Sanders, Democrats push effort to kill ‘handouts' for fossil fuels in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
The proposal, dubbed the 'End Polluter Welfare Act,' is a revival of past environmental advocacy efforts from Sanders and others, but it adds in targeted responses to Trump's agenda-setting 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act' signed into law this month after passage by GOP majorities in the House and Senate.
'Donald Trump has sold out the young people of America and future generations,' Sanders, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nominations in 2016 and 2020, said in a statement Friday. 'The fossil fuel industry, with the support of Trump, is more concerned about their short-term profits than the wellbeing of the planet.'
'No more polluter welfare for an industry that is making billions every year destroying the planet,' Sanders added.
The Hill reached out to the White House, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of the Interior for comment.
The latest progressive-driven proposal would cut more than $190 billion in federal subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the next decade, including $20 billion in bonuses designated for coal, oil, methane and pipeline companies through Trump's massive tax and spending overhaul. It also would also prevent the Trump administration from opening new public lands to drilling and mining.
Other lawmakers who have signed onto the legislation include Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). It has more than 20 additional House backers.
'Fossil fuel companies have known for decades that their product harms the climate, but have made obscene profits while communities are left to clean up the mess,' Mahyar Sorour, a spokesperson for the environmental advocacy group Sierra Club, said in a statement. 'Taxpayers cannot afford to write a blank check to Big Oil and Gas companies through subsidies, corporate giveaways, and sweetheart deals.'
Republicans, under Trump's tight control, hold majorities in the House and Senate, so it's unlikely the legislation will gain much traction ahead of the 2026 midterm election cycle. However, opponents of Trump's shift in environmental policies argue that they want to highlight potential ramifications from the administration's efforts.
'We are done letting fossil fuel executives write the rules while our communities pay the price,' Omar said in a statement on the proposed legislation. 'The End Polluter Welfare Act will finally hold polluters accountable and eliminate these harmful subsidies once and for all.'
The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is projected to significantly ding the country's efforts to reverse the effects of climate change and add more emissions that will exacerbate global warming.
Climate think tank C2ES found in an independent analysis that U.S. emissions will be 8 percent higher because of the new Trump law.
The most significant provisions in the Trump-driven policies repeal tax credits for green energy technologies such as wind, solar energy and electric vehicles efforts adopted in the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump looms large over a Fed likely to again defy his call for cuts
President Trump will loom large over the Federal Reserve's policy meeting this week, even if the central bank does what the market expects and keeps interest rates on hold. Trump and other top White House officials have been hammering Fed Chair Jerome Powell for months over his wait-and-see rate stance and his insistence that more time is needed to assess how the president's tariffs will affect the path of inflation. The president took that message directly to the Fed last Thursday as he toured a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters and confronted Powell in person while the two argued in front of reporters over the true costs of the project. "I just want to see one thing happen, very simple: Interest rates have to come down," the president told reporters. Traders widely expect the Fed's Federal Open Market Committee to defy Trump and once again keep rates unchanged this Wednesday, as they have for every other meeting so far in 2025. The market expects the first cut of 2025 to happen on Sept. 17, the third-to-last meeting of the year. But at least two of Powell's colleagues are warming to Trump's near-term rate cut call, which could produce some disagreement this week behind closed doors in Washington. One Fed governor, Christoper Waller, has already hinted that he may publicly dissent Wednesday if his colleagues vote to keep rates unchanged. His opinion is that any inflation from Trump's tariffs will prove to be temporary, and he's concerned that the labor market may soon worsen. But many other Fed officials have backed Powell in his view that more time is needed to assess the impact of Trump's tariffs on inflation. They also note that the labor market is holding up, removing any urgency to act in the way that Trump wants. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments "This is a campaign of undermining the chairman's credibility and really trying to undermine his public support in the face of what I think is the real objective, and that is to get a lower rate environment in place," former Kansas City Fed president Esther George said. A Powell press conference following the meeting on Wednesday gives the Fed chair a new chance to respond to the White House's escalating pressure campaign and mounting questions about the $2.5 billion renovation of two Fed buildings along the National Mall. Trump considered firing Powell in recent weeks but has now appeared to back away from doing so, telling reporters this past week that "he is going to be out pretty soon anyway" — a reference to the fact that Powell's term as chair is up in May. While touring the Fed's construction site on Thursday, Trump said of firing Powell: "To do that is a big move, and I just don't think it's necessary." Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? New headaches But that doesn't mean the White House is going to let up on Powell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this past week called for a review of the central bank's $2.5 billion project and an "exhaustive internal review' of its non-monetary policy operations. He argued that "significant mission creep and institutional growth have taken the Fed into areas that potentially jeopardize the independence of its core monetary policy mission." The Fed also got another new headache last week when a money manager — and Trump ally who recently served as an adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency — filed a lawsuit arguing that the central bank is violating a 1976 federal law by keeping its policy meetings behind closed doors. That money manager, Azoria Capital, is asking for a Washington, D.C., federal court to issue a temporary restraining order compelling the FOMC to open its deliberations to the public this week. Some on Capitol Hill are also getting louder about more scrutiny of the Fed. Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, a subcommittee chair on the House Financial Services Committee, is reportedly moving forward with a congressional investigation of the Fed, according to PunchBowl News, even as many of his Senate colleagues have shied away from that idea. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, another Trump ally, formally requested that the DOJ investigate Powell for perjury over June comments about the renovations, although that is seen as a long shot at best. House Speaker Mike Johnson said in an interview with Bloomberg reporters and editors last week that he is "disenchanted" with Powell and is even open to modifying the 1913 act that created the Fed. That would be a major change, but it is not expected to come before Congress in the near term, as the House of Representatives went home Wednesday evening for a recess that is scheduled to last for the rest of the summer. Powell has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to leave as chair until his term is up, that his removal is "not permitted by law," and that he was honest and transparent about the Fed's construction project while testifying before Senate lawmakers on June 25. In a July 17 letter to White House budget director Russ Vought, Powell wrote that "we take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources" and offered a point-by-point response to Vought's concerns about cost overruns and certain design elements. Read more: What experts say about the possibility of additional rate cuts 'I do think it's damaging' Trump and his allies have taken to several new lines of attack against Powell, even beyond the building renovation, as they argue for rates to be as many as three percentage points lower. They cite what they predict will be savings on US debt if the rate is lower, as well as how a lower rate would make borrowing for a home less expensive in the US. Trump has even hinted that he has more than just Powell to blame for the fact that rates have remained unchanged since he took office. "The Board should act, but they don't have the Courage to do so!" Trump wrote on his social media platform this past week, referring to the larger Fed Board of Governors on which Powell serves. StoneX senior adviser Jon Hilsenrath told Yahoo Finance that he expects Trump's attacks to eventually extend to the regional Fed presidents based around the country. They have rotating positions on the Fed body that makes the final call on rates. The president does not appoint the regional Fed bosses, who are instead chosen by banks in those Fed districts. One of them, Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee, defended Powell in a July 18 interview with Yahoo Finance, calling the Fed chair a "totally honorable guy." He also expressed concerns about Fed independence. "It pains me to hear people actively discussing whether the central bank should be independent. There's nothing good can come of discussion like that." George, the former Kansas City Fed president, said of the president's pressure campaign targeting building renovations: "I do think it's damaging." "It's when we undermine institutions and create suspicion in the public that something is wrong here, I think credibility suffers," she said. "This is a time when the Fed needs its independence," George added. "It is a time when, yes, lower rates would help the federal government, but we know countries that have gone down that path, and we know in this country going down that path does not produce good outcomes in the long term." Last Thursday, though, Trump sounded confident during his tour of the Fed's headquarters that Powell would see things his way. "I think he's going to do the right thing,' the president said. "Everybody knows what the right thing is.' Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
State's law on sidewalk injuries a relic of the ‘60s
