The Trump administration is demanding that Venezuela hand over control of more than a dozen of the country’s vast oil fields, according to reports from Axios. If the deal moves forward, the U.S. federal government would take ownership of the fields and would hand operational control to private oil companies. In response, Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, issued the following statement:

“President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are demanding Venezuela turn over ownership of more than a dozen Venezuelan oil production fields to the United States federal government. If this comes to pass, Trump will likely transfer operational control to U.S. oil companies, opening the door to Trump’s typical bilateral transactional corruption, bestowing lucrative opportunities for the oil companies he chooses to reward.

“In the nearly eight months since Trump’s illegal January 2026 Venezuelan invasion, the Trump administration has managed a $13 billion slush fund gleaned from its control over Venezuelan oil sales, with zero transparency, and little to no public oversight or accounting. The President has no authority to negotiate a deal where the federal government takes control over foreign oil production facilities, and Congress must intervene and put an end to Trump’s oil fueled imperialism.

“Trump hasn’t been shy about expressing his admiration of Gulf Monarchs’ oil slush funds, and his effort to establish a South American kleptocracy is an outrage. There’s been no improvement in human rights in Venezuela, so Trump’s move is further evidence that his illegal actions in Venezuela are all about controlling oil with no public accounting, transparency or oversight. This is yet another Trump gift for Big Oil.”

A glacial collapse that resulted in a flash flood in the Nepal-Tibet border shows that climate delay is proving to be deadlier and more destructive than world leaders admit, climate groups said.

Disasters like this are becoming more frequent and more deadly as the Himalayas warm and glaciers destabilize, 350.org said, extending sympathies and calling for immediate international support for affected people and communities.

Aakriti Dotel, National Network Coordinator, Nepalese Youth for Climate Action (NYCA) said:

“The devastating floods in Rasuwa are another painful reminder of the growing climate crisis facing Nepal and the Himalayas. As our glaciers melt and extreme weather events become increasingly unpredictable, communities living downstream are bearing the devastating consequences. We mourn the lives lost and the livelihoods affected and call for urgent global climate action. There must be stronger support for vulnerable mountain communities, and accountability from those most responsible for the climate crisis.”

350.org pointed out that the tragedy exposes the failure of big polluting countries to provide the much needed finance that will enable vulnerable countries like Nepal to adapt to a changing climate, such as technology for early warning systems and other Disaster Risk Reduction measures.

Savio Carvalho, 350.org Head of Campaigns and Networks said:

“Every destabilized glacier in a warming Himalaya is a ticking time bomb that can go off unannounced, and when it does, those least responsible for the climate crisis pay with their lives. This moment of grief has a clear message for world leaders: delay is deadly. Rich countries must finally deliver the finance and protection they owe frontline communities. Without a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, the planet will continue to heat up and lives can be lost in a flash.”

To interview Nepalese climate activists, including those impacted by the flood, kindly reach out.

Voting rights organizations today supplemented the complaint in their lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting to add claims against the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) newly-finalized mail ballot rule. The groups simultaneously asked a federal court to immediately block USPS from implementing that rule for the November midterm elections.

The plaintiffs in this case, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, are the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

“USPS’s decision to rush this blatantly unconstitutional rule into effect just weeks before an election is the latest step in a rollout that has sown confusion at every turn and now threatens to disenfranchise voters who did everything right. This is chaos by design, and voters are the ones who will pay for it,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. “No administration should be able to manufacture confusion around how we vote and undermine confidence in our elections in the process. Rather than serving voters, this rule threatens access to the ballot and treats voters as collateral damage. We will continue to use every legal tool available to block this illegal power grab and ensure voters can cast mail ballots with the confidence that their votes will be counted.”

On Aug. 11, 2026, the court issued an order in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, blocking USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order for the upcoming Nov. 3 midterm elections.

The Supreme Court later stayed a different court order issued in the separate Trump v. California case blocking implementation of the executive order. Of note, the Supreme Court did not decide whether President Trump has the legal authority to impose these restrictions or whether the USPS rule is lawful; it simply held that it was premature for the California plaintiffs to bring that case.

Earlier this afternoon, the court vacated the Aug. 11 injunction issued in League of Women Voters Massachusetts on the same narrow basis. Acknowledging that “Plaintiff Organizations have substantial arguments that might persuade the Supreme Court to reach a different result if Plaintiff Organizations have an opportunity to present them,” the court found “that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. California, Plaintiff Organizations are not likely to prevail as to ripeness without amending their complaint to reflect the fact that a Final Rule has now issued.” Plaintiffs have now supplemented their complaint to do exactly that, adding challenges to the newly finalized mail ballot rule and seeking emergency relief on those claims immediately.

In their papers, the plaintiff organizations argue that USPS’s newly-finalized mail ballot rule violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, which put the states and Congress in charge of election administration rules, not USPS or the president, as well as a number of the laws that govern how USPS operates.

All of these violations are causing irreparable harm to plaintiff organizations, their members, and the voters they serve. The harm is particularly acute as there are now less than 70 days before the November midterm elections, which is why the plaintiff organizations are asking for emergency relief.

After filing, counsel and plaintiffs released the following statement:

“The court has already found that the executive order unconstitutionally usurps the authority of the states and Congress to regulate elections, and the newly-finalized rule eliminates any doubt about the harms stemming from these unlawful acts. Implementing the newly-finalized rule less than 70 days before the general election would dramatically impair plaintiffs’ core voter engagement work and pose a grave risk of disenfranchisement. We are asking the court for emergency relief to prevent this harm and to affirm the public’s confidence in the systems voters rely on to conduct our elections.”

The filings are here:

https://www.aclu.org/cases/league-of-women-voters-of-massachusetts-v-trump?document=Supplemental-Complaint#legal-documents

https://www.aclu.org/cases/league-of-women-voters-of-massachusetts-v-trump?document=Memorandum-in-Support-of-Plaintiffs-Emergency-Motion-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order-and-Preliminary-Injunction

Fairplay Executive Director Josh Golin released the following statement today:

“This is a watershed moment for the growing movement to protect children from addictive and dangerously designed social media. In addition to a significant financial penalty, the state attorneys general have secured the most significant injunctive relief yet from Meta, including a number of measures to protect young people’s sleep, such as disabling Instagram overnight for minors’ accounts. The settlement also requires disabling addictive and harmful features like displays of like counts and plastic surgery filters and new guardrails to protect children from predatory adults. We also greatly appreciate that Meta will be required to identify both under-13 and under-18 users without infringing on the privacy of adults. We thank the state attorneys general for their historic leadership in fighting for our children’s safety and well-being online.

