In response to allegations that U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle abused her diplomatic position to advance private gas interests in the Balkans, Oil Change International’s Allie Rosenbluth said:

“Trump’s push to lock Europe into decades of U.S. gas dependence puts fossil fuel profits ahead of people’s energy bills, health, and safety [1]. Any use of diplomatic power to threaten elected governments or secure private gas deals would be an outrageous abuse of public office and must be investigated.”

Note to the editor:
[1] To read more about Europe’s increasing dependence on U.S. LNG imports: Pay, Baby, Pay: Trump’s AI and energy dominance agenda means costlier LNG for Europe.

Corporations that have benefited from the Trump administration’s cancellation of federal enforcement actions have given $210.5 million in contributions and pledges to MAGA Inc., and other Trump-aligned Super PACs, according to a new investigation by Public Citizen.

The finding comes as Public Citizen’s new analysis documents the Trump administration’s cancellation of 212 federal enforcement actions involving 205 corporations, including 80 investigations, 67 dismissed enforcement lawsuits and 54 canceled accountability measures involving alleged corporate misconduct.

Among the largest contributors, including corporations, executives, and investors are as follows:

• Elon Musk, whose companies Tesla and SpaceX benefited from at least eight canceled enforcement actions, pledged to spend $100 million to help elect Republicans in the 2026 midterms, largely through America PAC which he controls, and gave $5 million to MAGA Inc.. Both Tesla and SpaceX benefited from four canceled actions each.

• Crypto.com, which profited from the Securities and Exchange Commissions’ (SEC) cancellation of an investigation into allegations that the crypto platform traded unregistered securities, gave $35 million to MAGA Inc., and another $2 million to Keep America Great, both Trump-aligned Super PACs.

• Gemini, similarly profited from a dropped SEC investigation into allegations of trading unregistered securities, gave $20 million to MAGA Inc. Its co-founders, Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, personally gave an additional $10 million each to MAGA Inc.
• Andreessen Horowitz, along with co-founders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, gave $12 million to MAGA Inc.. Nine corporations that benefit from canceled actions are a part of the firm’s investment portfolio.

“Corporations and ultra-wealthy executives with enormous financial interests before the federal government are pouring extraordinary sums into the president’s political operation,” said Robert Weissman, Public Citizen co-president. “Once the check is cashed, the administration is pulling back enforcement actions meant to punish corporate misconduct. It’s a great deal for the corporate wrongdoers – at the expense of their victims and the American people.”

“The potential is limitless when companies and the wealthy people behind them can give millions of dollars to Trump-aligned political groups,” said Rick Claypool, a research director for Public Citizen and author of the report. “The scale of these contributions raises fundamental questions about what corporations are expecting when they invest heavily in a political operation, especially when it involves the President of the United States.”

Public Citizen’s Corporate Enforcement Tracker is an online resource for watchdogging the Trump administration’s cancellation of federal enforcement actions brought against corporations prior to President Trump’s second term.

In response to the outcome of the pre-COP summit in Fiji, Oxfam Climate Policy Lead Nafkote Dabi said:

“These talks were an underwhelming precursor to the summit in Türkiye next month. The absence of leaders from the richest and most polluting countries sends a dangerous signal that the global commitment to tackling the climate crisis is wavering.

“While rich governments fail to take responsibility for climate action, the world faces an onslaught of climate disasters. Devastating heatwaves in Europe claimed thousands of lives this summer, while a lethal combination of El Niño and existing climate breakdown leaves millions of people facing hunger across the Horn of Africa and Latin America.

Leaders cannot spend another COP sidestepping their climate commitments. At COP31, rich governments must increase their climate finance commitments and hold the richest polluters accountable.”

Oxfam Australia’s Policy and Advocacy Lead Josie Lee said:

“For Australian leaders to leave the pre-COP talks without a single substantial funding pledge, merely repackaging previously committed funding, is irresponsible, and falls short of the bold leadership it promised. Australia spends ten times more on fossil fuels subsidies than it does supporting its neighbors to act on climate change.

“We cannot claim to be a responsible regional partner while continuing to prioritize support for coal oil and gas over adequate climate finance. Oxfam Australia is calling on the Government to demonstrate real solidarity with its Pacific neighbors, by putting money on the table and taking responsibility for our share of the climate crisis.”

Executive Director of Oxfam in the Pacific Eunice Wotene said:

“Our hope for hosting pre-COP in the Pacific was that leaders of historically polluting countries would see for themselves the losses and damages with which we are grappling and take decisive action. We urge leaders to take these observations onward to COP31 to ensure the richest countries, corporations and individuals are held accountable for their disproportionate role in the climate crisis.”

