure, unafraid of standing up to Big Pharma by spreading conspiracy theories about vaccines, "the problem is that Kennedy isn't 'anti-establishment' in any way that would actually help working-class people at the expense of wealthy plutocrats."

He has all but dismissed concerns about health insurers like UnitedHealthcare, which made $23 billion in profits last year and now reportedly denies 1 in 3 medical claims, including for cancer treatments in some cases.

"The profit motive is human nature," Kennedy said in an interview with the online news show Breaking Points in 2023.

The nominee said at the hearing that he has "often disturbed the status quo by asking uncomfortable questions," but in an exchange with Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) about Medicare and Medicare Advantage, the privatized system into which right-wing policymakers aim to push more seniors, even as it denies patients necessary care, Kennedy made clear again that he doesn't aim to question the status quo regarding the for-profit system.

Americans "would prefer to be on private insurance," said Kennedy. "Most Americans, if they could afford to be, will be on private insurance."




The comment drew incredulous laughter from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime proponent of Medicare for All, according to reports.

Kennedy didn't cite any sources for his claim. A Gallup poll last month found that 62% of U.S. adults—the highest percentage in a decade—believe the government should guarantee that all Americans have health coverage. The survey was released days after the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, an event that sparked a nationwide discussion over the for-profit healthcare industry's claim-denial practices and exorbitant out-of-pocket costs for patients, which have proven deadly for some and have pushed millions of Americans into medical debt.

Later, Sanders pointed to the $70 billion the insurance industry raked in last year as 85 million Americans remained uninsured or underinsured and asked whether Kennedy agrees that the U.S. "should join every other major country on Earth and guarantee healthcare as a human right."

Kennedy replied that healthcare should not be treated as a human right as free speech is, because "in healthcare, if you smoke cigarettes for 20 years and you get cancer, you are now taking from the pool."



Annabelle Gurwitch, an author and activist, said Kennedy's response pointed to a worldview that is "dangerous to our health."

"So now we are going to determine care based on a metric that measures perceived responsibility: We'll need to police eating habits, drinking habits, and perhaps genetics and doling out care based on that," said Gurwitch, urging senators to "vote no on Kennedy."

'That is so dangerous': RFK Jr. blasted for claim on Black immunity and vaccines

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) and Health and Human Services Secretary-designate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on January 30, 2025 (Image: Screengrab via @atrupar / X)

David Badash

January 30, 2025

ALTERNET


Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, faced grilling from Democrats and at least one Republican on day two of his Senate confirmation hearing. One Democrat declared RFK Jr.’s views on vaccinations and immunity “dangerous” after he claimed Black people have stronger immune systems than White people.

“You said the following, and I quote: ‘We should not be giving Black people the same vaccine schedule that’s given to Whites, because their immune system is better than ours.’ Can you please explain what you meant?” U.S. Senator Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) asked (video below), after quoting Kennedy’s remarks about Black people and vaccines back to him.

“There’s a series of studies, I think most of them by [Andrew] Pollard that the particular antigens that show that Blacks have a much stronger reaction. There’s differences in reaction to different products by different races,” Kennedy responded, a claim he has made before.

“So what different vaccine schedule would you say, I should have received?” Senator Alsobrooks asked.

“Well, I mean, the Pollard article suggests that Blacks need fewer antigens —”

“This is so dangerous,” the Maryland Democrat Senator replied. “Mr. Kennedy with all due respect, that is so dangerous.”

“Your voice would be a voice that parents would listen to, that is so dangerous,” Alsobrooks continued. “I will be voting against your nomination because your views are dangerous to our state and to our country.”



On the website for his anti-vaccine non-profit’s website, Kennedy made that and other similar statements.

“As it turns out, blacks have a much more robust immune system than whites,” the website’s exact transcript of Kennedy’s remarks during an interview reads. “We now know this because there was a guy called Andrew Pollard who is on their side, and he works for the Mayo Clinic, and he’s done these studies. And what he’s found out is that blacks only need half of the antigen that whites do. So if you’re trying to immunize black for measles, if you’re trying to immunize a white person, you need to give a certain amount of the measles virus to them, the dead virus or the live virus. For a black, they’ll get the same immune response if they get half that now.”

The Washington Post this week reported that Kennedy “has repeatedly disparaged vaccines, falsely linked themto autism and argued that White and Black people should have separate vaccination schedules, according to a Washington Post review of his public statements from recent years.”