“This settlement also underscores the need for KOSA, the Kids Online Safety Act. As internal documents have shown over and over, Meta and other social media companies deliberately design their products to addict kids, and that is the root cause of so many mental health difficulties and serious online harms for minors. While it’s gratifying to see state attorneys general take action to hold companies like Meta accountable, we also need our federal government to step in to force these companies to make their products safe for kids by design so that every child on every platform will be protected, both now and in the future. KOSA has robust, bipartisan support from over three-quarters of the US Senate. We call on Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Charles Schumer to bring the bill to the floor for a vote next month.”

Climate change has reduced snowpack by 36 percent and streamflow by 13 percent across the western United States, and more than half of those impacts have been triggered by emissions from fossil fuel companies and cement manufacturers, according to a new report released today by University of California, Merced and Union of Concerned Scientists. Additionally, the report ties one-tenth of the observed groundwater loss in California’s Central Valley directly to emissions from these companies. In response, Aaron Regunberg, director of Public Citizen’s Climate Accountability Project, issued the following statement:

“Millions of Americans are experiencing historic water scarcity. We now know that a small number of fossil fuel companies are responsible for a significant portion of this disaster. And they knew full well what they were doing. Already in 1988, companies like Shell were issuing internal reports predicting that climate change—caused by the burning of their fossil fuel products—would create ‘significant changes’ in ‘precipitation patterns’ that ‘would impact on the human environment, future living standards and food supplies’ and could have ‘major social, economic, and political consequences.’ Yet fossil fuel companies lied to the public about this reality for decades, and continue to block the climate action we need to address this crisis. These companies need to face accountability.”

Teachers earned 25.2 percent less than comparable college graduates in other professions in 2025, according to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

The relative teacher pay penalty — which is adjusted for education, experience, and demographic characteristics — was a slight improvement from 2024’s record high of 26.9 percent, but still more than four times the 6.1 percent penalty recorded in 1996.

In other words, teachers earned on average 74.8 cents on the dollar in 2025 compared with other college graduates — much less than the relative 93.9 cents on the dollar that teachers earned in 1996. When broken down by gender, the relative teacher pay penalty was 34.5 percent for men and 20.0 percent for women.

Overall, simple inflation-adjusted weekly wages for public school teachers fell 6.2 percent over the last three decades, while wages for other college graduates rose 28.8 percent over the same period.

Teachers were paid less than other college graduates in every state, with relative teacher pay gaps ranging from 10.4 percent in Rhode Island to 40.7 percent in Colorado. The teacher pay penalty was at least 25 percent in 25 states.

While teachers typically receive better benefits packages than other professionals, this only partially offsets the growing wage penalty that teachers face. After accounting for the difference in benefits, teachers’ total compensation penalty was 14.5 percent in 2025.

As the report explains, providing teachers with competitive pay is necessary to retain and attract qualified workers. While there are many important factors impacting teacher retention and recruitment, pay consistently lands near the top of any list.

Reversing these trends will require targeted, sustained investment in public education at the local, state, and federal levels. It will also require stronger support for public-sector collective bargaining, which has long been a driver of better pay and job quality for teachers.

“The decades-long teacher pay penalty has taken a heavy toll on public education. Yet, policymakers have failed to make the needed investments to reverse course. That failure is especially troubling in a country as wealthy as the United States, with more than enough resources for its public schools to be the envy of the world,” said report author Sylvia Allegretto, who is a senior economist at CEPR and research associate at EPI

.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently launched a process to significantly revise its Travel Management Rule, which guides where motorized vehicles are and are not allowed on almost 200 million acres of national forests and grasslands.

The USDA is proposing to flip the U.S. Forest Service’s longstanding approach to travel management on its head, forcing local forests to allow motorized vehicles everywhere except for places that are specifically closed. The current rule requires motorized vehicles to stay on a designated system of roads, trails and areas in national forests and grasslands and is an essential policy for wildlife conservation, balanced recreation, and public safety.

This comes directly on the heels of the USDA’s proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which would make 45 million acres of remote backcountry forests available for clearcut logging, road-building and other development, unleashing back-to-back blows to our national forests. Combined, these actions are part of the administration’s systematic dismantling of the rules and safeguards that keep national forests safe, accessible, and managed for everyone.

“This is yet another egregious attack in the systematic dismantling of public lands management of our national forests,” said Dan Hartinger, senior director for agency policy at The Wilderness Society. “Travel management provides the basic guardrails that let hikers, hunters, anglers, and riders share the same forest without chaos; removing those guardrails threatens the freedom of all public lands users to safely enjoy our national forests the way they choose. Paired with the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule, this destructive agenda sells out future generations’ enjoyment of our forests in order to hand them over for corporate profits.”

“The Travel Management Rule creates a framework that balances uses on national forest lands. It draws on local decision-making processes to support all user groups in enjoying public lands while also protecting these places for future generations,” said Anneka Williams, policy director at Winter Wildlands Alliance. “Removing this framework for shared use threatens diverse user experiences on public lands. Coming on the heels of the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule, it is clear that this announcement is part of the administration’s broader agenda to dismantle our public lands as we know and love them.”

“The Travel Management Rule is why dirtbikers and snowmobilers can share national forests with hikers and backcountry skiers without conflict. It’s built on local decision-making that ensures no user group gets steamrolled and all our national forest values are protected,” said Hilary Eisen, federal policy director at Wild Montana. “Just days after doubling down on repealing the Roadless Rule, this announcement makes the administration’s plan obvious: gut the rules requiring the Forest Service to manage our natural resources carefully and listen to the public, then open the gates to industry and extraction. The Roadless rescission already showed that Forest Service leadership doesn’t value public input, science, or expert management. They’ve lost the public’s trust, and should expect the public to hold them accountable.”