Social Security Works Executive Director Alex Lawson had the following response to the news that Texas Senate candidate Ken Paxton discussed cuts to Social Security in private conversations in Washington, as revealed in leaked audio published by the Texas Tribune:

“It's disgusting that Ken Paxton is laughing while planning to cut Social Security benefits for everyone in this country, including the nearly 5 million Texans who rely on Social Security and the 1.3 million Texans who Social Security keeps out of poverty.

“This is a sick man who thinks it’s a joke to push over a million Texans into poverty by stealing their hard-earned benefits. This is a man who should not be allowed anywhere near the levers of power, since clearly he thinks working people are a joke to be laughed at with the billionaire donors he works for.”

Facing significant backlash to his recent TV ads, Trump recently declared he will no longer use taxpayer funds to pay for partisan advertisements. He has not indicated that he will reimburse the U.S. Treasury for public funds wasted so far.

Public Citizen has filed multiple complaints against the Trump administration for using taxpayer dollars for the ads, which lavishly praise the character of Trump and boost congressional Republicans ahead of the midterm elections. AdImpact estimates $10.1 million in taxpayer funds was spent on the production and airing of these ads. The complaints allege that the payments violate federal laws against using taxpayer funds for “propaganda” purposes and the involvement of White House staff in producing and distributing the ads violate the Hatch Act.

Craig Holman, Ph.D., government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, issued the following statement:

“It apparently took weeks for the Trump administration to realize it is illegal to use taxpayer dollars to pay for campaign commercials.

“But what of the millions of taxpayer dollars already spent on these self-adulation campaign ads? The act of having wasted taxpayer dollars on these ads remains a violation of law. At the very least, Trump and his administration must reimburse the Treasury and face the consequences for violating federal law and the Hatch Act.”

More than 200 conservation organizations sent a letter today urging Congress to oppose the “Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026,” introduced by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Mike Lee (R-Utah). The bill includes sweeping attacks on the Endangered Species Act that would gut protections for nearly every endangered species across the country.

The legislation would weaken the Act’s gold-standard “best available science” mandate, making it substantially harder to protect imperiled species and the places they live. It would also surrender authority to states to conduct Section 7 consultations — one of the most important safeguards against harm from federal agency actions.

“We don’t have to choose between protecting our most endangered animals and plants and building a clean energy future,” said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Hollowing out the Endangered Species Act only benefits energy-hungry data centers and the fossil fuel industry while leaving monarchs, manatees, and countless other species to pay the ultimate price.”

The bill also includes judicial review provisions that would make meaningful review of certain Endangered Species Act challenges much more difficult.

“Friends of the Earth US is proud to stand beside our NGO partners in the fight to uphold our country’s bedrock environmental laws,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director for Friends of the Earth. “It’s paramount that Congress keeps things in perspective as it continues to navigate our desperate need for a clean energy future. There is no reason to throw endangered species under the bus to secure what falls short of even a half-measure approach to achieving justly sourced, renewable energy access and affordability.”

Today’s letter notes that “real environmental champions do not trade away the world’s strongest conservation law in pursuit of a legislative mirage that does nothing more than grease the wheels for pipelines, data centers, petrochemical buildouts, and the next generation of energy-guzzling tech infrastructure.”

The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in the case of Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The case, which was heard by eight justices panel after Justice Samuel Alito recused himself, concerns the permissibility of state-law claims over climate-related deception and harms. In response, David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Climate Program, issued the following statement:

“This case is about whether local communities experiencing devastating climate harms should get their day in court against Big Oil companies that spread climate deception. The fossil fuel industry has been going to extraordinary lengths to attack these climate cases, not just asking the Supreme Court to end the lawsuits, but also pushing Congress and state legislatures to grant fossil fuel companies immunity from all climate-related liability. The current offensive isn’t just about defeating the cases. It’s also about preventing the public from learning the extent and severity of the industry’s wrongdoing. It’s about fossil fuel CEOs’ profound fear of sitting in front of a jury of 12 Americans and trying to defend their companies’ deceptive conduct—because they know it’s indefensible.

“Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Suncor, it’s hard to imagine these companies can bury the evidence and escape accountability indefinitely. The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history. Eventually, it will be held to account.”

Read Public Citizen's amicus brief on Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County here.

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s arguments today in Suncor v. Boulder, Corey Riday-White, legal director of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:

“Big Oil’s desperation to escape trial for climate deception is still in search of a legal justification. Justices across the ideological spectrum asked good, skeptical questions that poked holes in Big Oil’s attempt to stop Boulder’s case before it can go to trial.

“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct, and the people of Boulder should have their day in court to present the evidence of Exxon and Suncor’s deception.”

