The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere peaked above 430 parts per million in 2025—the highest it has been in millions of years—according to data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego on Thursday.

The news was overshadowed by the explosive feud between U.S. President Donald Trump and his erstwhile backer Elon Musk, but climate activist Bill McKibben argued that it was ultimately more consequential.

"In the long run, this is actually going to be the important news of the day—CO2 in the atmosphere passes another grim milestone," McKibben wrote on social media.

Carbon dioxide has been accumulating in the atmosphere due primarily to the human burning of fossil fuels, as well as by the clearing of forests and other natural carbon sinks. There, it acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat from the Earth, and is the primary gas responsible for the rise of global temperatures by approximately 1.1°C from the 1850 -1900 average. This warming has already had a host of dramatic impacts, from extreme weather events to sea-level rise to polar ice melt, and scientists warn these impacts will only accelerate under current energy policies, which put the world on track for around 3°C of warming by 2100.

The last time that atmospheric CO2 concentrations topped 430 ppm was most likely more than 30 million years ago, Ralph Keeling, who directs the Scripps CO2 Program, toldNBC News.

"It's changing so fast," he said. "If humans had evolved in such a high-CO2 world, there would probably be places where we wouldn't be living now. We probably could have adapted to such a world, but we built our society and a civilization around yesterday's climate."

"While largely symbolic, passing 430 ppm should be a wake-up call."

Scripps and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both measure carbon dioxide levels from NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where Charles Keeling began taking measurements in 1958. As CO2 levels rise over time, they also follow a seasonal cycle—peaking in May before falling in the Northern Hemisphere summer and rising again in the fall.

This May, Scripps Oceanography calculated an average of 430.2 ppm for 2025, which is 3.5 ppm over the average for May 2024. NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory, meanwhile, calculated a monthly average of 430.5 ppm, a 3.6 ppm jump from the year before and the second-steepest yearly climb since 1958.

"Another year, another record," Keeling said in a statement. "It's sad."

The news comes two months after Mauna Loa daily measurements surpassed 430 ppm for the first time in March, which Plymouth Marine Laboratory professor Helen Findlay called "extremely disappointing and worrying."

"While largely symbolic, passing 430 ppm should be a wake-up call, especially given the accelerated response we are seeing of glaciers and ice sheets to current warming," Dr. James Kirkham, chief scientist of the Ambition on Melting Ice coalition of governments, said at the time.

"This upward trajectory is a direct result of continued fossil fuel use, likely exacerbated by emissions from extreme wildfires last year, methane leaks from fossil fuel extraction and possibly greater permafrost emissions, alongside decreased ability of very warm oceans to absorb CO2," Kirkham said.

The monthly record also comes a little more than a week after a United Nations report warned that there was a small chance global temperatures could surpass 2°C in at least 1 of the next 5 years, only a decade after world leaders pledged in the Paris agreement to keep global temperatures "well-below" that level.

"Carbon emissions are still rising, and the atmosphere is going to keep heating further until greenhouse gas concentrations stabilize," Matt Kean, who chairs Australia's Climate Change Authority, wrote in response to the Scripps and NOAA figures. "What sort of climate do we want to leave our children and those who come after them?"

In what North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein called a "dark day" for the state, the North Carolina Supreme Court on Friday delivered a partial victory to Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin, who is challenging some 65,000 votes in his bid to overturn the narrow win of his Democratic opponent and incumbent state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs.

The Supreme Court, ruling 4-2, partially overturned an appeals court decision earlier this month that gave all the challenged voters 15 days to affirm their identities. Instead, the state's highest court ruled that around 60,000 ballots with registration inconsistencies would not be challenged, but approximately 5,000 overseas or military voters would have to verify their identities within 30 days. Riggs said she would challenge the ruling in federal court, and asked the court to temporarily block the order.

"I'm the proud daughter of a 30-year military veteran who was deployed overseas, and it is unacceptable that the court is choosing to selectively disenfranchise North Carolinians serving our country, here and overseas," Riggs said in a statement. "While I'm gratified to see the Court of Appeals reversed on the erroneous decision to potentially disenfranchise the more than 60,000 North Carolinians whose registration my opponent has recklessly challenged, I will not waiver in my fight to protect the fundamental freedoms for which our military service members and their families have sacrificed so much."

Riggs won the November contest to remain on the state Supreme Court by 734 votes, but Griffin has challenged several thousand votes, predominantly on two grounds: Around 60,000 of the challenged votes are from in-state voters whose driver's license or social security numbers were missing from a state database of registered voters, while another approximately 2,000 to 7,000 are overseas or military voters who did not show ID when voting absentee. A significant number of the votes he challenged belonged to people living in Democratic-leaning counties.

The state Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the 60,000 in-state voters should not be challenged because their rights should not be denied due to “mistakes made by negligent election officials in registering citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote," as The New York Times reported.

However, the court allowed the challenge to the overseas votes to stand, even though overseas voters have never before been required to show ID since a state-voter ID law went into effect.

"Republicans are surgically targeting military voters from six counties and forcing them to re-prove themselves or be disenfranchised," Anderson Clayton, the chairwoman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, said in a statement reported by the Times.

Finally, the court also allowed the votes of nearly 300 voters who had never lived in North Carolina—often the children of North Carolina residents who turned 18 while living abroad—to be tossed.

If the state Supreme Court's ruling stands and the military and overseas votes are rejected, Griffin has said he expects it will be enough to tip the election in his favor, WRAL Newsreported.

The two dissenting justices vehemently condemned the majority decision.

