The Trump-Vance administration has abandoned its appeal in National Council of Nonprofits et al. v. McMahon, a case brought by a broad coalition of nonprofit organizations, more than a dozen local governments, and labor unions against the U.S. Department of Education. The case stopped a new rule that would have allowed the Secretary of Education to disqualify government and nonprofit employers that disagree with the administration’s policies from a program intended to support borrowers working in public service jobs.

Earlier this year, a federal court ordered the Trump-Vance administration to stop its unlawful rewriting of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program as a way of silencing nonprofit organizations and local governments that do work that runs counter to the administration’s political agenda. The government had filed an appeal of the ruling, but on Wednesday submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal, which will formally end the matter and ensure the new rule will never take effect.

Plaintiffs in the case include the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), City of Albuquerque, City of Boston, City of Chicago, City and County of San Francisco, County of Santa Clara, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Legal Aid DC, National Association of Social Workers, National Council of Nonprofits, Oasis Legal Services, American Federation of Teachers, and National Education Association. The coalition is represented by Democracy Forward and Protect Borrowers in this matter; the County of Santa Clara and City and County of San Francisco represent themselves.

“The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program was created so public service workers can pursue careers serving their communities without being burdened with debilitating debt,” said AFSCME President Patrick Moran. “Countless essential workers rely on this program, and weaponizing it for political purposes would hurt not just these workers but the communities they serve. We’re glad the administration is now following the law and abandoning this illegal scheme.”

Quotes from additional plaintiffs included in the coalition about the court’s ruling are available here.

The legal team on this case includes Sarah Goetz, Victoria Nugent, Simon Brewer, Jennifer Fountain Connolly, and Robin Thurston from Democracy Forward, Persis Yu and Winston Berkman-Breen from Protect Borrowers, and attorneys from the County of Santa Clara Office of the County Counsel and San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.

Read the opinion that decided the case here and learn more about the case here.

UltraViolet, a leading national women-led gender-justice organization responsible for numerous impactful victories against sexual predators and tech-facilitated sexual violence, issued the following statement in response to Apple updating its developer guidelines to ban AI “nudify” apps on its App Store, calling on Google to make the same changes in its Play Store immediately.

“This victory belongs to the courageous survivors of dangerous ‘nudify’ apps—especially children—and the advocates who demanded accountability. Apple’s new CEO, John Ternus, now has an opportunity to usher in a new era of leadership that puts the safety of women and children first,” said Jenna Sherman, Campaign Director at UltraViolet. “Apple's decision is an important step forward, and Google must follow suit immediately. But one policy change is not enough. Big Tech must do more to stop enabling and profiting from the creation and spread of AI-facilitated sexual abuse.”

Apple quietly made the change over the weekend amid public outcry and UltraViolet’s years-long Reclaim the Domain pressure campaign demanding that the company, alongside Google, stop the proliferation of non-consensual sexual content on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, respectively.

In January, Elon Musk’s xAI chatbot Grok fueled a wave of nonconsensual sexual deepfake abuse on X, generating an estimated 3 million sexualized images in just 11 days, including approximately 23,000 depicting children, according to research. In response, UltraViolet delivered a sign-on letter to Apple and Google endorsed by 28 organizations calling on the companies to remove Grok, X, and all “nudify” apps from their respective marketplaces.

After the companies failed to act, UltraViolet escalated its campaign in May, bringing together more than 50 civil society organizations to send an open letter calling on state Attorneys General (AGs) to take direct legal action against Apple and Google for hosting “nudify” apps in their app stores. In June, UltraViolet and child safety organization Heat Initiative took the campaign directly to Apple's doorstep, co-hosting a demonstration at Apple Park during Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC), calling on new CEO John Ternus to change course from the past inaction on “nudify” apps which defined Tim Cook’s tenure.

“Just as we pressured Apple into making these changes, we’ll continue fighting until Google does the same and our other demands are met,” continued Sherman. “The two companies still refuse to 1) remove Grok and X from their app stores, since Grok is a major source of mass-produced sexual deepfakes targeting women and children, 2) add a sexual violence hotline at the top of searches for ‘deepfake porn,’ while abusive sexualized deepfakes can still be found all over Google search and tutorials on how to make deepfakes with tools available on the Google Play Store and Apple Store remain monetized, and 3) remove all known child sexual abuse material (CSAM) from iCloud.”

According to a 2023 report, an estimated 98 percent of deepfake videos found online were sexually explicit, and 99 percent of those targeted in sexual deepfakes were women. UltraViolet believes the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure, including hyperscale data centers, is helping fuel this epidemic of digital abuse. That growing threat has mobilized tens of thousands of people to join UltraViolet’s Reclaim the Domain campaign. UltraViolet’s petition calling on Apple and Google to remove “nudify” apps from their app stores garnered more than 55,000 signatures.