“The USDA’s announcement to gut the Travel Management Rule and the Roadless Rule in the same week is a one-two punch that together deals a tremendous blow to wildlife,” said Vera Smith, director of national forests and public lands at Defenders of Wildlife. “The Travel Management Rule states simply that motorized vehicles must stay on routes and areas designated locally for that use. The Forest Service issued the rule over 20 years ago to curb damage from unmanaged recreation, reduce user conflict and protect public safety. Rescinding it now is irresponsible and reckless.”

“Just after this administration moved to eliminate protections for Roadless Areas, it is now proposing to gut the Travel Management Rule that for 20 years has ensured the Forest Service manages motorized recreation in a manner that minimizes damage, protects other visitors, and responds when vehicle use is harming public land resources,” said Adam Rissien rewilding manager at WildEarth Guardians. “Eliminating those protections will not improve access. It would replace locally developed plans with uncertainty, conflict, and unmanaged use.”

“Just days after its proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule, the administration is now attempting to open up our national forests to more off-road vehicle use that will degrade the landscape and disturb wildlife and other land users,” said Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice’s Rocky Mountain Office. “Some places in our national forests are meant for quiet, undisturbed recreation and protecting sensitive wildlife, including endangered species. This rule would open all roads and trails to ORVs by default, meaning areas set aside for hiking, hunting, or horseback riding could soon be fair game to four-wheelers and dirt bikes.”

“The Trump Administration’s proposal to fundamentally alter the Travel Management Rule will change for the worse how Utahns experience national forests throughout the state, from the Wasatch Front to redrock country outside Escalante and Moab,” said Laura Peterson, senior attorney at Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). “The proposal will place a heavy thumb on the scale to prioritize off-road vehicle use at the expense of all other uses of the national forests, including the protection of wildlife, cultural sites, streams and wild places. This move will not improve access to public lands, but it will make the experience of recreating on public lands worse for all users, including hikers, bikers, hunters, anglers and riders.”

“For over two decades the Travel Management Rule has ensured our National Forests are managed to host an array of user groups, while safeguarding the health and future of our public lands,” said Peggie dePasquale, National Forest Wildlands Director at the Wyoming Wilderness Association (WWA). “We are now witnessing a troublesome undoing of this effective management tool that the American people, especially here in Wyoming, have come to rely on for sustainable and relied upon access. It is critical that we raise our voices to send a clear message that the proposed revision goes against public interest and is bad news for the future of our natural world.”

“The existing travel management planning process allows the public to meaningfully weigh in on where vehicles do and don’t belong in our national forests. Repealing this rule hands that decision to political appointees in Washington, who have decided that every road, trail, and meadow should be open to motorized use, no matter the conflicts with other users or wildlife,” said Center for Western Priorities (CWP) Communications Director Kate Groetzinger. “Repealing this rule is also a recipe for more wildfire in a region that cannot afford it. Putting hot engines deeper into dry forests during longer and hotter fire seasons will increase wildfire risk, and Western communities will pay for it.”

Travel management is supported by a diverse group of public lands users.
This proposal to revise the Travel Management Rule is out of touch with everyday Americans who use our forested public lands. Motorized groups, recreationalists, sportsmen, conservation organizations, local communities and other public land users nationwide have spoken out in opposition:

• American Hiking Society, Back Country Horsemen of American, American Trails, Letter Opposing Travel Management Repeal, Bureau of Land Management, (7/21/2026).
• Motorcycle Industry Council, Specialty Vehicle Institute of America and Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association, Letter Opposing Travel Management Repeal, (10/27/2025)
• American Endurance Ride Conference, American Hiking Society, American Horse Council, American Trails, Appalachian Mountain Club, Back Country Horsemen of America, Equine Land Conservation Resource, Move United, North Carolina Horse Council, Pacific Crest Trail Association, Partnership for the National Trails System, Rails to Trails Conservancy, Washington Trials Association, Letter Opposing Travel Management Repeal, Forest Service (6/5/2026).
• American Motorcyclist Association, Letter Opposing Travel Management Repeal, (12/15/2025).
• Rural & Agriculture Council of America & United States Cattlemen’s Association, Letter Opposing full repeal of Travel Management Rule & Requesting a robust public process, (6/24/26).
• Outdoor Alliance & members Access Fund American Canoe Association, American Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Winter Wildlands Alliance, The Mountaineers, American Alpine Club, Colorado Mountain Club, Surfrider Foundation, Runners for Public Lands, Letter Opposing Travel Management Repeal, (6/12/26).
• Off Road Business Association, Inc, United Four Wheel Drive Association, One Voice & United Snowmobile Alliance, Letter Opposing “outright repeal” of Travel Management Rule, (1/26/26).
• Public Lands Foundation, Position Statement supporting current Travel Management Policy, (4/25).

Ryan Costello, Policy Director with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), issued the following statement as the Trump administration moves to intensify its economic pressure campaign against Iran following months of war and instability:

“President Trump, the ultimate gambler in geopolitics, is poised to double down on a bad hand on Iran yet again.

“We’ve been down the maximum pressure road with Iran many times. What we’ve learned is that President Trump can impose extensive economic pain on Iran, but ordinary Iranians overwhelmingly bear the cost.. The ruling elite in Iran remains largely insulated, while Tehran has repeatedly refused to capitulate to Washington’s demands.. Trump’s gamble is that this time, amid the destruction of war, and with the reinforcement of a blockade, time is on his side and ultimately Iran will be forced to concede defeat.

“The pivot back to economic coercion comes with enormous risks the administration appears determined to ignore. After all, it was the United States that waived sanctions on Iranian oil already at sea during the height of the war in March, and again issued a waiver allowing Iran to sell oil freely in June. Now attempting to choke off those same oil sales exposes the contradiction at the heart of Trump’s strategy: Washington needed to relieve economic pressure when the consequences became too costly, yet is now betting that it can reimpose that pressure without suffering the same blowback.

“Within the United States, ordinary Americans are paying the price for this deeply unpopular war at the gas pump and in their grocery bills. Trump’s polls have plummeted amid the war - one he said he’d avoid - heading into all-important midterms. Continuing economic warfare risks deeper turmoil in the energy markets and the global economy, which could cascade into a full-blown catastrophe. Moreover, starting a trade war with China risks retaliatory measures that the U.S. economy can ill afford.

“Iran has also indicated clearly that it will not tolerate economic warfare and will escalate across the region, if necessary, to target any nation that supports President Trump’s efforts to cripple the Iranian economy. While the President may think economic warfare is less risky than military warfare, ultimately Tehran will view it as a different tactic in the same campaign to crush the country.