"It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election," Democratic Justice Anita Earls wrote. "Some would call it stealing the election, others might call it a bloodless coup, but by whatever name, no amount of smoke and mirrors makes it legitimate."

Justice Richard Dietz, a Republican, broke with his party and agreed that the court should not alter election laws after the fact. He also criticized his colleagues for not hearing arguments before making their decision.

"By every measure, this is the most impactful election-related court decision our state has seen in decades," Dietz wrote. "It cries out for our full review and for a decisive rejection of this sort of post hoc judicial tampering in election results."

State and national Democratic Party leaders also spoke out against the court's decision.

"Today is a dark day for our courts and our state," North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein wrote on social media. "The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that certain active duty military voters serving our nation must jump through hoops that other voters don't. All voters have a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law—it is foundational to our democracy. It's unconscionable, and this decision cannot stand."

Former Attorney General Eric Holder called the ruling "both a disgrace and legacy defining for those who put their names behind it."

"This shocking decision abandons the judiciary's most basic role, to protect the rights of the people, and sanctions an outright attempt to steal an election," he said in a statement. "The North Carolina Supreme Court's Republican majority has, for naked partisan reasons, cherrypicked whose votes count and whose do not. It is the height of political arrogance to tell military members who serve and sacrifice for our country, and other voters, that their votes and those of their family members are questionable."

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said: "Jefferson Griffin doesn't get to pick and choose whose votes count in an election—no politician does. The men and women serving in our military will not allow their voices to be silenced by a desperate loser like Griffin."

"The nation is watching North Carolina," Martin continued. "Meanwhile, the DNC and Democrats across this country stand ready to marshal resources and manpower to ensure every vote cast in this election is counted. The people's voices will be heard, and Justice Allison Riggs will take her rightful place on the North Carolina Supreme Court."

On the first day of his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump announced he was fulfilling his campaign promise to "drill, baby, drill" by declaring a "national energy emergency." The declaration seeks to spur the "identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation" of every energy source except for wind, solar, battery storage, and improved efficiency.

But what exactly does this mean, and how much damage could it do to local communities, energy prices, the global climate, and the nation's leadership in the green energy transition? Quite a lot, a panel of energy policy experts warned on Wednesday.

"These executive orders and this administration are sending us down exactly the wrong path," said senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center Megan Gibson. "By attempting to fabricate a national energy emergency, these orders set the stage toward increased fossil fuel extraction, transmission, use, and export. This is all over cleaner, more affordable technologies that we have and are commercially scalable."

The National Security Justification

Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, warned that "the threat is extremely real, and here right now, that Trump is going to seek to push unneeded fossil fuel projects."

Trump gave himself a major tool to accomplish this in the declaration by evoking national security. Specifically, Section 7 orders Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to conduct an assessment of the department's access to the energy needed to "protect the homeland" and present it within 60 days, or by March 21. The report should examine any vulnerabilities, with a special emphasis on the Northeast and West Coast, where local and state Democratic governments have rejected new fossil fuel projects on climate grounds.

While Trump tried to use national security justifications to speed fossil fuel development during his first term, he was stymied in part by opposition within government agencies. That is less likely to be the case now.

"There is no question that when you add national security designations to civilian energy infrastructure projects, you're putting in the crosshairs any civil servant or citizen who seeks to deviate from Trump's line."

"He has now purged agencies of opposition and has much firmer control over the national security apparatus that he's going to need to use national security justifications for this energy emergency declaration," Slocum said.

Therefore, Hegseth's report could be used to, for example, claim that the energy needs of military bases in the Northeast require the revival of the Constitution pipeline that would bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New York, which state leaders had previously rejected.

"This is about a larger issue of attacking parts of the country that didn't vote for him and parts of the country that also have enacted a number of laws and regulations promoting action on climate change and promoting renewables," Slocum said. "And so this is part of a general attack on state leadership of those states that he sees as not being accommodating enough to fossil fuels."

At the same time, the emergency declaration could be used as part of a negotiating tactic with Democratic state leaders. To take New York as an example again, Trump might persuade Gov. Kathy Hochul to accept the Constitution pipeline in exchange for allowing offshore wind or ending opposition to congestion pricing.

"Trump will either force his agenda upon unwilling states, or he will use it as a club to bully them into doing it as part of a horse-trading maneuver," Slocum said.

Using the national security justification could also make it easier for the administration to crack down on not only civil society protests against these projects, but stubborn opposition from local leaders as well. Even elected officials who pushed back, Slocum warned, could be labeled terrorists.

"There is no question that when you add national security designations to civilian energy infrastructure projects, you're putting in the crosshairs any civil servant or citizen who seeks to deviate from Trump's line," he said.

Cutting Corners

Another provision of the emergency declaration being monitored by advocates is Section 4, which calls on heads of agencies to alert the Army Corps of Engineers to projects they want to see prioritized. The Corps plays an important role in issuing 404 permits for any infrastructure that is built through or beneath a body of water. It also has the authority to rush its permitting process—including by waving or truncating a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review—in the case of an emergency.

Shortly after Trump's declaration, the Army Corps listed several "emergency"-designated projects on its website. However, David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, pointed out, "none of those projects, not a single one, meets the Corps' own definition of what an emergency is."

The Corps can rush a project through only if not doing so poses an immediate threat to life, property, or economic well-being, and it has historically only done so in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods or hurricanes.

"In the long run, the question is how many times is the Corps going to make groups sue them?"

"No one has ever tried to speed up permitting on the basis of a national energy emergency, let alone a clearly fictitious one," Bookbinder said.