“This win is proof that the tides are turning against these Big Tech companies, and against the ‘forced inevitability’ of AI that hurts all American people, particularly women and children. Today we celebrate this win, absolutely, but we see it as the start of a domino chain, built on the bravery of survivors, to bring down the entirety of this abusive ecosystem of sexual deepfake abuse. We are living in the greatest mass sexual abuse crisis of our time, and companies like Apple and Google have been getting rich off of it. Tech companies must for once change their tune and put people over profit—especially Google, which has no excuse to implement the same app store ban as Apple. The physical and mental well-being of every woman and child depends on it,” concluded Sherman.

Apple’s new restrictions mark the latest in a series of tech accountability victories that UltraViolet has helped secure. Recent UltraViolet wins include pressuring Google to block searches for “nudify” apps, downrank websites dedicated to platforming deepfake abuse, and to stop accepting advertising money from these apps; pushing crucial federal legislation like the DEFIANCE Act forward; and helping spur legal action from state lawmakers and AGs against Apple and Google for enabling AI-generated CSAM.

Today, Unrig the Economy and Americans for Tax Fairness released a new analysis (in English and Spanish) showing that cuts to SNAP enacted under Trump and Congressional Republicans’ tax law have disproportionately affected Latinos. Since the law passed, more than 1.5 million Latinos nationwide are estimated to have lost food assistance that helped keep food on the table. Across just seven states, roughly half of all Latinos who have lost SNAP benefits nationwide have lost access to the program since July 2025.

“The Republican Tax Law took food assistance away from more than 1.5 million Latinos to pay for tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations,” said Leor Tal, Campaign Director for Unrig Our Economy. “Families are already struggling with the high cost of groceries and gas thanks to the war in Iran and tariffs. SNAP cuts make it even harder for Latino families – who are disproportionately impacted – to put food on the table.”

“The results are in: Trump and his GOP allies in Congress cut critical nutrition assistance that helps millions of Latinos and working people across the country meet their basic needs—all to deliver historic tax giveaways to billionaires and business elites,” said Jodie Rubenstein, Executive Director of Americans for Tax Fairness. “As is so often the case, working families and communities of color bear the brunt of Trump’s economic policies. We cannot allow billionaire wealth to grow unchecked while communities go hungry.”

Read Unrig Our Economy and Americans for Tax Fairness’ new report on Latino food assistance loss in English and Spanish.

Today, the No Kings Coalition sent an open letter to Meta Platforms, Inc. Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg demanding immediate transparency and public answers regarding the sudden suspension of its official Instagram account during the nationwide No Kings: Vote Early day of action on Saturday, October 17.

On Saturday, as millions of Americans assembled across nearly 3,000 events in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., Meta unexpectedly suspended the coalition’s Instagram account at 1:30 p.m. ET, when public engagement and livestreaming were peaking. The page was completely hidden, and administrators were locked out without justification.

While Meta later admitted in an email that it had wrongly taken the account offline and restored public visibility just after 3 p.m. ET, account administrators remained locked out of the account’s backend for over four hours, preventing real-time communications from reaching millions of Americans. Public comments from representatives of Meta citing a "technical glitch" do not sufficiently explain these actions or the significant delay in restoring access. In the open letter, the coalition demands a public response to 9 detailed questions no later than 5:00 p.m. PT on Wednesday, October 21, 2026.

The questions demand transparency regarding specific policy violations, enforcement logs, potential communications between Meta and the Trump administration, internal content moderation directives, hashtag throttling, automated AI moderation protocols, emergency redress human review guarantees, and high-profile account "whitelist" practices.

"This raises serious questions among the public about why these actions were taken and the implications during the election season. Critical voter information or civic participation should not be blocked, throttled, or otherwise interfered with if Meta aspires to be a trusted actor in our democracy," the coalition writes in the letter. "The public deserves answers."

The full text of the open letter sent to Meta leadership is included below and is available online at nokings.org/metacensorship. Additionally, the No Kings Coalition is having a mass virtual call on Wednesday, October 21 at 8 p.m. ET to share updates and discuss what’s next as the coalition transitions into nonpartisan election defense.

To speak with a representative of the No Kings Coalition, email media@nokings.org.

FULL TEXT OF OPEN LETTER TO META PLATFORMS, INC.