“None of this appears likely to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Rather, it appears intended to delay and avoid a deal that ends not just the war, but also the maximum pressure campaign that the President has waged since 2018. Oftentimes, admitting you have a problem is necessary in order to stop an addiction. President Trump has proven unable and unwilling to stop his gambling on Iran that risks further undermining U.S. and regional security and the global economy.”

On Friday, Demand Progress Education Fund and a coalition of civil society advocates asked the FTC to investigate AI companies like Anthropic and Amazon for buying books in bulk, scanning them and then destroying the original work—including rare books. In a letter sent to the FTC, the organizations urge the agency to use its authority, including Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, to investigate whether this mass book-destroying practice unfairly prevents competing AI developers and the public from using these resources.

• Read the Letter

Convened by Demand Progress Education Fund, the letter was also signed by the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Media & Digital Governance at Open Markets Institute, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and 14 other organizations.

“The secretive and reckless way that major AI companies like Anthropic and Amazon are acting shows that there is real smoke here that the FTC needs to investigate,” said Demand Progress Education Fund Special Advisor Kate Oh. “There is credible reporting that the AI industry is acquiring books on vast commercial scales to scan and destroy, all to keep that scanned text in a private database walled off from the world and subject to corporate censorship and manipulation.”

“When a small number of dominant tech companies become the sole custodians of millions of human-authored works in digital form, locked away inside proprietary corporate databases—including works they have caused to exist nowhere else—they convert a shared public resource into a private chokepoint,” stated the letter. “They make themselves the unaccountable gatekeepers of our shared historical and cultural record, with the ability to censor as they see fit. That outcome should concern the FTC because the antimonopoly laws exist not only to protect competition but to prevent any private actor from amassing control incompatible with a free and self-governing society.”

Today, news outlets reported that Donald Trump plans to nominate White House Domestic Policy Deputy Director Dr. Heidi Overton — an anti-abortion extremist who celebrated the Supreme Court overturning the right to abortion — to serve as his Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner. The FDA plays a critical role in safeguarding the health of people across the country, including by making science-based decisions about medication abortion, birth control, and other essential reproductive healthcare.

Overton has an extensive anti-abortion record. She celebrated the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a “huge victory,” and has advocated for the politicization of government agencies to help advance a nationwide anti-abortion agenda. She previously worked at America First Policy Institute, an extreme conservative think tank made up of former Trump administration officials, where she authored a brief pushing disinformation about the safety of medication abortion and calling for additional, medically unnecessary restrictions on access to mifepristone.

Overton’s nomination comes as the FDA rushes to advance a politically motivated, sham “study” of mifepristone, and remains under close scrutiny from anti-abortion groups and leaders who relentlessly demand that the agency takes decisive action to restrict access to medication abortion care.

Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju released the following statement:

“Donald Trump is trying to put an anti-abortion extremist in charge of any agency that could seriously undermine reproductive healthcare—including the agency that could roll back access to mifepristone nationwide. Heidi Overton celebrated the fall of Roe, spread junk science about medication abortion, and openly called for remaking the FDA to serve a political agenda instead of the health of the country. Her nomination is another alarming step in Trump’s plan to weaponize every part of the federal government to restrict abortion nationwide.”

If confirmed, Overton would succeed Martin Makary, who resigned as FDA Commissioner in May. Initial reports of Makary’s departure from the FDA emerged just after a meeting between White House staff and anti-abortion groups, who expressed frustration the FDA has not sufficiently wielded its power to ban mifepristone outright. Anti-abortion groups then shifted their demands to acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas, who called anti-abortion leaders within hours of being appointed and said that accelerating the review was his top priority.

More than a century ago, American families could flip through a Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog, pick out a house, and have nearly everything they needed to build it delivered to them at an affordable price. Tens of thousands of Sears homes are still standing today – a testament to an era when a starter home could be both attainable and built to last. Today, as more Americans are priced out of the housing market, Groundwork Collaborative released a new proposal to revive the Sears home model for the 21st century.

The Modern Sears Home: Resurrecting the Affordable American Starter Home for a New Generation, authored by Groundwork’s Noah Ball-Burack, Emily DiVito, and Alex Jacquez, outlines a federal initiative to deliver, over eight years, 500,000 high-quality factory-built homes directly to American families across the country for under $215,000.

Today, the national median home price hovers above $400,000, and the starter home – what used to be the first rung on the ladder to economic security – is all but extinct. In some communities, starter homes can cost $1 million or more, putting homeownership further out of reach for many families.

The Modern Sears Home Program would deploy the federal government’s purchasing power, land access, and ability to finance and site homes at scale to bring the cost of new, high-quality homes within reach. Furthermore, by guaranteeing demand for hundreds of thousands of factory-built homes, the program would also give private manufacturing firms the certainty they need to expand production, lower production costs, and increase housing supply. By bringing affordable homes directly to communities where the private market has fallen short, the Modern Sears Home Program could expand homeownership in rural areas and open the door for families who have historically been shut out of the housing market.

The idea has vast public support. New polling shows that three in four voters support the Modern Sears Home Program and the proposal enjoys broad support across party lines, including 80% of Democrats, 72% of Independents, and 74% of Republicans. Additionally, 69% of voters, including majorities across party lines, say the program would make homeownership feel more attainable.

By some estimates, Sears sold more than 70,000 catalog kit homes during the 20th century, many of which are still standing today in states like Ohio, Illinois, New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Groundwork’s Senior Advisor for Economic Policy, Emily DiVito, shared the following:

“For too many families, homeownership has gone from a milestone to a mirage. Decades of under-building have left us with an affordable housing shortage that’s pricing people out of their communities. Policymakers must pursue creative, tangible, and lasting solutions that bring homeownership back into reach. The Modern Sears Home program does just that.”

Lindsay Owens, President and CEO of Groundwork, reacted:

“I grew up in a Sears Home, and I know the comfort and stability these houses offer the families who live in them. That’s something far too many families can’t count on anymore, as Wall Street and corporate landlords squeeze every last penny out of homeowners and renters alike. Reviving the promise of a Sears home is a chance to make quality and affordable housing the rule, rather than the exception.”