The Army Corps immediately removed the emergency designations of projects on its website once they were discovered, and groups including Bookbinder's have filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Corps to find out what projects other agencies have told it to fast-track. Those requests are due around the beginning of April.

"As soon as they try permitting one of these projects, cutting the corners and speeding up a permit by designating it as, quote, an emergency, that permit will be challenged," Bookbinder said. "And in the long run, the question is how many times is the Corps going to make groups sue them?"

In the long-term, advocates say, the administration may attempt to use the Corps' ability to rush "emergency" projects in order to bypass NEPA altogether, ignore court orders that try to stop it, and undermine agencies that push back. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is supposed to be independent, for example, Trump on Tuesday fired the two Democratic commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission.

"We are very concerned that should Trump perceive any roadblocks at FERC to his energy emergency declaration that he would have no qualms forcibly removing independent FERC commissioners from their seats and replace them with compliant commissioners," Slocum said. "So this is not bluster."

Ultimately, Slocum added, "we are in an era right now where the only norm is Trump is going to violate it."

Who Benefits?

While the Trump administration is trying to rush through fossil fuel projects, the panelists were clear that his energy agenda will not benefit the majority of U.S. communities and ratepayers.

"If we continue down this path, this self-destructive path, we will miss out on an opportunity to build a vibrant, sustainable energy economy that benefits all Americans, that will actually secure our national energy independence, and would position our country for long-term economic success," Gibson said.

So who will benefit? The clue comes in part in a closed-door meeting the Trump administration held with oil and gas executives in the White House, also on Wednesday.

"Advocates must keep challenging approvals through litigation and public pressure—making the case that the project can and should be denied if there is no genuine need or if adverse impacts are overwhelming."

"After spending $450 million in the last election to elect Trump and install friendly lawmakers on Capitol Hill, fossil fuel executives are getting what they paid for," Slocum said in a statement about the meeting. "We know precisely what the oil industry will do with decreased costs stemming from Trump's deregulation: They will pocket the savings and shower executives and wealthy investors with bonuses and dividends."

"Under Trump, fossil fuel corporations will accelerate the transfer of wealth from consumers to billionaires while exposing millions of Americans to more pollution and delaying the transition to clean energy for as long as possible," he continued.

Slocum further told Common Dreams that "the fossil fuel industry's close ties to Trump and key Trump officials will play a role in decisions Trump has made and will continue to make on the energy emergency declaration and implementation."

Gibson said the emergency declaration was "perpetuating a pattern where major fossil fuel corporations reap substantial profits while the American public and communities have to deal with rising energy prices, higher utility bills, a weakened domestic energy system, not to mention extreme and lasting harms to our communities and our health."

In response, she called on "unlikely partners and coalitions to push for a modern, democratically grounded energy policy that benefits the public."

'It's essential that we continue to hold regulators accountable: Many of FERC's decisions have disregarded states' and communities' objections. Advocates must keep challenging approvals through litigation and public pressure—making the case that the project can and should be denied if there is no genuine need or if adverse impacts are overwhelming," she said.

"We truly urge policymakers, stakeholders, and the public to see these executive orders for what they truly are: an unnecessary and counterproductive retreat to outdated energy strategies," Gibson said. "The real emergency here isn't a lack of fossil fuel extraction, transmission, or export. It's lack of vision and courage, and competent governance to embrace the modern clean energy economy we know we need and deserve."

An expert on technology and human rights and a survivor of the Rohingya genocide warned Monday that new policies adopted by social-media giant Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, could incite genocidal violence in the future.

On January 7, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced changes to Meta policies that were widely interpreted as a bid to gain approval from the incoming Trump administration. These included the replacement of fact-checkers with a community notes system, relocating content moderators from California to Texas, and lifting bans on the criticisms of certain groups such as immigrants, women, and transgender individuals.

Zuckerberg touted the changes as an anti-censorship campaign, saying the company was trying to "get back to our roots around free expression" and arguing that "the recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point toward, once again, prioritizing speech."

"With Zuckerberg and other tech CEOs lining up (literally, in the case of the recent inauguration) behind the new administration's wide-ranging attacks on human rights, Meta shareholders need to step up and hold the company's leadership to account to prevent Meta from yet again becoming a conduit for mass violence, or even genocide."

However, Pat de Brún, head of Big Tech Accountability at Amnesty International, and Maung Sawyeddollah, the founder and executive director of the Rohingya Students' Network who himself fled violence from the Myanmar military in 2017, said the change in policies would make it even more likely that Facebook or Instagram posts would inflame violence against marginalized communities around the world. While Zuckerberg's announcement initially only applied to the U.S., the company has suggested it could make similar changes internationally as well.

"Rather than learning from its reckless contributions to mass violence in countries including Myanmar and Ethiopia, Meta is instead stripping away important protections that were aimed at preventing any recurrence of such harms," de Brún and Sawyeddollah wrote on the Amnesty International website. "In enacting these changes, Meta has effectively declared an open season for hate and harassment targeting its most vulnerable and at-risk people, including trans people, migrants, and refugees."

Past research has shown that Facebook's algorithms can promote hateful, false, or racially provocative content in an attempt to increase the amount of time users spend on the site and therefore the company's profits, sometimes with devastating consequences.

One example is what happened to the Rohingya, as de Brún and Sawyeddollah explained:

We have seen the horrific consequences of Meta's recklessness before. In 2017, Myanmar security forces undertook a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims. A United Nations Independent Fact-Finding Commission concluded in 2018 that Myanmar had committed genocide. In the years leading up to these attacks, Facebook had become an echo chamber of virulent anti-Rohingya hatred. The mass dissemination of dehumanizing anti-Rohingya content poured fuel on the fire of long-standing discrimination and helped to create an enabling environment for mass violence. In the absence of appropriate safeguards, Facebook's toxic algorithms intensified a storm of hatred against the Rohingya, which contributed to these atrocities. According to a report by the United Nations, Facebook was instrumental in the radicalization of local populations and the incitement of violence against the Rohingya.