October 19, 2026

Mark Zuckerberg
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Attn: Diana Powell McCormick, Joel Kaplan, Adam Mosseri
1 Meta Way

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Dear Mark Zuckerberg:

The No Kings Coalition writes in alarm at actions taken by Meta that resulted in removal and revocation of account administrator access to the coalition’s Instagram account during the largest single-day early vote activation in American history.

On Saturday, October 17, millions of Americans came together for No Kings: Vote Early. At the height of our national day of action around 1:30pm ET, Meta unexpectedly suspended the No Kings Coalition’s Instagram account. The page was completely hidden, and administrators were locked out for hours without any justification. Meta did not respond to our team for approximately 90 minutes.

At 3:03pm ET, only after intense public backlash, Meta restored the account to viewable status. At this time, Meta admitted in a response email that they had wrongly taken the account offline. However, administrators were still unable to access the account for more than four hours until 5:41pm ET.

Public comments from representatives of Meta do not sufficiently explain these actions or the significant delay in remedying the so-called “technical glitch.” This raises serious questions among the public about why these actions were taken and the implications during the election season. Critical voter information or civic participation should not be blocked, throttled, or otherwise interfered with if Meta aspires to be a trusted actor in our democracy.

The public deserves answers. As such, the No Kings Coalition demands public response to the following questions. Americans are voting, and the election is fast approaching. Time is of the essence. Responses to these questions should be shared publicly no later than 5:00pm Pacific Time on Wednesday, October 21st.

1. What specific actions from the No Kings Coalition account were alleged to have violated Meta’s policies, and which policies were implicated? Will Meta release the enforcement logs related to this incident?
2. What, if any, communication has Meta or its representatives had with the Trump administration about No Kings and other pro-democracy protests? Who were you in contact with, and what topics were discussed?
   1. Did Meta have any communications with the Trump administration related to the October 17th No Kings day of action, either before, during, or after the 17th?
   2. Did any government, political party, outside organization, or advertiser contact Meta about the account or the No Kings events in the 30 days prior to removal? If so, who and what was requested?
   3. Did Meta have any communications with the Trump administration about prior actions from No Kings or other pro-democracy protests?
3. Has Meta had any communications with the Trump administration about voter education and mobilization or anything else related to the 2026 midterm elections?
4. Does Meta have any internal directives or policies for teams managing account access or content moderation related to demonstrations of free speech, pro-democracy protests, or content critical of President Trump or the federal government?
5. Why did #NoKings stop populating content on Instagram’s desktop site for a portion of the afternoon on October 17 while the official No Kings account was down? Was No Kings content, including content from other accounts, subject to any restriction, suppression, reduced distribution, or other limitation on its visibility or reach during any part of October 17?
6. A Meta representative cited “automated systems” as part of the explanation for how this happened. To what extent are AI agents involved in building, monitoring, or administering these automated systems?
7. Will Meta guarantee human review of all automated midterm-related content moderation actions within one hour of initial action between now and when the winners of the election are seated? What emergency redress options will you put in place to ensure voter access efforts that experience similar account disruptions can reach a human being to review their account status?
8. Meta has published information on Meta’s use of various whitelist protocols that prevent automated systems from banning or removing content from certain high profile accounts. How do those systems treat President Trump and his allies? How do those systems treat No Kings or other civil society efforts to encourage voter participation?
9. Will Meta guarantee that its policies and algorithms will not put a thumb on the scale for or against any candidates or parties during the 2026 midterm elections?

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. We look forward to your timely public response.

Sincerely,

The No Kings Coalition

No Kings events are nonpartisan and are designed to increase participation from all eligible voters. A core principle behind all No Kings events is a commitment to nonviolent action and no civil disobedience. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events. Weapons of any kind, including those legally permitted, should not be brought to events.

New FEC filings show the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, has become the dominant funder of the Senate Leadership Fund, the leading Republican Senate super PAC. Musk was responsible for 58% of the fund’s third-quarter fundraising, and his latest contributions bring his total giving to the Republican group to $168 million. His contributions to a single party super PAC appear poised to exceed the previous record by approximately $100 million.

In response, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said:

“Elon Musk is pouring unprecedented sums of money into Republican super PACs, giving him extraordinary financial leverage over the party’s political future, in an attempt to sway the midterm results with his net worth. The current state of our campaign finance system allows one billionaire to supply the overwhelming share of a major party’s political funding. This is undemocratic and flat-out wrong. America should be a nation where the voices of regular people are heard just as loudly as the ultrawealthy. And where the billionaire class is prevented from consolidating political power.”

Musk also has his own pet super PAC, which he has given $126 million according to recent analysis by Public Citizen. In 2026, Musk has contributed a total of $366 million to super PACs and other political groups in an effort to help Republicans win in November.