In the paper, the authors write:

“Sears offered these homes for profit. The federal government – with greater resources, lower borrowing costs, and unmatched power to scale – can do it better...[with] the kind of public ambition that once sent 30,000-piece home kits rattling on rail cars across the country to families who otherwise thought homeownership a distant aspiration...The Modern Sears Home program is that ambition made actionable.”

In an update to its formal filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Public Citizen today blasted the Trump administration’s arbitrary, capricious and exploitative campaign to build the Constitution Pipeline, calling the project contrary to the public interest.

The filing comes days after the Trump administration enforced the annulment of a fourth New York offshore wind project, which included a payment of $1.2 billion of taxpayer money to the company to terminate the project.

RWE U.S. Offshore, the company that had previously been set to develop the New York Bight offshore wind project, agreed to end the project because the company stated that it “determined there is no path forward to permit these projects in the U.S. for the foreseeable future,” according to a release from the company.

“Based upon President Donald J. Trump’s unambiguous statements, his administration is forcing an end to New York offshore wind energy projects in an effort to coerce the state’s Governor to support the Constitution pipeline,” said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. “Trump’s coercive quid pro quo campaign is an arbitrary, capricious and exploitative attempt to strongarm unnecessary fossil fuel infrastructure by using taxpayers money to pay off the wind industry. Trump’s entire endeavor to build this pipeline is a massive and unnecessary waste of money.”

The filing today is an update to FERC, expounding on Public Citizen’s initial filing in June, challenging a petition by Oklahoma-based Williams Companies for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate Constitution Pipeline. On June 9, on a trip to New York to attend the NBA finals, Trump said that because New York’s governor “broke” a deal to support the Constitution gas pipeline, he would move forward with canceling the wind projects, saying: “so I guess we’re withdrawing those windmills.”

The Trump administration has now stopped two New York offshore wind projects since that threat. Public Citizen’s filing warns that FERC’s inaction to investigate this unlawful shakedown violates the public interest and threatens electric grid resource adequacy.

On Tuesday, Demand Progress and IMEU Policy Project released a poll, first reported in Zeteo, showing that a clear majority of voters oppose a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, known as Section 219, that would further integrate the Israeli military and Israeli military companies into the Pentagon—giving them special access to U.S. military systems, sensitive technologies and defense supply chains. The military authorization bill, which includes Section 219, was passed by the House in July and awaits a vote in the Senate.

• Read the Full Poll Results

The online poll of 1,217 U.S. likely voters nationwide was conducted by Data for Progress from August 3 to 7, 2026. The poll found that:

• 61 percent of voters oppose a military authorization bill that would deepen the integration of Israeli weapons companies into the Pentagon at a level higher than any other country—this includes 78 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents
• 52 percent of voters agreed with members of Congress who voted in July to cut $3.3 billion in taxpayer funding for weapons to the Israeli military—this includes 60 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents
• 51 percent of voters believe that Israel benefits more from the relationship between the U.S. and Israel—this includes 58 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents
• A plurality of voters, 49 percent, believe President Donald Trump is providing too much support to the Israeli government, compared to only 33 percent who said the president is giving Israel the right amount of support and just eight percent who say he’s giving Israel too little support

“This poll is a flashing red warning sign for any member of Congress who supports the defense authorization bill. A clear majority of voters do not support further integrating the Israeli military and Israeli military companies into the Pentagon, which the NDAA is set to do,” said Demand Progress Senior Policy Advisor Cavan Kharrazian. “It’s time for Congress to listen to the American people for once, and not the same voices who always want to cut Israel a blank check.”

“Israel is a nation committing genocide that just dragged the American people into a disastrous war that is still hitting our pocketbooks. It is the height of absurdity that Congress is even considering a proposal to become more entangled with the Israeli military and use our tax dollars to subsidize their weapons companies,” said IMEU Policy Project Executive Director Margaret DeReus. “Senators take an oath to do what is best for the American people above all; to uphold that oath, they must scrap this ridiculous proposal.”

More than two dozen Texas families are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their challenge to a state law that requires public schools to post a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The request, filed today, urges the court to protect students’ and parents’ religious freedom by blocking Texas Senate Bill 10, ensuring that families — not politicians — have the right to decide what role religion plays in their lives.

The Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha'i, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families challenging the Texas law attend 22 school districts across the state and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. Today’s petition seeks review of lower court rulings in two separate but similar cases: Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District and Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District.

Under S.B. 10, Texas public schools must permanently display a state-mandated version of the Ten Commandments, drawn from the Protestant King James Bible, in a “conspicuous” place in each classroom, from kindergarten through 12th grade. The families challenging S.B. 10 object to the law because the displays will pressure children to conform to the state’s favored religious beliefs and interfere with parents’ right to guide their children’s religious instruction.

Today’s Supreme Court filing, a joint petition for a writ of certiorari in both cases, follows an April decision by the en banc U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit allowing the state-selected version of the Ten Commandments to go up in the plaintiffs’ classrooms. By a narrowly decided vote, the 5th Circuit ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate either the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment — despite a 1980 Supreme Court case striking down a nearly identical Kentucky law.

“As a rabbi and parent, forcing a Christian version of the Ten Commandments on children in every classroom is particularly upsetting,” said plaintiff Rabbi Joshua Fixler (he/him) of Houston. “I am not only worried about my own kids, but I’m deeply concerned about all the children in my congregation. These displays put children in the position of having to defend themselves and their families’ religious beliefs against a government mandate that makes them feel different and separate from their classmates.”

“Texas politicians shouldn’t have a seat at the table in deciding how our children receive their religious education. That decision belongs to our family,” said plaintiffs Rebekah (she/her) and Ted Lowe (he/him), an Austin-based interfaith couple who are raising their children in the Christian and Jewish traditions. “This law puts one version of religious beliefs above all others in our public schools and sends a message to our children that what we teach them about religion at home is somehow wrong.”

“By requiring displays of religious doctrine in every classroom, the state is interfering with our family’s decisions about how our children engage with religion,” said plaintiff Nichole Manning (she/her), a Dallas-area atheist who is raising her children in a nonreligious tradition that gives them the space and autonomy to develop their own beliefs about religion. “As a parent, I intentionally choose to have my children attend public school because I prefer an educational environment without any religious affiliation. In a diverse public school environment, all students should be treated with equal respect, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this kind of government-imposed religion before, and it should do so again,” said Chloe Kempf (she/her), staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “Having these posters in Texas classrooms puts students at risk of bullying, stigmatization, and religious coercion. Our nation’s bedrock principle of separating church and state means that families and faith communities — not politicians — get to decide what role religion plays in children’s lives. Texas students deserve public schools that welcome them for who they are, respect their religious or nonreligious backgrounds, and give them the high-quality education they need to build their futures.”