Notable moments when the justices questioned Exxon and Suncor’s arguments included:

• Justice Kagan raised questions about Exxon and Suncor’s claims that Boulder’s case is preempted by the principles of federalism. "Where's the text for that? Where’s the support for that? Where’s the precedent for that? Where’s the anything for that?”
• Multiple justices, including Justice Thomas, raised questions about whether it was premature for the Supreme Court to take the case at this early stage. The justices themselves added a question to arguments about whether they have jurisdiction to rule on the case now. “We’re really early in this case,” said Justice Jackson. “I wonder whether we should be considering matters like this essentially piecemeal? . . . Why shouldn’t we wait and hear all of these claims once the state courts are done with their federal considerations?”
• Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that there’s a long history of state courts hearing tort claims like Boulder’s: “Conduct that could have impacts in many states, all of the states, we still allow, in many of these situations, people to file in their state to seek relief from injuries that are occurring in their state.”
• Justice Kagan called lawsuits against Big Oil companies “Chapter 3” in a line of cases beginning with those against tobacco and opioid companies for their deceptive actions. “This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm. And I guess I’m not understanding how this one would be preempted and the other is not?” Kagan asked.
• Justices also sharply questioned the idea that Boulder’s case is preempted by the Clean Air Act or other federal law. Justice Barrett characterized the oil companies’ arguments over federal preemption as “a little slippery.”
• Justice Sotomayor pointed out that Boulder’s case centers on the oil companies’ deceptive behavior, which has long been an area of law in state authority, and not preempted by federal law: “The Clean Air Act does not regulate marketing or advertising of fuel … It’s not clear to me how regulating the production and false advertisement of oil affects air and water.”

Background on U.S. Climate Accountability Lawsuits Against Big Oil:

Eleven U.S. states — California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai`i, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont — and the District of Columbia, two tribal governments, and dozens of municipal governments have active lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change. These cases collectively represent more than 1 in 4 people living in the United States.

Background on Boulder et al. v. Suncor et al.

Originally filed in 2018, Boulder’s lawsuit seeks to make ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy pay for the costs of local climate damages, arguing that the companies deceived the public about the dangers of their fossil fuel products and continued to produce, market, and sell them at dangerous levels despite knowing the risk.

Like other communities across the country, Boulder is facing staggering costs to protect residents and infrastructure from climate damages. In 2021, more than 1,100 homes and businesses in the county were destroyed in the deadly Marshall Fire, which scientists found was made more destructive because of climate change, and caused more than $2 billion in damages.

A wide range of voices across the ideological spectrum have sided with Boulder’s arguments. They include Colorado ranchers, nonpartisan government groups, tribal governments, economists, conservative and progressive legal scholars, 19 attorneys general, 90 members of Congress, and former officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations.

A coalition of environmental and consumer protection organizations filed a lawsuit today challenging the Trump administration’s final rule rolling back federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards, a move that will make new vehicles less fuel efficient, increase gasoline consumption, and drive up costs for American drivers already facing high gas prices.

The lawsuit challenges the administration’s attempt to weaken longstanding fuel economy requirements that have helped reduce gasoline consumption and save drivers money at the pump. The rollback comes as families are already struggling with record-high gas prices, with transportation ranking as the second-largest household expense after housing, accounting for roughly 17% of average household spending.

The existing fuel economy standards would have saved 64 billion gallons of gas. Even before the current rise in gas prices, they were set to deliver $35 billion in savings to consumers over the lifetimes of the vehicles covered. Today’s final rule weakens those standards, allowing manufacturers to produce a fleet of vehicles in model year 2031 that are less efficient than the model year 2024 vehicle fleet that is already on our roads.

The administration’s own projections show that Americans will be forced to spend over $1,600 more on fuel over the life of these life-efficient vehicles, and NHTSA estimates this final rule will result in an increase of over 121 billion gallons of fuel consumption through 2050.

“With gas prices at historic highs, Trump picked the worst possible time to roll back federal mileage standards,” said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “Oil companies will profit from less efficient cars, but drivers will take a hit to their wallets and our kids will breathe dirtier air. We’ll all pay the price for more tailpipe pollutants spewing everywhere from playgrounds to wild places. We’re asking the courts to put a stop to this callous giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto.”

“We’re taking the Trump administration to court for this reckless rollback that prioritizes Big Oil and automaker profits over American families,” said Katherine Garcia, director of Sierra Club’s Clean Transportation for All. “It is unlawful for Trump to turn back the clock on fuel-efficient cars forcing drivers to waste more money on gas and communities to breathe toxic air. The Sierra Club is proud to stand with our coalition partners in defending our right to cleaner, more affordable vehicles.”

“The Trump administration is steering us toward cars that burn more gas to travel the same miles, draining family budgets along the way,” said James Crowley, senior attorney at Conservation Law Foundation. “As the needle drops toward empty, more grocery and rent money goes into the tank, while more pollution fills the air we breathe. We’re taking this administration to court because families can’t afford to be steered backward.”

“Consumers need more fuel efficient choices when considering new cars, and they deserve vehicles that get more miles per gallon and miles per dollar,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. “Trump’s lawless push to roll back key safeguards on fuel economy will pollute our air, and line the pockets of oil and auto CEOs. We are confident of stopping Trump’s CAFE standards rollback.”