A Fox News poll has revealed that corruption is a leading issue for voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, with a whopping 88 percent saying they are concerned about corruption, including 60 percent who say they are “extremely concerned” about it.

In response, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert issued the following statement:

“The public is furious about the corruption they see from the government. Even Fox News polling says as much. If we see a shift in power in the next Congress, the American people will expect the new holders of the gavels to deliver oversight and accountability in a strategic and disciplined way that zeroes in on the real harms that the current regime, in cahoots with corporate power, have carried out at the expense of everyday Americans.”

Today’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) report shows prices rose 0.6% in September and are up 3.7% over the past year, the fastest pace since May. Gasoline prices jumped 9.1% in September alone, accounting for over half of the monthly increase in overall prices, and are up 34% from a year ago. Core CPI, excluding food and energy, rose 0.33% in September, the largest monthly increase since April.

Americans are increasingly frustrated with Trump's failure to bring down high prices. Consumers' views of current economic conditions are at an all-time low, and 82% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the cost of living. Instead of working to rein in inflation, Trump is trying to pull a fast one on voters, spewing empty promises to bring prices down and send Americans a $5,000 “Trump dividend” if Republicans hold Congress, despite having never delivered on the DOGE and tariff checks he promised last year.

Today's inflation report is the last before the Federal Reserve's October 28 interest rate decision. The Fed raised interest rates last month for the first time in three years because of inflation concerns, and most officials anticipate another increase by the end of the year. In its latest meeting minutes, the Fed pointed to Trump's tariffs and higher energy costs, as well as the president’s never-ending war with Iran, as drivers of persistent inflation. Trump’s war and tariffs are raising the prices of nearly everything families buy, and now his actions are raising borrowing costs for families, too.

Groundwork’s Senior Vice President of Policy, Advocacy, and Research Alex Jacquez, released the following statement:

“It’s no wonder Americans have lost faith in Trump’s economy. The president has repeatedly made promises he can’t keep, and despite the band-aid attempts from the White House, there is a gaping hole in our economy just weeks from the midterms. Between the president’s war in Iran and reckless tariffs, his economy is on life support.”

The following statement was issued by Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, regarding the announcement that there will be a 3.6% cost-of-living (COLA) benefit increase for millions of Social Security beneficiaries next year:

“Millions of Americans who rely on Social Security welcome any increase in their monthly benefits, but even this larger-than-normal cost-of-living increase is just not enough to keep up with the cost of food, gas, utilities, and prescription drugs.

“The average retired worker will see about $74 more per month next year but a good chunk of that will be wiped out by the higher Medicare Part B premium, which is projected to rise to $209.50 a month in January.

“Strengthening and expanding Social Security must be a national priority. If billionaires and the wealthiest 1 percent pay their fair share, we can boost benefits for everyone, implement a COLA that reflects the cost of things older Americans spend money on, and guarantee the program’s solvency for future generations. It’s time for clear and decisive action.

“In just three weeks, older Americans will have an opportunity to elect members of Congress who will make strengthening Social Security a priority. The future of our earned benefits is on the ballot.”

The following is a statement from Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, on Social Security’s 2027 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which will be 3.6 percent:

“Every year, Social Security’s benefits are automatically adjusted to account for inflation. This is an essential feature of the system, which prevents benefits from eroding over time.

Next year’s COLA can’t come soon enough for many Social Security beneficiaries. The Trump administration's war of choice with Iran and tariff chaos have driven gasoline prices up nearly 40 percent, and caused grocery costs to skyrocket.

The COLA adjustment will help. But it doesn’t fully account for the costs that Social Security beneficiaries face. That’s because the measure used to calculate it, the CPI-W, is designed to reflect the costs of working people — not retirees, who spend a higher percentage of their income on healthcare, housing, and other bare necessities.

Democrats in both the House and Senate have plans to improve the COLA, by switching to a more accurate measure, the CPI-E. Meanwhile, Republicans complain that the current COLA measure is too generous.

Many Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, have endorsed plans to use a stingier measure, the chained CPI. That’s a cut to the American people’s hard-earned benefits.

Over time, switching to the chained CPI, as the Republicans have proposed, would shrink yearly benefits by hundreds and even thousands of dollars. Switching to the CPI-E, as the Democrats propose, would increase benefits. This would particularly impact women and Hispanics, who have longer average life expectancies.

In 2032, within the six-year terms of U.S. Senators elected this November, Social Security is projected to face a funding shortfall. The vast majority of Republicans refuse to support a single penny in revenue increases, even from the ultra-wealthy, to address the shortfall. That leaves benefit cuts, including less generous COLAs, as their only option.