In late January, Sawyeddollah—with the support of Amnesty International, the Open Society Justice Initiative, and Victim Advocates International—filed a whistleblower's complaint against Meta with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concerning Facebook's role in the Rohingya genocide.

The complaint argued that the company, then registered as Facebook, had known or at least "recklessly disregarded" since 2013 that its algorithm was encouraging the spread of anti-Rohingya hate speech and that its content moderation policies were not sufficient to address the issue. Despite this, it misrepresented the situation to both the SEC and investors in multiple filings.

Now, Sawyeddollah and de Brún are concerned that history could repeat itself unless shareholders and lawmakers take action to counter the power of the tech companies.

"With Zuckerberg and other tech CEOs lining up (literally, in the case of the recent inauguration) behind the new administration's wide-ranging attacks on human rights, Meta shareholders need to step up and hold the company's leadership to account to prevent Meta from yet again becoming a conduit for mass violence, or even genocide," they wrote. "Similarly, legislators and lawmakers in the U.S. must ensure that the SEC retains its neutrality, properly investigate legitimate complaints—such as the one we recently filed, and ensure those who abuse human rights face justice."

The human rights experts aren't the only ones concerned about Meta's new direction. Even employees are sounding the alarm.

"I really think this is a precursor for genocide," one former employee toldPlatformer when the new policies were first announced. "We've seen it happen. Real people's lives are actually going to be endangered. I'm just devastated."

The Trump administration put two U.S. Agency for International Development security officials on administrative leave late Saturday after they refused to grant employees from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency access to classified files, in the latest example of DOGE's attempt to impose its will on the federal government.

The DOGE members were ultimately able to see the files, which were located in a restricted area and included intelligence reports, a former U.S. official toldThe Associated Press on Sunday.

Matt Hopson, who was appointed by Trump as USAID's chief of staff, resigned after the security officials were put on leave, sources familiar with the situation toldReuters.

The incident at USAID came the day after a similar struggle in the Treasury Department, in which a top official resigned after refusing to grant DOGE access to the payment system that disburses Social Security, Medicare, and other government funds. DOGE was then able to access that system as well.

CNN described the Saturday night tussle at USAID:

According to sources, personnel from the Musk-created office physically tried to access the USAID headquarters in Washington, D.C. and were stopped. The DOGE personnel demanded to be let in and threatened to call U.S. Marshals to be allowed access, two of the sources said.

The DOGE personnel wanted to gain access to USAID security systems and personnel files, three sources said. Two of those sources also said the DOGE personnel wanted access to classified information, which only those with security clearances and a specific need to know are able to access.

A former and a current U.S. official told AP that the security officers were required by law to block the DOGE team's access because its members lacked the proper security clearance. The officials were identified as USAID Director of Security John Voorhees and his deputy Brian McGill.

Following the incident, Musk lashed out at USAID on social media several times on Sunday, calling it a "criminal organization" and saying it was "time for it to die."

The Washington Post reported that "by Sunday afternoon, USAID's X account had been taken down, with a message saying the account 'doesn't exist.'"

USAID has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration and Musk's attempts to cut government spending since President Donald Trump took office in January. On his first day, Trump issued an executive order pausing foreign aid spending for 90 days, which was followed by a January 24 State Department directive mandating that the government not provide any assistance through USAID without department approval.

The administration then placed dozens of senior USAID officials on leave, arguing without proof that they were violating the spending freeze. Further, it forced Nicholas Gottlieb, director of employee and labor relations at USAID, on administrative leave after he refused to carry out a rash of firings demanded by the administration and DOGE, which he deemed "illegal."

On Sunday morning, nearly 30 USAID Legislative and Public Affairs employees discovered they had lost email access, according to Reuters, raising the total number of USAID employees put on administrative leave to almost 100.

CNN recounted reports that the administration wants to close USAID and bring it under the fold of the State Department. Its website stopped working on Saturday.

However, USAID is not the only government agency that has been targeted by Musk's DOGE, which has also locked career civil servants out of a database of federal employees at the Office of Personnel Management. Musk's allies have reportedly taken control of the agency.

Employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been ordered to pull any articles under consideration for publication in medical or scientific journals so that they can be checked for certain "forbidden terms" including gender, transgender, and LGBT.

The order was sent in an email to CDC division heads on Friday by the agency's chief science officer, a federal official toldReuters on Sunday. Inside Medicine broke the news on Saturday and provided a screenshot of the full list of terms that needed to be scrubbed.

"It sounds incredible that this is compatible with the First Amendment. A constitutional right has been canceled," Dr. Alfredo Morabia, editor in chief of the American Journal of Public Health, told Reuters. "How can the government decide what words a journal can use to describe a scientific reality? That reality needs to be named."

"We can't just erase or ignore certain populations when it comes to preventing, treating, or researching infectious diseases such as HIV."

The order is an attempt to ensure that CDC is in compliance with U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order mandating that the U.S. government only recognize two sexes: male and female. The papers will be withdrawn so that a Trump appointee can review them.

The "forbidden terms" CDC employees are supposed to avoid are, in full: Gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, and biologically female, according to Inside Medicine.

The order covers both papers under considerations and ones that have been accepted but not published. If a CDC employee worked on a paper with nongovernmental scientists but did not initiate it, they have been asked to remove their names, according to Reuters.