“Fifty years ago, the ACLU won a Supreme Court victory against a nearly identical Kentucky law — and we aim to do it again,” said Cecillia Wang (she/her), national legal director of the ACLU. “In our country, no legislature can force its preferred scripture on public school students and families.”

“Families – not politicians or public school officials – get to decide how, if, and when children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser (she/her), president and CEO of Americans United. “We urge the Supreme Court to make clear that these Ten Commandments mandates violate students’ and families’ religious freedom as promised by the U.S. Constitution. With ever more states attempting to force one version of religion into public school classrooms, our nation must recommit to our foundational promise of church-state separation, the lynchpin of religious liberty.”

“This case concerns decisions about personal belief and religious instruction, and whether under our Constitution they remain with families and faith communities or are commandeered by the state,” said Jon Youngwood (he/him), global co-chair of the Litigation Department at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. “The First Amendment has long protected the freedom of individuals to determine for themselves how they engage with spirituality and religion. Those protections are especially important in the public-school setting.”

“The First Commandment, dictating which god must be worshipped, is the antithesis of our First Amendment,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor (she/her), co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “It is not the government’s role to daily expose young children to a coercive display of one religion’s set of religious edicts in our public schools. Our public schools exist to educate, not to proselytize.”

The Lowe and Fixler families share more about how they will be impacted by these Ten Commandments displays and why they oppose them in newly released, heartfelt videos that can be viewed here; transcripts are available here.

Access the U.S. Supreme Court certiorari filing here: https://www.aclutx.org/app/uploads/2026/08/10C-SCOTUS-Petition.pdf

A new investigation by Public Citizen reveals that 57 individuals within the Trump administration, excluding President Trump, are individually worth as much as $100 million, eight of whom are billionaires. The analysis underscores the growing economic divide between the average American worker, who earns $65,000 a year, and the politically-connected individuals who hold the power to address the economic strain facing the general populace.

Of the 57 ultra-wealthy individuals identified, 31 have personal assets exceeding $100 million, while the remainder have assets reaching $100 million. Forty of them are running federal agencies and institutions, including the Department of Commerce, Treasure and Education, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission, NASA, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management. The other 17 are serving as U.S. ambassadors.

The concentration of wealth is striking compared with previous administrations:

• Donald Trump: 57 individuals with assets of $100 million or more, including eight billionaires, excluding Trump.
• Joe Biden: Five individuals with assets of $100 million or more, including two individuals whose assets reached $1 billion or more.
• George W. Bush: Five individuals with assets of $100 million or more, including one billionaire.
• Barack Obama: Three individuals with assets of $100 million or more, including one billionaire.

“It is deeply concerning to see people with extraordinary wealth controlling the levers of power in our government,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “The Trump administration is putting an unprecedented number of multi-millionaires and billionaires in charge of institutions that are supposed to serve all Americans. When the people holding the reins of government are drawn overwhelmingly from the ranks of the ultra-rich, it leads to misplaced incentives and corruption, and begs the question whose interests they are truly serving.”

“The breadth and depth of the economic divide we quantified in this report, identifying 57 ultra-millionaires in key positions in our government and leading at least ten critical federal agencies, should be deeply troubling to anyone concerned about the welfare of our democracy,” said Douglas Pasternak, Public Citizen researcher. “These individuals have sweeping financial conflicts and are more likely to govern based on their own personal monetary interests than the vital interests of the American public.”

Public Citizen’s analysis comes amid growing concerns about the influence of wealthy donors and corporate interests in the Trump administration and the corruption that this is contributing to. While financial success should not disqualify anyone from public service, the unprecedented concentration of extreme wealth among administration officials warrants scrutiny. This is especially true when wealthy political supporters are rewarded with positions overseeing institutions responsible for regulating markets, distributing public resources, and protecting the public interest.

Read more about Trump’s wealthy administration here.

Ahead of the White House’s planned cryptocurrency and prediction markets roundtable on Wednesday, The Revolving Door Project released the following statement:

“Donald Trump is not content with the billions of dollars in corrupt crypto wealth he has amassed since winning the 2024 election. On Wednesday, he’ll turn the White House into a hub for his crypto and prediction markets cronies to lean on independent agencies and a gridlocked Congress for a more permissive regulatory environment for these predatory corporations. The event will serve as a reminder to Congress of crypto’s deep ties to the president, and of their willingness to spend unprecedented sums in campaign efforts. But the fusion of Trump and crypto’s interests should not dictate federal law, especially when voters are broadly disgusted by the corrupting influence of these industries.” said RDP senior researcher Henry Burke.

RDP assistant director Timi Iwayemi added, “The cryptocurrency industry is eager to establish a financial system where scams and money laundering flourish. Their prediction market partners envision a society where gambling is venerated as a legitimate investment strategy. Their well-heeled political operation might have brought them significant influence in Washington, but it has come at a cost. Trump’s blatant corruption has eroded public trust, and prediction markets have jeopardized the legitimacy of our markets. This should be a tough pill for lawmakers to swallow. Wednesday’s meeting is a last-ditch effort to bring Congress onside and hand a victory to two of the most brazenly corrupt entities in the country: Trump and the crypto industry. But regulators and legislators should not be cowed. As recent election results have shown, crypto’s millions can only go so far, and voters are tired of their attempts to buy our democracy.”

The Revolving Door Project has been tracking Trump’s corruption closely, as well as the efforts by the crypto and prediction market industries to purchase influence in Washington. Below is a sample of relevant work on the topic:

Who’s in Crypto’s Corner?

Prediction Markets Are Learning From The Addiction Industry

Crypto Bill Offers Potentially Huge Tax Benefits To Trump Family

Why Are Any Democrats Supporting a Bill That Was Championed by the Crypto Industry?