“The Trump administration’s rollback will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices,” said Andy Su, senior transportation attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. “We’re going to court to oppose this dangerous U-turn away from decades of successful work to make our cars more efficient and less expensive to drive.”

The U.S. Senate defeated House-approved legislation today that would have allowed all members to retain their conflicting stock investments and continue manipulating the stock market. Craig Holman, Ph.D., government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, released the following statement:

“This measure was a ruse, promoted by House Speaker Mike Johnson, to make it appear that congressional Republicans were tackling an ethical quagmire when, in fact, it would have accomplished very little. There was serious legislation to stop congressional insider trading, but Johnson would not bring up any of the serious proposals for a floor vote. Kudos to Senate Democrats for not falling for the ruse.”

Sens. Martin Heinrich and Sheldon Whitehouse today released a top-line summary of an agreement with Sen. Shelly Moore Capito and Rep. Bruce Westerman to advance so-called “permitting reform.”

The legislative package, cynically titled the “Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026,” would provide massive long-term structural advantages to the fossil fuel industry and minimal short-term improvements to electricity transmission policy that might marginally benefit renewable energy. The legislation fails to meaningfully curb the accelerating build-out of data centers and artificial intelligence.

“This is a climate kill shot that condemns our most vulnerable communities to suffer decades more fossil fuel pollution. It’s absurd to ensure our planet chokes with greenhouse gases, gut endangered species protections and eviscerate the Clean Water Act for what seems to be a nearly meaningless victory against Trump’s war on offshore wind,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The minor benefits for renewable energy corporations are massively dwarfed by the gifts to the fossil fuel industry. If this grotesque legislation becomes law, the paltry increases in renewable energy will be instantly devoured by AI data centers. The only winners here are Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, tech oligarchs and the shareholders of fossil fuel companies.”

Today’s package contains numerous provisions that lock in thousands of fossil fuel projects, including oil and gas pipelines, LNG export terminals, and expanded fossil fuel drilling onshore and offshore approved by President Trump over the past two years. It also ensures that future fossil fuel pipelines and methane gas-generated electricity can never be challenged in court.

Additional provisions gut parts of the Clean Water Act, including the Section 401 authority of states to protect their rivers and streams from the impacts of building pipelines and the EPA’s Section 404(c) permit veto authority, which has been used to stop projects like the Pebble Mine in Alaska.

The legislation weakens the National Historic Preservation Act and Tribal consultations, leaving most Tribal nations with no meaningful way to protect their sovereignty when faced with potential fossil fuel projects on their lands.

In addition, the legislation guts the Endangered Species Act by allowing states to take over the Section 7 consultation process with minimal safeguards, turning one of the law’s strongest provisions into a state-run rubberstamp of dangerous projects. The deal also likely includes redefining the “best available science” and exempts the vast majority of damaging fossil fuel projects from any meaningful review of the threats and harms to imperiled wildlife and plants.

The legislation curtails the ability of individuals, nonprofits and communities to challenge fossil fuel projects by requiring courts to tip the scales in favor of the fossil fuel industry and making it impossible to bring an environmental justice claim.

“Two Senate Democrats are giving away our most cherished environmental laws based on fantastical models that project a renewable energy utopia. They’re rewarding a ruthless fossil fuel industry that will always put its quarterly profits ahead of a livable planet and future generations,” said Hartl. “Trump promised fossil fuel companies that he’d do everything in his power to assist them in his second term, and Sen. Heinrich and Sen. Whitehouse seem hellbent on helping Trump fulfill that promise. We’ll fight this disgraceful legislation to make sure it doesn’t become law.”

Today, the national advocacy organization Food & Water Watch sued the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), demanding the agency release records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to its abandonment of an Animal Agriculture and Water Quality (AAWQ) Federal Advisory Subcommittee.

EPA formed the Subcommittee in 2024 in response to a Food & Water Watch petition demanding EPA strengthen its rules to adequately regulate factory farm pollution under the Clean Water Act. To justify its petition denial, EPA claimed it lacked adequate information about factory farm pollution and committed to studying the problem via the Subcommittee. It then repeated this excuse before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in defending the legality of its petition denial. The Subcommittee met three times in 2024, but has not met since Trump took office in January 2025. Trump’s EPA has, with no communication or explanation, rendered the Subcommittee “inactive.”

After more than a year of radio silence, on February 18, 2026, Food & Water Watch requested records about the status of the Subcommittee and what led EPA to abandon it. Requested records include any communications between Trump’s EPA and factory farm industry groups related to the sidelining of the Subcommittee. Nearly eight months later, EPA has refused to produce a single record, in violation of FOIA.