The bottom line: Social Security’s future is on the ballot this November, and that includes the size of annual COLA adjustments.”

As part of the Trump administration’s ongoing push to illegally expand oil and gas drilling into long-protected Arctic public lands in Alaska, the Department of the Interior today announced a categorical exclusion that aims to exempt oil and gas exploration projects from individual review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Under the categorical exclusion, Interior is relying on old environmental studies from different projects in ecologically distinct areas to claim that new proposed activities would have “no significant impact on the environment.”

Categorical exclusions are typically used by federal agencies only for small projects like routine road or trail maintenance, restoration work, or minor facility upgrades – when no harm is expected to the environment. An exemption for large-scale industrial activities like exploratory drilling and seismic testing across a landscape as vast, varied, and changing as the Western Arctic is a radical departure for how categorical exclusions are typically used.

The 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in the Western Arctic is the largest tract of public land in the U.S. Its diverse habitats range from tundra and wetlands to mountain foothills, grassy uplands, riparian areas, and river deltas. Using older studies that analyzed impacts of oil exploration in a specific area of the Western Arctic to forecast impacts for future projects in ecologically different locations is extremely problematic and unsupported. It would also completely cut out the public from future permitting decisions.

“In issuing this categorical exclusion, this administration is seeking to fast track large scale oil drilling and seismic exploration without any further environmental analysis or public input,” said Earthjustice Attorney Janet Bering. “It is cutting the public out of this decision and future decisions. The administration finalized this new approach with zero public input. Combined with a similar proposal that rubber stamps new oil production, this is a one-two punch. It’s bad policy, and it is unlawful.”

Exploration projects, which include seismic surveys, exploratory drilling, and related infrastructure, are known to harm wildlife, including caribou and polar bears. Seismic surveys are conducted with thumper trucks weighing tens of thousands of pounds that repeatedly strike the ground with a large plate to send seismic waves into the earth to detect oil deposits. Transporting industrial equipment and camps for seismic workers across sensitive landscapes also comes with significant risk to the environment.

Last winter, a massive drilling rig nicknamed “the beast” toppled over, caught fire and spilled diesel while it was being transported on an ice road to a new exploration site.

Today’s action follows a similar proposed rule announced by the Trump administration last month to rubber stamp new drilling production projects in the Western Arctic. The public may comment on that proposed rule, but if itis finalized, the public would be cut out of the process. The production rule aims to require Interior to approve new projects as massive as Willow within a 60-day limit of the oil company submitting its application, without any additional environmental study or public process.

Background

The 23-million-acre Reserve in the Western Arctic is one of the most biologically, ecologically, and culturally significant tracts of public land in the United States. The region is home to iconic and imperiled wildlife species like polar bears and seals that depend on sea ice. It provides globally significant habitat for millions of migratory birds and for Alaska’s unique caribou herds.

The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 recognized the importance of the Western Arctic for wildlife and migratory birds including animals protected under the Endangered Species Act, and for the cultural practices and food security of Indigenous communities. The act requires the BLM to assure adequate mitigation of harm from oil and gas activities, and “maximum protection” of the fragile tundra, birds, wildlife and other unique resources within the Reserve when it allows exploration or drilling in special areas. When Congress authorized leasing and oil extraction in 1980, it again directed the federal government to assure the protection of the Western Arctic’s ecological and cultural resources.

Today, the Trump administration invited fresh controversy when it announced it will abandon environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to allow oil and gas companies to run roughshod over pristine Arctic ecosystems to search for expensive, far flung oil.

The Bureau of Land Management granted the polluters a new categorical exclusion that will allow activities including seismic surveys, construction of ice roads and airstrips, and exploratory drilling to move forward without the environmental analysis typically required under NEPA. The decision comes as the Trump administration continues its push to expand oil and gas development across Alaska's public lands, threatening sensitive Arctic wildlife and the communities that depend on them.

In response, Mike Scott, National Oil and Gas Campaign Manager, released the following statement:

“The Trump administration is handing Big Oil another free pass to exploit America's public lands, this time by gutting environmental oversight in one of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet. Oil companies have already shown the risks they pose to the Western Arctic, and now this administration wants to make it even easier for them to drill without scrutiny.”

“This isn't about lowering energy costs or helping Alaskans. It's about doing the fossil fuel industry's bidding at the expense of wildlife, Alaska Native communities, and our public lands. The Trump administration is putting corporate profits ahead of people and the planet, and the Western Arctic will pay the price."

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.”