RDP Condemns the Blockchain Association’s Deceitful Letter From “Law Enforcement Officials”

Trump’s ability to set crypto rules makes $TRUMP coin even more problematic

We Can’t Count on Trump’s SEC to Tell Us If He Is Manipulating the Market

Sean Patrick Maloney’s Vanishing Ethics Pledge

How Crypto Is Buying DC One Revolver At A Time

The Democratic National Committee today greenlighted resolutions that call for abolishing ICE and implementing “full and consistent enforcement” of two federal statutes known as the Leahy law. The author of the law, former Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), has stated that it applies to Israel, as critics have long asserted.

Both resolutions were submitted by Michele Johnson, a DNC member from Louisiana, who spoke for them before the Thursday vote at the DNC’s Resolutions Committee meeting. Approval of the resolutions by the full DNC is expected at a closing session of the meeting in Austin on Saturday.

One resolution puts the DNC on record that it “urges Democratic members of Congress to craft legislation abolishing ICE and enacting immigration reform that provides pathways to citizenship, protects workers, and ensures dignity for all impacted people.” The resolution also “urges Democratic members of Congress to pursue civil and criminal accountability for any federal agent, attorney, or official who lied under oath, misrepresented evidence, or gave false testimony regarding DHS conduct, and to remove qualified immunity and other protections shielding DHS and ICE personnel and subcontractors

who have injured protesters or journalists, fired into moving vehicles, or caused deaths in custody, whether of detained individuals, U.S. citizens, or immigrants regardless of nationality or documentation status.”

Johnson’s other resolution states that “the Democratic National Committee reaffirms its support for the full, consistent, and impartial enforcement of the Leahy Laws with respect to every recipient of United States security assistance, in every region of the world, without exception.” It adds that the DNC “calls for strengthened vetting capacity, clear remediation standards, and regular public reporting on the

implementation of the Leahy Laws by the Department of State and the Department of Defense,” and that the DNC “encourages Democratic members of Congress to conduct robust oversight of Leahy Law implementation and to support legislative measures that close documented enforcement gaps.”

Beginning early Thursday, before the vote on the resolutions, a mobile electronic billboard sponsored by RootsAction – saying “HEY DNC, UPHOLD THE LEAHY LAWS. SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS!” – circled the hotel where the DNC is meeting.

Sam Rosenthal, RootAction’s political director, was among the activists who attended the Resolutions Committee meeting. “These were twin victories for human rights, at home and abroad,” he said. “Approval of the resolutions for abolishing ICE and upholding the Leahy law point the way for the Democratic Party to move in directions consistent with what voters want. Getting sufficient turnout from the party’s base at election time will require a change in the approach of the party’s national leadership so that it is clearly responsive to the views of Democrats nationwide.”

As droughts and wildfires damage economies, 350.org called on governments to push for a global tax treaty that can make big oil and gas corporations pay for mounting climate costs.

This week in New York, governments wrapped up negotiations for the UN Tax Convention with some governments strongly pushing for a global tax system aligned with the Paris Agreement and other environmental treaties, which can hold big polluters accountable for climate damage.

Campaigners called on governments to support a global tax on fossil fuel profits to raise critically needed funds to help communities and countries hit hardest by climate disasters and ensure a fast, fair shift to renewable energy. Revenues can also be directly channeled to households struggling to pay bills or put food on the table due to spikes in energy and food prices.

While tax treaty negotiations took a step in the right direction, several rich countries tried to halt progress by sidelining positions that push for stronger environmental taxation and taxing rights for developing countries.

Set to be finalized in 2027, the UN Tax Treaty talks will resume in December, with the inclusion of a “polluters pay” principle on the table. If adopted, a legally binding mechanism can be set up to collect a global tax on the profits of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies, which posted more than $90 billion dollars in profits in the second quarter of 2026 alone.

Lisa Rose, Campaigner at 350.org, said:

"Big Oil’s staggering second quarter earnings prove that the money we need for solutions exists, it’s just in the wrong hands. As droughts and heatwaves drain public budgets and push up the cost of living, countries need these funds now to protect people from extreme heat and rising bills. The momentum for permanently taxing fossil fuel profits is here. Our leaders must not squander this chance to put that wealth where it belongs – into building a safer and more livable planet, not a hotter and more destructive one.”

Josh Bayly, Director of Sustainability at Consumers International, said:

"Affordability stands out as the top consumer concern worldwide. Spiking energy and food prices have turned essential daily activities like cooking a meal or using the air conditioner into a dilemma for ordinary households. Globally, consumer trust in fossil fuel companies is low, and the outstanding profits they just posted only deepens this distrust. The UN Tax Convention gives governments a real chance to make the energy system fairer: tax excess profits to ease the burden on consumers.”

Notes to the Editor:

• Analysis by Eurodad and the Global Alliance for Tax Justice estimates that a 20% surtax on profits of the world's 100 largest oil and gas companies could have generated more than $1.08 trillion since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015.

Today’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) report shows prices rose 0.1% in July and are up 3.4% over the past year. July’s price increase reverses the disinflation seen in June, which was built on a short-lived ceasefire that quickly unraveled. Nearly six months into his war with Iran, the president has failed to swiftly end the conflict and recently said he does not “think about Americans’ financial situation” when negotiating an end to the war he started.

Meanwhile, oil prices are back on the rise, gas is back above $4.00 a gallon, and Trump’s latest tariffs on 99% of imports are now in effect. As the war drags on and Trump’s tariffs work their way to store shelves, prices are poised to reaccelerate in the months ahead. This price squeeze is happening at the same time that workers are struggling to find jobs. The economy lost 23,000 jobs last month, while wages failed to keep pace with prices. Prices are up, jobs are down, and working families are bearing the brunt of it all.

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

“Prices started climbing again in July and Trump’s catastrophic mismanagement of our economy means more spikes in the months ahead. The president said it himself: he is only ‘semi-negotiating’ an end to the war, all while slapping new tariffs on 99% of our imported goods. Trump is not serious about bringing much needed relief to working families who are weary of higher prices at the pump and on the shelves, and who are pessimistic about an economy that is bleeding jobs.”

To speak to a Groundwork expert about this month’s CPI reading, email press@groundworkcollaborative.org.

BACKGROUND

Trump’s war is keeping gas prices high, while families face higher electricity prices to keep cool.