Food & Water Watch Legal Director Tarah Heinzen, a member of the abandoned Subcommittee, issued the following statement:

“EPA has never taken factory farm pollution seriously — under Trump, it has stopped even pretending. The fact that we have to litigate over a FOIA non-response is proof that EPA has abandoned its commitments to address this environmental and public health nightmare.

“Let’s be clear: EPA has more than enough information to know that its factory farm pollution rules are a failure and that it must act. The industry’s waste remains almost entirely unregulated, free to poison drinking water and ecosystems from coast to coast. Yet time and time again, EPA has chosen delay over action. This Subcommittee itself was a delay tactic — its abandonment doubles down on inaction. EPA’s continued stonewalling will not stand in court.”

Food & Water Watch is represented by the public interest law firm Eubanks & Associates, PLLC and its own Tarah Heinzen and Emily Miller.

BACKGROUND

Agriculture is the nation’s leading polluter of rivers and lakes, with factory farms, also called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), responsible for a significant share. U.S. factory farms produce 940 billion pounds of manure each year — twice as much as the sewage produced by the entire U.S. population. Much of it ends up in waterways, where it contributes to harmful algal blooms and dead zones, threatening aquatic ecosystems.

Factory farm pollution is driving nationwide public health crises, contaminating drinking supplies with pathogens and harmful chemicals including nitrates, which are linked to cancer, birth defects and more. Roughly 1 in 5 Americans on public water systems are exposed to dangerous nitrate levels.

In September 2023, 13 groups, led by Food & Water Watch, sued Biden’s EPA over the agency’s denial of a 2017 Food & Water Watch petition asking EPA to initiate a rulemaking to overhaul its ineffective factory farm regulations. The case challenged the EPA denial of the petition.

The petition and subsequent litigation sought to expand and strengthen factory farm pollution regulation under the Clean Water Act, regulation that the industry has largely evaded for more than 50 years. Today, EPA itself estimates that nearly 10,000 of the nation’s largest factory farms are illegally discharging pollution to waterways without the necessary Clean Water Act permits. Indeed, fewer than one third of the country’s largest factory farms operate with federal water pollution permits. The permits that do exist fail to effectively control the vast quantities of waste these polluting operations generate.

In October 2024, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled against the plaintiffs, accepting EPA’s assertion that findings from the Animal Agriculture and Water Quality (AAWQ) Federal Advisory Subcommittee were needed before EPA could be compelled to act.

The Senate may imminently announce a permitting reform bill that would gut bedrock environmental laws to enable a massive buildout of fossil fuel infrastructure, data centers, and other projects that harm our climate. This “dirty deal” offers even greater concessions to Big Oil and Big Tech than previous iterations of the bill, while drastically curtailing communities’ ability to voice their concerns about polluting projects planned for their area.

In response, Oil Change International U.S. Campaigns Manager Collin Rees said:

“This backdoor ‘dirty deal’ will worsen the climate crisis and put families at even greater risk of losing their homes and loved ones to extreme weather. The science is clear: There are no new fossil fuel projects compatible with a climate-safe future. Yet this ‘dirty deal’ would make it easier and faster for fossil fuel companies to steamroll community opposition to their polluting, climate-wrecking projects.

“This ‘dirty deal’ threatens to raise electricity prices for working families by accelerating the buildout of energy-guzzling AI data centers and liquefied natural gas export projects. Our recent research shows that the Trump administration’s support for reckless AI development and greater gas exports drives up energy costs for households.

“We all deserve a voice in the decisions that impact our lives. The ‘dirty deal’ shuts communities out of decisionmaking spaces, especially the Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities that are disproportionately harmed by polluting fossil fuel projects. We urge all senators to stand firm against this bill.”

Following the appearance of a second television ad boosting the image of President Donald Trump and paid for by government funds, Public Citizen filed a complaint with the FCC, FTC, individual broadcasters urging media companies to immediately stop airing the ad.

Public Citizen also filed a second complaint with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) alleging that the new ad violates laws prohibiting the use of government resources for propaganda, the Hatch Act, and other related laws. The ads, which are airing in two media markets containing key districts in the upcoming midterm elections, include a disclaimer: “Paid for by the U.S. government.” Public Citizen previously submitted a complaint to GAO and OSC after the first Trump-promoting government-funded ad appeared on air last week.

“That the Trump administration not only failed to acknowledge and investigate last week’s illegal ad, but instead doubled down and released a second piece of taxpayer funded political propaganda during the mass-viewing moment of Sunday football is appalling and alarming,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “These illegal ads should immediately be pulled from the air, and the White House’s many apparent violations of the law should be investigated.”

“This administration’s repeated and flagrant violations of the law, including the Hatch Act, are an affront to taxpayers and our democracy,” said Craig Holman, Ph.D., a government ethics expert with Public Citizen. “The FCC and other oversight agencies are charged with ensuring this type of abuse of taxpayer funds does not happen. But that system only works if they take action.”