The new order is separate from a demand two days into the administration that government health agencies including CDC freeze all communications with the public. It follows reports on Friday that CDC webpages and datasets involving HIV, the LGBTQ community, youth health, and other topics were no longer accessible as the agency attempts to comply with the Trump executive order on transgender identity and another on banning government Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.

"It is Orwellian, it really is," Steven Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at Virginia Commonwealth University's Center on Society and Health, toldThe Washington Post of the website purges. "The fact that so many websites are being scrubbed, it is an alarming development and endangers public policy and makes it difficult for decision-makers around the country, including doctors like myself, to make informed choices."

In response to the purges, scientists, science journalists, and public health advocates have worked to preserve the datasets, with everything on the CDC website as of January 27, 2024 preserved at ACASignups.net and downloaded data sets also available on Jessica Valenti's Substack Abortion, Every Day.

"Censoring data on ideological grounds is wrong. It is unscientific, and it is designed to eliminate opposition and erase dissidents," virologist Angela Rasmussen, who was involved with the data preservation efforts, wrote on social media.

The journal article retraction order has created uncertainty and confusion at the agency, Inside Medicine reported:

How many manuscripts are affected is unclear, but it could be many. Most manuscripts include simple demographic information about the populations or patients studied, which typically includes gender (and which is frequently used interchangeably with sex). That means just about any major study would fall under the censorship regime of the new policy, including studies on Covid-19, cancer, heart disease, or anything else, let alone anything that the administration considers to be "woke ideology." Meanwhile, chaos and fear are already guiding decisions. While the policy is only meant to apply to work that might be seen as conflicting with President Trump's executive orders, CDC experts don’t know how to interpret that. Do papers that describe disparities in health outcomes fall into "woke ideology" or not? Nobody knows, and everyone is scared that they'll be fired. This is leading to what Germans call "vorauseilender Gehorsam," or "preemptive obedience," as one non-CDC scientist commented.

There are also concerns that censoring such a broad list of terms would have unintended consequences for public health.

"We can't just erase or ignore certain populations when it comes to preventing, treating, or researching infectious diseases such as HIV. I certainly hope this is not the intent of these orders," Carl Schmid, the executive director of the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, told Reuters.

Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency—or DOGE—have been granted access to a sensitive Treasury Department payment system that contains the personal information of every American who receives tax refunds, Medicare, Social Security, and other payments from the government.

Newly approved Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent gave Musk surrogates access to the system late on Friday, five people familiar with the situation toldThe New York Times. Bessent's decision came the same day as news that David Lebryk, a career Treasury official who was acting secretary before Bessent's confirmation, would step down after arguing with DOGE members over access to the system run by the Bureau of Fiscal Service that pays out over $6 trillion a year.

"Sources tell my office that Treasury Secretary Bessent has granted DOGE *full* access to this system," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote on social media on Saturday. "Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors, including those that compete directly with Musk's own companies. All of it."

"Americans don't want an unelected and unaccountable billionaire dictating what working families can and cannot afford."

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich also responded with shock to the news: "An unelected billionaire, with no actual congressional authority or governmentt experience, now has access to Treasury payment systems and sensitive information about millions of Americans who receive Social Security checks, tax refunds, and other payments. What could go wrong?"

The news heightens fears that Musk and the Trump administration are attempting to gain authoritarian control over the federal government by ousting or sidelining career civil servants and undermining Congress, which has the constitutional authority to decide how the government should spend its money.

DOGE gained access to the Treasury payment system on the same day that an official at the Office of Personnel Management said that Musk allies had locked career civil servants out of a computer system containing the personal information of federal employees. The news also capped a week in which the Trump administration attempted to freeze all federal grants and loans, a move that has been temporarily blocked by two judges.

Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter demanding answers from Bessent on Friday when reports first emerged that Musk's team had tried to gain access to the system.

"To put it bluntly, these payment systems simply cannot fail, and any politically motivated meddling in them risks severe damage to our country and the economy," Wyden wrote. "I am deeply concerned that following the federal grant and loan freeze earlier this week, these officials associated with Musk may have intended to access these payment systems to illegally withhold payments to any number of programs. I can think of no good reason why political operators who have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law would need access to these sensitive, mission-critical systems."

Other Democratic lawmakers also voiced concerns on social media about the news.

"Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth, is rooting around in Social Security and Medicare payment systems. He's reaching his hands into our pockets and firing anyone who tries to stop him. This reeks of corruption—it must stop," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D.-Wash.) wrote.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called the news "alarming' and said that Congress must investigate.

People familiar with the situation told The New York Times that no payments had yet been blocked and that the stated mission of the DOGE team was to review payments, not to stop them. Musk suggested in a social media post on Friday that he was looking for inapropriate expenditures, but also that blocking funds might be appropriate.

"The DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups," he wrote on social media on Friday. "They literally never denied a payment in their entire career. Not even once."

Former Treasury officials told the Times that funds are dispersed by a comparatively small staff who rely on the agencies that earmark the funds to vet them. Don Hammond, who ran the system at the turn of the millennium, also toldThe Wall Street Journal that, while there were certain automatic safeguards in place, it was not the role of Treasury to approve or reject specific payments.

"Legally, if you want to stop a payment from taking place, the place to do that is at the agency level," Hammond said.

Responding to the article on social media on Sunday, Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens wrote: "The Treasury system makes the payments (cuts checks). It doesn't decide who to pay or how much. A little like an employer using a payroll processor. Musk has infiltrated the system to stop payments. It's a coup."