• Energy prices are 14.7% higher than one year ago, with gasoline up 24.6%. Airfares rose 2.2% in July as jet fuel prices climbed, and are up 25.5% over the past year.
• Prices at the pump have climbed above $4.00 per gallon since the collapse of Trump’s ceasefire, and remain 35% above their pre-war level, turning routine trips to work, school, the grocery store, and the doctor’s office into a bigger strain on household budgets. The average household has paid an extra $634 in gas and diesel expenses because of Trump’s war.
• Keeping the lights and AC on this summer has cost families more. Electricity prices are 4.2% higher than one year ago. The average family will spend $792 on their summer cooling bills, up 10.5% from last year. This comes at a time when one in six households is already behind on utility bills.

Paychecks are losing ground to higher prices.

• Wages rose just 3.2% over the past year in July – the slowest pace since 2021 – while prices rose 3.4% over the same period.
• Real private-sector wages fell 0.4% over the past year in the second quarter of 2026, and the savings rate has dropped to 2.7%, the lowest since 2022. Workers’ purchasing power has weakened, and the cushion they lean on during hard times is at risk of disappearing.

Families continue to face higher prices at the grocery store.

• Trump’s war with Iran is increasing the cost of moving food across the country. Diesel prices are up 46% since the war began, raising transportation costs throughout the food supply chain, particularly for fresh and refrigerated products that depend heavily on trucking. Those higher costs are passed along to shoppers at the grocery store, where prices for fresh fruits are up 2.2%, baby food 0.7%, and milk 0.5% in July alone.
• Trump’s tariffs are also showing up in the grocery store. Prices for primarily imported foods such as coffee and seafood increased 10.3% and 7%, respectively, over the past year.
• Food prices remain a major source of financial strain for families. A new McKinsey Institute for Economic Mobility report found that 90% of respondents cited groceries and food prices as a top concern.

Trump’s tariffs are making everyday household goods more expensive.

• Prices for tariff-exposed goods continued to rise in July. Dishes and flatware are up 10.4% over the past year, cookware and tableware up 6.4%, sporting goods up 4.3%, and apparel up 3.9%. Today’s CPI report captures only one week of Trump’s newest tariffs on 99% of imports, and does not yet show much of the impact of Trump’s new pharmaceutical tariffs, which began to take effect July 31.
• Executives are telling investors that tariffs have led to price increases this year, and more price increases may be on the horizon.
  • Whirlpool, a manufacturer of home appliances, told investors it had raised prices twice this year in response to tariffs.
  • Newell Brands, the owner of famous brands like Rubbermaid, Sharpie, and CrockPot, said tariffs would add $127 million to its costs this year, and that previous price increases “don’t come anywhere close” to covering the added costs, signaling the company could raise prices again.

PEER, DarkSky International, the American Bird Conservancy, and Environment America — represented by Earthjustice — filed a formal Application for Review asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reverse its Space Bureau’s approval of Reflect Orbital Inc.’s Earendil-1 satellite.

Earendil-1 is a commercial satellite that will reflect sunlight back to Earth at night.

The Space Bureau granted Reflect Orbital’s application on July 9, 2026, finding it served the public interest and fell outside the environmental review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — the federal law requiring agencies to study the environmental effects of major actions on the United States before granting approval.

Selling Sunlight After Dark

Reflect Orbital’s business model is to sell sunlight at night for uses such as replacing streetlights, extending outdoor work hours, and powering solar arrays. To do this, Earendil-1 will unfold a mirror roughly a tenth of an acre wide at 600–650 km altitude and steer reflected sunlight to chosen spots on the ground. A single Earendil-1 satellite is expected to project a beam roughly 5 km (over 3 miles) wide as it sweeps the ground, with scattered light extending further still.

Although Reflect Orbital’s FCC application covers only this one satellite, the company has called this a “crucial testbed” for a much larger operation, with publicly stated plans to scale up to 50,000 satellites by 2035.

Why This is a Problem

In March, PEER and other groups filed comments with the FCC opposing Reflect Orbital’s original application for approval. In last week’s Application for Review, the groups say the Bureau didn’t adequately address a number of issues, including:

• Eye damage — a DarkSky technical report found the reflected light could be intense enough to injure eyes faster than a person could blink or look away.
• Astronomy disruption — the American Astronomical Society warned that even one pass could saturate telescope detectors and cost extended observing time; roughly 80% of astronomers surveyed in 2025 expected satellite constellations like this one to affect their work.
• Aviation and road safety — the Air Line Pilots Association, representing over 80,000 pilots, said Reflect Orbital’s own safety analysis was inadequate to address glare risk to aircraft.
• Wildlife harm — roughly a third of vertebrates and most invertebrates are light-sensitive at night; the scientific record links artificial light to disrupted migration and breeding, threatening species already protected under the Endangered Species Act.
• Human health — nighttime light suppresses melatonin and disrupts circadian rhythms, with peer-reviewed research tying this to elevated risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers.

An Environmental Review is Necessary

Our main request is for the FCC to reverse the Space Bureau’s order and require a full, lawful environmental review — an Environmental Assessment or Impact Statement — before Earendil-1 is authorized to operate at all.

At a minimum, we argue, the FCC needs to place 16 binding conditions as part of its approval, including: an independent scattered-light and sky-brightness analysis; exclusions over national parks, wildlife refuges, and other protected or ecologically sensitive lands; blackout periods during peak bird migration and after midnight; a requirement to get sign-off from affected state, local, and Tribal governments; independent, third-party verifications of the actual beam; and the requirement of a full environmental review before any commercial scale constellation could move forward.

Part of a Bigger Fight Over What’s Allowed in Low Orbit

This filing Application for Review is one piece of a broader push by DarkSky, PEER, and allied groups to get federal regulators to properly review the wave of low-Earth orbit projects before the FCC — including proposals for orbiting data centers.

As companies make plans to launch more than a million data centers into space, the FCC must conduct a thorough review of the risks and impacts of these projects to ensure they are not causing irreparable environmental harm to the United States, and if they are, place conditions on these projects to minimize these harms.

With the space rush on, we must not fall blindly into accepting everything the industry and government tells us. Rather, we must continue to act to make sure federal agencies consider all the risks and impacts of these satellite proposals as part of the approval process.

The Application for Review and mitigations annex are now part of the FCC’s public record (ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20250701-00129). There’s no set timeline for a ruling from the full Commission.