And while Boston's sidewalk issues may be a rather Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The law is as cruel to victims as it is outdated, but more than that it is simply bad public policy, providing no incentive for public officials to either keep sidewalks in a state of good repair or make repairs in a timely fashion. That loose chunk of cement on East Broadway today remains as it was four years ago when that accident happened. Advertisement Alison Evans, a freelance photographer, broke her arm in a fall on Newbury Street in the summer of 2022, and brought her tale of justice denied to Boston Globe consumer advocacy reporter That low payout cap effectively prevents people from obtaining legal representation. Personal injury lawyers usually get a third of any settlement or jury award, but a third of $5,000 — that's $1,666 — isn't worth their time. 'I went to every lawyer in my building after my fall,' Rosanne Mercer told the editorial board, 'and couldn't find anyone to take the case.' Mercer, who was running a public relations agency on the waterfront when she had her accident, suffered a broken foot and a concussion from a fall over a newly reconfigured curb. When the complaint was filed, it was day 31. There ought to be law, right? Or more properly a better law. And, yes, there could be. Advertisement The legislation, filed by Democratic Representative Jay Livingstone of Boston, would increase the current 30-day limit to two years and the $5,000 limit to $100,000 — essentially treating injuries on public sidewalks like any other injuries caused by a government agency covered by the But for those injured on faulty sidewalks it at least would provide a fairer timeline and far better financial relief. Among those supporting the legislation in written testimony was Bonnie Donohue, who told the committee she was hospitalized and incurred some $30,000 in dental bills from a fall over a corrugated barrier on Summer Street near her apartment (And for clumsy people who think every stumble will lead to an easy payday: Sorry, but filing a claim doesn't mean you'll actually get paid, or that you'll get paid the maximum amount. People seeking compensation still need to demonstrate negligence on the city's part.) This isn't only a Boston problem. Where there are sidewalks and aging infrastructure, there will be accidents. Northampton, now in the process of Advertisement No one wants to see a city or town bankrupted by specious claims or frivolous lawsuits. But a law where the financial penalties haven't been updated in 60 years — even as medical costs have soared for everything from tending to skinned knees to fixing broken bones — does a grave disservice to those injured through no fault of their own. It imposes virtually no penalty for communities to take better care of their infrastructure, from sidewalks to curbs to potholes, and that's plain wrong. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
USA Today
14 minutes ago
- USA Today
Nvidia CEO says Trump gives America an advantage. Hear that, progressives?
The top executive of the world's most valuable company doesn't have to flatter anyone, even the president of the United States. I'm worried about artificial intelligence. It feels like it's invasive, increasingly ubiquitous and coming for my job. I'm not alone. More than 30% of Americans think AI will do more harm than good. But on July 24, the Trump administration unveiled a bold plan to ensure that the U.S. dominates the world when it comes to AI. It's eased my mind a bit. President Donald Trump's plan sounds smart and promising. Global tech leaders support it, too, including the chief executive of the world's most valuable company. "America's unique advantage that no country could possibly have is President Trump," Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said on the "All-In" podcast. Trump says US will win the AI race Trump, speaking at the Winning the AI Race summit for "All In," declared that the U.S. will outpace foreign competitors in developing artificial intelligence. That's important because tech leaders have noted that the country that achieves certain AI milestones may well develop an insurmountable lead in unleashing the most revolutionary technology of our lifetimes. Opinion newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter on conservative values, family and religion from columnist Nicole Russell. Get it delivered to your inbox. The Trump administration is taking a hands-off approach to regulating AI at this point. The president even signed executive orders to reduce regulations on constructing data centers and block states from regulating AI on their own. Opinion: Trump wins again. Columbia's $200 million fine will reshape higher education. Tech industry giants embrace Trump's AI plan The shift in the tech industry from critics to partners of Trump has been remarkable. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was one of those critics. Now he supports the president. Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg also has made an obvious shift toward Trump. And, of course, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk famously supported Trump before their very public and nasty falling out this year. Opinion: We're creating AI that could surveil US citizens. And the government is in on it. The tech leaders admittedly have their own interests in mind in praising Trump these days. But those interests also include America's economic, technological and national defense priorities. Our nation's strength and the prosperity and well-being of Americans may well depend on whether we win the AI race in the years ahead. It's Huang's support that impresses me the most. The top executive of the world's most valuable company doesn't have to flatter anyone, even the president of the United States. Nvidia is leading the global race to the future, and this leader among leaders now says having Trump in the White House is an advantage for America. Perhaps even progressives should listen. Nicole Russell is a columnist at USA TODAY and a mother of four who lives in Texas. Contact her at nrussell@ and follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @russell_nm. Sign up for her weekly newsletter, The Right Track, here. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