In an op-ed published by MSNBC on Saturday, Owens went into greater detail about her concerns, outlining three reasons why Musk might want access to the Treasury payment system.

1. He could use it to stop payments to certain programs in order to work around the courts' block on the administration's spending freeze.
2. He could access the list of blacklisted federal contractors in order to boost his own or his friend's companies and harm his competitors. (One of the DOGE allies granted access to the payment system, Tom Krause, is also a Big Tech CEO who leads Cloud Software Group, according to The New York Times.)
3. He could use it to reduce Social Security or Medicare payments as part of DOGE's goal of cutting $2 trillion in federal spending.

Owens noted hat Musk wasn't "chasing these cuts for their own sake. He's helping congressional Republicans attempt to pay for a new round of tax breaks for corporations and the ultrawealthy—including Musk himself."

"It's nice to believe in a fantasy in which Musk and DOGE work alongside civil servants to improve technology and services for Americans and save a few bucks along the way. But all evidence points to the contrary," Owens continued. "The richest man in the world, whom no one elected to any government position, is seeking unprecedented access to confidential information, including information pertaining to his own business interests, and seems hell-bent on cutting off as much funding as possible for the programs that matter to the rest of us."

Owens pointed to a recent poll finding that only around one-third of Americans approve of DOGE, and that 52% disapprove of Musk.

"Americans don't want an unelected and unaccountable billionaire dictating what working families can and cannot afford," she concluded. "If Musk is going to continue running the government like one of his failed businesses, perhaps someone should force his 'resignation' too."

U.S. President Donald Trump signed three executive orders on Saturday following through on his promise to impose 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada and 10% tariffs on goods from China, a measure that targets the nation's three largest trading partners.

The tariffs are set to go into effect on Tuesday, according toThe Associated Press. The orders contained no language allowing for the negotiation of exceptions; however, Canadian energy products including oil and gas will only face a tariff of 10%.

"Tariffs are an important strategic economic tool, but Trump's desire for a trade war with Canada and Mexico won't protect jobs, keep Americans safe, or bring down costs for families," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media in response to the news.

"Instead of using tariffs to protect U.S. jobs, Trump is on an ego trip and is using tariffs to pursue petty fights with other nations while raising prices on Americans."

A White House Fact Sheet announcing the tariffs said that the crossing of undocumented immigrants and illegal drugs—including fentanyl—over the Mexican and Canadian borders "constitutes a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act."

"President Trump is taking bold action to hold Mexico, Canada, and China accountable to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping poisonous fentanyl and other illegal drugs from flowing into our country," the fact sheet said.

However, it is unclear exactly what actions the targeted countries could take to lift the tariffs.

U.S. voters' frustration with inflation has been cited as an important reason why Trump won the 2024 presidential election. Yet broad tariffs are expected to raise the prices of a variety of goods including Mexican produce, Canadian lumber, and car-making supplies that often cross both borders several times in the construction of a vehicle, according toNBC News. Companies that import goods or supplies will have to decide whether to swallow the costs or pass them on to consumers.

"Small business owners like me are working hard to keep up with high costs, provide for our families, and keep the economy running," Alex Bronson, who owns a construction business in Mount Clemens, Michigan, said in a statement shared by Unrig Our Economy. "But after promising to lower our costs, Republicans seem set to deliver the opposite. Because of these tariffs, we'll be paying higher costs for construction among just about everything else just to help Republicans in Congress and Donald Trump gift bigger and bigger tax breaks to their billionaire friends and big corporations. It leaves us all wondering: Who are our leaders in Washington really working for?"

Warren also warned that the tariffs could give unscrupulous actors the chance to engage in greedflation.

"I'm concerned that Trump will give cover to giant corporations to use his tariffs as an excuse to raise prices on working families—while doling out waivers to his buddies," she wrote. "We will hold him accountable."

Other Democratic lawmakers also spoke out against the tariffs and the way they were imposed.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) pointed to a new study finding the tariffs would cut into disposable income by approximately $1,250 per household.

"Trump's tariffs are a clear overreach of executive power, misusing authorities never intended for this," Beyer wrote. "The Constitution delegates trade authority to Congress. Trump's abuses of trade powers make it clear that Congress must act to restore the constitutional balance of power."

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said, "Instead of developing a comprehensive worker-centered trade policy that will bring jobs back to the U.S., President Trump is using the threat of across-the-board tariffs not on behalf of American workers and consumers but to advance his own extremist policy agenda."

The Peterson Institute for International Economics found in a recent analysis that tariffs would harm the economies of the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and China, but would be "catastrophic" for Mexico and could ironically increase the number of people who would want to cross the border into the U.S.

"Instead of using tariffs to protect U.S. jobs, Trump is on an ego trip and is using tariffs to pursue petty fights with other nations while raising prices on Americans," Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said in a statement.

"Everything Trump has done these last few days—from trying to shut down Medicaid to blanket tariffs and sanctions—has all been about helping himself and his billionaire friends. House Republicans will own increased prices for Americans, increased migration driven by sanctions, and an overdose crisis made worse by taking away the addiction treatment and healthcare people need," he said.

Labor and public welfare groups also criticized the tariffs.

"It's 'tariff-ying' and nauseating to watch President Trump and his Republican allies in Congress celebrate as they impose tariffs that will raise costs for the rest of us," Unrig Our Economy spokesperson Kobie Christian said. "Every time Americans pay more when they buy clothes, electronics, or shop at the grocery store, they should remember they're paying for the cost of tax breaks that Republicans in Congress and Donald Trump plan to give to billionaires and corporations. It turns out 'America First' means America's Billionaires First."