The letter to broadcasters notes that they should refrain from airing advertisements that they know are otherwise illegal under the law, and that broadcasters must maintain a public file on any political ads they air. Failing to uphold this duty can result in broadcast license revocation.

The FCC/FTC complaint is available to read here, and the second OSC and GAO complaint can be found here.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a resolution (S.Res.852) that would force the government to issue an official report on Israel's human rights abuses in the West Bank. The resolution—led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-MD, and co-sponsored by 24 senators—would require the State Department to issue a report detailing the killings committed by Israeli forces and settlers in the West Bank, abuses of Palestinian children and other gross human rights violations by Israel. If the resolution is adopted, the government would have 30 days to issue the report. If that fails to happen, certain covered security assistance programs for Israel would be halted until the report is submitted. Demand Progress is leading a campaign in support of the resolution and has also led campaigns that have driven more than 1.5 million contacts to Congress this year opposing military action in the Middle East and military aid to Israel.

The following is a statement from Demand Progress Senior Policy Advisor Cavan Kharrazian:

“We know that Americans have been killed by Israeli forces and settlers and that Palestinian children face detention and abuse in Israeli military custody. U.S. taxpayers deserve answers about what happened and what our government is doing to prevent its military aid from fueling human rights violations and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Demanding transparency and enforcing U.S. laws governing military aid should be the bare minimum for any senator. This resolution is a long-overdue first step. Every senator should support it, then follow through by supporting resolutions to block any new arms sales to Israel.”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced today that it is gutting fuel-economy standards for cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks, an inconceivable decision given the purpose of the federal fuel economy program – to reduce gasoline consumption – and the skyrocketing prices at the pump Americans are already struggling to pay.

The final rule weakens existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, lowering the expected fleetwide average to just 34.9 miles per gallon by 2031 – below what automakers on average have already achieved. In its proposal, NHTSA predicted that its changes would force the average driver to pay $1,400 more in fuel costs over the lifetime of their vehicle.

The following is a comment from Atid Kimelman, an attorney at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council):

“With Americans struggling to afford gasoline that is more than $4 a gallon, the Trump administration is going to force them to pay more at the pump. Oil companies will get a windfall from gutting the fuel economy standards, but the rest of us are going to be handing over more of our hard-earned paychecks to fill up the tank.

“This is a harsh blow to American families struggling to afford rising energy costs. It will raise drivers’ costs while also worsening air pollution across the country following a scorching summer marred by devastating storms and wildfires.

“Congress established fuel economy standards five decades ago after Middle East unrest led to a spike in oil prices. But with the war with Iran driving up oil prices, the Trump administration is doing all it can to keep us dependent on gas guzzlers. In fact, most automakers would not need to make any fuel-economy improvements over the next five years to meet these new standards.

“This rollback is not only bad policy; it also violates the law. Stay tuned.”

Background

Over the past five decades, fuel economy standards have been one of the most significant actions the United States has taken to reduce its reliance on oil and save drivers money at the pump. A bipartisan Congress first established CAFE standards in 1975 in the wake of the OPEC Oil Embargo a few years earlier. As a result of federal clean car and fuel economy standards, vehicles in the United States today use less gas and create less pollution than they used to. Since enacted, fuel economy improvements have saved more than two trillion gallons of gasoline, enough to run every car and light truck in the U.S. for more than 15 years. They have also saved drivers a combined $5 trillion in fuel costs and avoided 14 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, a Princeton University study concluded.

NHTSA’s 2024 fuel economy standards were forecast to raise the average vehicle’s fuel efficiency to 50.4 miles per gallon, saving Americans $23 billion in fuel costs. Those standards are being repealed in this action by the Trump administration today, and a new average goal of just 34.9 miles-per-gallon set.

Instead of following its statutory mandate to set vehicle fuel-economy standards at “maximum feasible levels” to reduce fuel consumption, with these new standards NHTSA set goals below what vehicle fleets on the road today already achieve.

Earlier today, the federal government under President Donald Trump finalized a rollback of fuel economy standards for passenger cars and trucks. By doing so, the administration effectively eliminated the nation’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which have improved vehicle efficiency and saved families about $321 billion at the gas pump since the modern CAFE program was implemented in 2010.

Below is a statement by Dr. Dave Cooke, senior vehicles analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientist’s (UCS) Clean Transportation Program.

“The federal government’s decision to gut fuel economy standards is a handout to automakers and oil companies that will strap American consumers already struggling with an affordability crisis. According to UCS analysis, CAFE standards have saved consumers over $32 billion since the Iran War began and sent gas prices skyrocketing. Weakening these standards means drivers will spend more on fuel while having fewer options to choose efficient vehicles.