The Post, highlighting Kennedy’s remarks that Black people’s immune systems are better than White people’s, reported: “Several experts said no scientific basis exists to support that claim.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Majority of Voters Think Musk Will Use DOGE for Self-Enrichment While Targeting Social Safety Net




"Our polling finds that voters want the government to do more to help them," said Data for Progress' leader, warning that "their view of DOGE and the administration could quickly sour."


Jessica Corbett
Jan 30, 2025

COMMON DREAMS

Survey results released Thursday show that majorities of U.S. voters think billionaire Elon Musk will use his position in the Trump administration for self-enrichment and fear that the presidential advisory commission he is chairing will target Social Security, food assistance, healthcare programs, and more.

Data for Progress and the Progressive Change Institute conducted a series of surveys about Musk—the world's richest person—and the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the lead-up to and shortly after Republican President Donald Trump's return to the White House on December 14-15, January 10-11, and January 24-27.

Watchdogs and some lawmakers have sounded the alarm about Musk—whose business affiliations include social media platform X, space exploration company SpaceX, and electric vehicle makerTesla—potentially using his post at DOGE to benefit himself, and the new polling suggests voters share those concerns.

Pollsters found that 51% of voters across the political spectrum agreed that Musk "isn't interested in efficiency, he's only interested in enriching himself," and he will be able to use DOGE to direct resources—including more federal contracts—toward his companies and weaponize the government to undermine competitors.

There were clear divisions among party lines: 74% of Democrats expect self-enrichment from Musk, while just 29% of Republicans have such concerns. Independents and third-party voters were split at 49%. Among all respondents, 14% said they "don't know," and 35% believe that "Musk has shown he has experience saving taxpayers money and helping the government improve."






Trump announced that the billionaire would lead DOGE—which is focused on gutting federal regulations and slashing spending—shortly after his November victory, which was aided by over a quarter-billion dollars from Musk. They initially floated cutting $2 trillion but Musk has since tempered expectations.

The pollsters found that 87% of U.S. voters are somewhat or very concerned about DOGE and the Trump administration targeting Social Security for cuts. Similarly, 84% fear cuts to veterans' healthcare, and 83% worry about cuts to the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, or Medicare.

The polling shows that 79% are worried about reducing food inspections as well as research for cancer, chronic illness, and infectious diseases. Additionally, 78% fear cuts to food assistance for low-income families, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Majorities of voters are concerned about downsizing national defense as well as cutting the federal workforce and funding for national parks, according to the surveys. They are also worried about reducing: federal disaster response and weather monitoring, environmental and toxic waste cleanup, road maintenance, mail delivery, and student loan aid.





The surveyers also questioned voters about messaging on the Musk-led commission. As Data for Progress detailed in a Thursday blog post:

When a case for DOGE is tested against two alternative messages against DOGE, saying DOGE will "steal from you by cutting Social Security, Medicare, and veterans healthcare to give tax breaks to giant corporations and billionaires like Musk" performs better with Independent voters, whose views on DOGE shifted 24 points more unfavorably on net, compared with simply saying DOGE will cut those programs or simply saying DOGE will benefit billionaires...

Additionally, while saying DOGE will cut programs to "give tax breaks to giant corporations and billionaires like Musk" effectively decreases DOGE's favorability, a message that combines "steal from you" and "give tax breaks" has an even greater negative impact on voters' opinion on DOGE, particularly among Independents whose views on DOGE shifted 14 points more unfavorably on net with the combined message.

Another round of tax cuts for the wealthy, similar to the law Trump signed in 2017, is a top legislative priority for Republicans, who now control both chambers of Congress in addition to the White House.

The pollsters also found that 56% of all voters—including 67% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and 45% of Republicans—believe "the government should do more to solve problems and help Americans." Another 19% believe the government is doing "the right amount," while 22% think it is doing "too much" and 7% aren't sure.

Data for Progress executive director Danielle Deiseroth noted in a Thursday statement that the survey results were published amid mass chaos over a now-rescinded Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo about Trump's federal funding freeze, which led to lawsuits and the Tuesday shutdown of Medicaid payment portals nationwide.

"As Trump's chaotic OMB memo showed, his administration is using 'government efficiency' as a way to slash the healthcare and benefits that Americans rely on each day from the federal government," she said. "Our polling finds that voters want the government to do more to help them, and as they learn more about these disruptions led by Trump and Elon Musk, their view of DOGE and the administration could quickly sour."