President of the United Steelworkers (USU) David McCall said in a statement, "The USW has long called for systemic reform of our broken trade system, but lashing out at key allies like Canada is not the way forward," adding, "These tariffs don't just hurt Canada. They threaten the stability of industries on both sides of the border."

Mexico and Canada have both threatened to retaliate in the case of Trump-imposed tariffs. The executive orders signed by Trump included a provision to respond in the case of retaliation. However, if the countries do retaliate, this could also impact U.S. businesses that sell products in the two countries, such as vehicles; electronics; and agricultural, energy, and industrial products, as NBC explained.

"No one—on either side of the border—wants to see American tariffs on Canadian goods," Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wrote on social media on Friday. "I met with our Canada-U.S. Council today. We're working hard to prevent these tariffs, but if the United States moves ahead, Canada's ready with a forceful and immediate response."

On Saturday, Trudeau added that he had met with his cabinet and the premiers of Canadian provinces once the tariffs were announced and would speak with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and address the nation later in the day.

Speaking on Friday from Mexico's National Palace, Sheinbaum said her government had a "plan A, a plan B, a plan C, for whatever the United States government decides."

Once the tariffs were announced on Saturday, she wrote on social media: "I instruct the secretary of economy to implement Plan B that we have been working on, which includes tariff and non-tariff measures in defense of Mexico's interests. Nothing by force; everything by reason and right."

The Trump Department of Justice made moves on Friday to fire FBI employees and prosecutors who were involved with the government's cases against U.S. President Donald Trump and the participants in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

First, on Thursday, several senior FBI officials—stationed both at headquarters and in the field—were told to either resign or be fired. Then, at 5 pm Eastern Time on Friday, dozens of DOJ prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases received an email saying they had been fired. Also on Friday, an email sent to FBI employees told them that acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who previously represented Trump in the cases against him, had requested a list of everyone who had worked on January 6 cases "to determine whether any additional personnel actions are necessary."

"Firing the FBI agents who investigated violent attacks against police officers on January 6 would set a dangerous precedent and make all of us less safe," Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said in a statement. "This is a shameless act of political retribution that weakens federal law enforcement and the rule of law."

"This is a massacre meant to chill our efforts to fight crime without fear or favor."

The FBI higher-ups forced out included the agency's six most senior executives as well as more than 20 directors of field offices including Washington, D.C., Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Seattle, and Las Vegas. The targeted officials had been promoted by former FBI Director Christopher Wray, according toThe New York Times. The Washington, D.C. field office worked extensively on Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations into Trump's mishandling of classified documents and involvement in the January 6 insurrection, as well as the investigations of the rioters themselves, NBC News reported. One source toldThe Hill that agents who had worked on the cases were physically escorted out of the D.C. field office on Friday.

NBC reported that several of the senior officials had chosen to retire, even though they could have challenged their dismissals as nonpolitical appointees subject to civil service regulations.

Many of the agents received the ultimatum the same day that U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to head the FBI, Kash Patel, promised in his Senate confirmation hearing that he would not retaliate against any agents who worked on the Trump cases and was not aware of any attempts to do so.

"All FBI employees will be protected against political retribution," Patel told the Senate.

Trump, meanwhile, said on Friday that he was not aware of the firings, but added, "If they fired some people over there, that's a good thing, because they were very bad. They were very corrupt people, very corrupt, and they hurt our country very badly with the weaponization."

Another memo sent by Bove to acting FBI Director Brian J. Driscoll Jr. laid the groundwork for more firings, as Driscoll was asked to submit a list of all agents and employees "assigned at any time to investigations and/or prosecutions" related to January 6, as The New York Times reported. Field offices received a similar request from the FBI's counterterrorism division. Bove also asked for a list of agents who worked on a case against Hamas leadership, though it is not clear why.

One employee toldCNN that the January 6 case was the largest case the bureau had ever worked on, observing that "everyone touched that case."

In an email to staff on Friday reported by NBC, Driscoll noted, "We understand that this request encompasses thousands of employees across the country who have supported these investigative efforts," adding, "I am one of those employees."

"This is a massacre meant to chill our efforts to fight crime without fear or favor," another anonymous agent told CNN. "Even for those not fired, it sends the message that the bureau is no longer independent."

The FBI Agents Association, which represents over 14,000 active and former agents, issued a scathing statement on Friday.

"If true, these outrageous actions by acting officials are fundamentally at odds with the law enforcement objectives outlined by President Trump and his support for FBI Agents," the association said. "Dismissing potentially hundreds of agents would severely weaken the bureau's ability to protect the country from national security and criminal threats and will ultimately risk setting up the bureau and its new leadership for failure. These actions also contradict the commitments that Attorney General-nominee Pam Bondi and Director-nominee Kash Patel made during their nomination hearings before the United States Senate."

The group added that Patel had promised association members in a meeting that "agents would be afforded appropriate process and review and not face retribution based solely on the cases to which they were assigned."

Finally on Friday, DOJ prosecutors received an email from Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, telling them they were being fired and including a memo from Bove. The fired prosecutors had been hired to work on the January 6 cases and were made permanent by the Biden administration following the November election. In his memo, Bove suggested the prosecutors had been made permanent in an inappropriate attempt to protect them from being fired.

"I will not tolerate subversive personnel actions by the previous administration at any U.S. Attorney's Office," Bove wrote, as POLITICO reported. "Too much is at stake. In light of the foregoing, the appropriate course is to terminate these employees."

One of the impacted prosecutors told POLITICO that 25 to 30 people were let go.