“The administration claims this rollback will save consumers money, but even the government’s own analysis shows the opposite: consumers will spend more over the lifetime of their vehicles. Any small reduction in upfront vehicle costs will be outweighed by higher fuel expenses.

“This rollback doesn't just stall progress—it moves the nation backward. For example, the administration’s 2031 standards are weaker than what the new vehicle fleet had already achieved in 2024. This industry giveaway is a raw deal for drivers, who deserve vehicles that cost less to operate and give them more choices—not a policy that forces them to spend more at the pump.”

President Trump’s Department of Transportation today finalized a rule gutting Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards, which conserve billions of gallons of gas and save consumers billions at the pump.

Trump’s action is illegal because the law requires that the fuel economy standards be set at the “maximum feasible” level. The final rule ignores the feasibility of clean technology and the millions of fuel-efficient cars already on the road.

“Trump is tanking sensible mileage standards at the worst possible time for consumers, who’re getting hit with sky-high prices at the pump,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign. “Consumers will pay the price for these reckless rollbacks while Trump’s Big Oil and Big Auto buddies reap the short-term profits. This move spells short- and long-term disaster for people’s health, the planet, and even U.S. automakers who’ll sit on the sidelines while clean cars advance around the world. This standard was the biggest single step any nation has taken to save gas, money at the pump, and auto pollution.”

The fuel economy rule would have saved 64 billion gallons of gas. Even before the current rise in gas prices, it was set to deliver $35 billion in savings to consumers over the lifetimes of the vehicles covered. To do this, it would have required automakers to add gas-saving technology so new cars averaged 50.4 miles per gallon by model year 2031. The Trump rule will result in cars averaging a mere 34.9 mpg in 2031.

The standards also would have slashed pollution that harms Americans’ health and worsens the climate crisis. Transportation makes up the biggest share of climate-heating pollution from the United States, the world’s second biggest carbon polluter.

Gutting the fuel economy standards will allow automakers to make vehicles that guzzle more gas and pollute more, costing consumers at the pump and at the doctor’s office.

“Trump’s creating a perfect storm to crush competitiveness of domestic car companies, drive up consumer costs and kill the climate,” said Becker. “There’s nothing Trump won’t sacrifice on the altar of fealty to Big Oil and auto polluters, whether it’s our health or our wallets. Trump’s rollbacks are speeding us toward a sicker, poorer America. Major carmakers asked Trump to give them this Trojan SUV that could spell their doom since they won’t have to compete against the best auto technology in the world.”

CAFE standards are important because the United States is the world’s biggest oil guzzler, consuming 20 million barrels (840 million gallons) per day — 20% of the world’s oil use. Transportation is the biggest consumer of that oil, making strong auto standards the most effective way to cut pollution and oil use.

By resetting standards back to 2022, the administration will allow automakers to build up credits for meeting or surpassing the standards for the last four years.

“Adding injury to insult, the administration is gutting standards for past as well as future years,” said Becker. “This will hobble a future administration in setting strong standards since carmakers will be able to evade them with the ‘get out of jail free’ credits collected under Trump.”

Today, Groundwork Collaborative unveiled a Shoppers’ Bill of Rights, 12 basic protections aimed at reining in the hidden fees, pricing games, and corporate tactics that make everyday life more expensive.

Authors Lindsay Owens, Nia Law, and Elizabeth Pancotti argue that existing regulations to safeguard the shopper were written for a bygone era of newspaper coupon inserts, mail-order catalogs, and checkbooks. Technology is now a step ahead of shoppers every time they reach for their wallet.

Today, two shoppers can unknowingly be charged a different price for the same item at the same store. Cancelling a subscription can require clicking through dozens of screens. Even if you can look up a tutorial on YouTube to fix something when it breaks, you may be beholden to the manufacturer to get the parts you need for a repair. And with the rise of AI-powered shopping assistants like Sparky, Alexa, and Muse, consumers may be in store for high-tech pickpockets disguised as personal shoppers.

Consumer protections have been rewritten before. Women-led butcher shop boycotts in the early 20th century helped turn outrage over rising prices into an organized movement that helped win a Federal Trade Commission that answered to consumers. In 1962, President Kennedy articulated four basic consumer rights: the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose, and the right to be heard. The generation he spoke for secured honest labels, upfront loan terms, and a product safety watchdog. And after the 2008 financial crisis wiped out trillions in household wealth, more than 200 consumer, labor, civil rights, and faith groups helped win the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Each time, the rules caught up with the marketplace. Now, the marketplace has changed again, and the rules have not.

According to new polling from Blue Rose Research, two-thirds of Americans support the Shopper’s Bill of Rights. Support is even higher for several individual protections it includes: nearly 75% support making it as easy to cancel a subscription as it was to sign up, nearly 7 in 10 support upfront, all-in pricing, and 65% support banning surveillance pricing.

Groundwork Collaborative President and CEO Lindsay Owens said:

“Companies are deploying a dizzying array of tricks and tactics to reinvent the ripoff and squeeze American consumers. Shoppers shouldn’t have to outsmart an algorithm, decode the fine print, or fight their way out of a subscription just to get a fair deal. Policymakers should put simple guardrails in place to protect consumers from the high-tech ways corporations are gouging us – the Shoppers’ Bill of Rights is a good place to start.”

Owens is the author of Gouged: The End of a Fair Price – and What That Means for Your Wallet (Viking Penguin 2026), providing a detailed look at how corporations use modern technology and market power to quietly raise prices across everyday goods and services – and what consumers and policymakers can do to fight back.

The Shoppers’ Bill of Rights

• Right to an All-In Price: Require companies to include all mandatory fees in the advertised price. A hotel room advertised for $149 should not become a $200 room at checkout.
• Right to a Fair Price: Prevent companies from using consumers’ browsing history, location, income, or other personal data to decide the price they pay. Uber has reportedly raised prices for riders with dwindling phone batteries and the Princeton Review has charged more for SAT prep in ZIP codes with large Asian populations.
• Right to a Predictable Price: Prohibit companies from raising the price of products in real time, even when the company’s costs to make or provide the product don’t change. As Walmart and Kroger are installing electronic shelf labels capable of adjusting prices up to six times a minute, companies shouldn’t be able to jack up the price of groceries or other essentials in real time simply because demand spikes.
• Right to Cancellation: Require companies to make cancelling a subscription as easy as signing up. Cancelling an Uber One subscription can take as many as 32 actions across 23 screens.
• Right to Repair: Require manufacturers to make the parts, tools, software, and repair manuals available so people can fix what they own. If iPhone owners use third-party repair shops when they crack their phone screens, they may find themselves unable to adjust the brightness settings.
• Right to Your Own Agent: Require AI assistants to act in the customer’s best interest, not the interests of the company behind them. A recent study found that LLMs steer users toward sponsored products over cheaper alternatives.
• Right to Resale: Consumers should be able to sell, transfer, or give away what they buy without platforms or professional scalpers rigging the resale market. For items that do not appreciate, like tickets, resale prices should be capped at the original face value. Tickets with a face value around $250 for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour resold for an average of upward of $3,800.
• Right to a Level Playing Field: Enforce and modernize the Robinson-Patman Act so suppliers charge small, independent stores the same price they charge big-box chains. A small grocer often pays more than Walmart for the same bag of chips before it ever reaches the shelf, leaving Main Street shops without a fair shot and customers who shop locally paying more.
• Right to Comparison Shop: Require stores to post the price per ounce, pound, or other standard size unit on shelf tags so the better value is clear. “Family Size” and “Party Size” Doritos bags have differed by just one ounce, making it harder to tell which is actually the better deal.
• Right to a Refund: Ban restocking and arbitrary return fees and require refunds in the original form of payment when a purchase is cancelled, never delivered, or does not work as advertised. Returning an online purchase by mail to Marshalls or TJ Maxx can cost $11.99, while Best Buy charges a 15% restocking fee on some electronics. Consumers shouldn’t have to pay another round of fees just to get their money back.
• Right to Proper Billing: Require accurate bills to arrive within a set period after a service is provided. Companies shouldn’t be able to turn their own billing mistakes into a surprise expense months later. After Duke Energy rolled out new billing software, it made more than 100,000 billing errors in a year. Thousands of customers went months without bills, and 15,000 were later hit with delayed charges.
• Right to a Competitive Price: Refresh the antitrust rulebook for the algorithmic age by closing loopholes that allow common pricing software to price-fix. Landlords’ common pricing software, RealPage, allegedly spiked rents by as much as $180 per month, while gas stations used Kalibrate which allegedly hiked gas prices by as much 30 cents per gallon.

A television ad boosting the image of President Donald Trump, which was paid for by government funds, violates laws prohibiting the use of government resources for propaganda, the Hatch Act, and other related laws, according to a complaint filed today by Public Citizen.

The complaint, sent to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, takes issue with ads airing in two media markets that include a disclaimer: “Paid for by the U.S. government.” Both markets airing the ad contain key districts in the upcoming midterm elections.

“For anyone with a modicum of ethics, common sense or respect for the law, it’s the most basic thing: Taxpayer funds cannot pay for partisan political propaganda,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “These ads should immediately be pulled from the air, and the White House’s many apparent violations of the law should be investigated.”

“This administration’s repeated and flagrant violations of the law, including the Hatch Act, are an affront to taxpayers and our democracy,” said Craig Holman, Ph.D., a government ethics expert with Public Citizen. “Public Citizen has filed a dozen Hatch Act complaints with OSC over the past year and, to our knowledge, all have been ignored by the agency. That negligence is dangerous, and creates conditions that allow for the situation we are responding to today.”

The full complaint is available to read here.