"This attack on the Justice Department and particularly on the FBI is the beginning of America's first true era of dictatorship."

The latest round of DOJ firings comes days after the Trump administration already fired a dozen lawyers who had helped bring Smith's two cases against Trump. They also come a week after Trump's firing of 12 inspectors general. Trump also pardoned all approximately 1,500 people involved in the January 6 insurrection on his first day in office.

News of the FBI and DOJ firings sparked ire from Democratic lawmakers.

"Trump's outrageous attack on the DOJ and FBI is a clear and present danger to public safety, and a wrecking ball swinging at the rule of law," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, in a statement. "Trump wants to send the message to the police and federal officers that the law doesn't apply to Trump and his enablers. It's also part of his campaign to replace nonpartisan career civil servants with political loyalists and incompetent sycophants. Trump's moves have already left the Justice Department and the FBI rudderless and adrift by ousting their career senior ranks. Now, these unprecedented purges of hundreds of prosecutors, staff, and experienced law enforcement agents will undermine the government's power to protect our country against national security, cyber, and criminal threats."

"The loyal friend of autocrats, kleptocrats, oligarchs, and broligarchs, Trump doesn't care about the requirements of democracy, national security, and public safety," Raskin continued. "His agenda is vengeance and retribution. If allowed to proceed, Trump's purge of our federal law enforcement workforce will expose America to authoritarianism and dictatorship."

Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-Ill.), who serves on the Judiciary Committee, called the firings "a major blow to the FBI and Justice Department's integrity and effectiveness."

"This is a brazen assault on the rule of law that also severely undermines our national security and public safety," Durbin continued. "Unelected Trump lackeys are carrying out widespread political retribution against our nation's career law enforcement officials. President Trump would rather have the FBI and DOJ full of blind admirers and loyalists than experienced law enforcement officers."

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) also decried the firings and cast doubt on the integrity of Bondi and Patel, whom Trump had tapped to lead the DOJ and FBI respectively.

"Pam Bondi and Kash Patel both committed to protecting the Department of Justice and the FBI from politics and weaponization. If these reports are true, it's clear they misled the Senate," Himes said. "As ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, I have repeatedly asked the FBI for more information about these reports and will insist on answers."

Fellow Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro wrote on social media: "Priority #1 for the Trump administration: Protect the lawless and purge those who uphold the law. The firing of FBI agents and federal prosecutors without cause is an assault on the rule of law and law enforcement. It leaves Americans vulnerable and less safe. We will push back."

As Democrats promised action, Harvey of Stand Up America also called on Republican lawmakers to respond.

"This is not about public safety—it's about revenge and control," Harvey said. "Removing experienced law enforcement professionals and replacing them with political loyalists puts all of our safety at risk. If there are any Republican senators left who care about protecting the rule of law and public safety, they should oppose this dangerous purge and reject Kash Patel's nomination as FBI Director."

Progressive political commenter Thom Hartmann urged U.S. citizens to call their representatives.

"Let's just call these mass firings at Justice and the FBI what they are. Donald Trump is a lawless man who is ripping apart the FBI to turn it into a banana republic-style group of enforcing thugs who will only do his will," Hartmann wrote on his Substack Saturday morning. "They will spare his friends and persecute his enemies. We've seen this over and over during the past century in countries all over the world; it's nothing new. It's just that we never expected to see it here in America."

"[Russian President Vladimir] Putin dreamed for most of his life of destroying America; he now has a friend who is doing it for him. This attack on the Justice Department and particularly on the FBI is the beginning of America's first true era of dictatorship. The only question now is how long and how far Democratic and Republican politicians and career government employees will tolerate this, and, when their resistance comes, whether it will be too late. The phone number for Congress is 202-224-3121."

Trump-backer and richest person alive Elon Musk's role in almost forcing a government shutdown this week has revived calls for campaign finance reform, both nationally and within the Democratic Party.

As part of his campaign against a bipartisan continuing resolution (CR) that would have funded the government through March 14, Musk said that Republicans who voted for the bill should lose their seats during the 2026 midterms and that he would fund moderate primary challengers to Democrats in safe districts.

"The threat of limitless super-PAC spending from the world's wealthiest man could have proven enough to shut down the federal government days before Christmas," Joseph Geevarghese, the executive director of Our Revolution, told Common Dreams. "If there's ever been a time to discuss serious campaign finance reform, it is now. We are sliding into a new era of American oligarchy, and unless we take decisive action, the integrity of our democracy is at risk."

"How about the House add campaign finance reform to the CR so Republicans and Democrats alike can stop being so scared about what a billionaire man-child thinks before they vote on anything around here?"

Before the shutdown showdown, Musk was already incredibly influential in politics as a financial backer: He spent at least $277 million on the campaigns of President-elect Donald Trump and other Republicans in 2024, including over $19 million on House races alone. Musk also spoke at Trump campaign rallies and was tapped by the president-elect to co-lead a new Department of Government Efficiency with fellow billionaire VivekRamaswamy.

However, his efforts to sink a spending bill revealed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Tuesday raised fresh concerns about his influence on elected politicians. His initial barrage of complaints against the CR—posted on his social media site X on Wednesday—precipitated a statement against the bill by Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance. Johnson never brought the bill up for a vote.

As part of his initial Wednesday tweet storm, Musk wrote, "Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!"

In response to Musk's threats, Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, gave an impassioned speech on the House floor on Thursday.

"Can you image what the next two years are going to be like if every time that Congress works its will and then there's a tweet? Or from an individual who has no official portfolio, who threatens members on the Republican side with a primary and they succumb?" Neal said.

Musk, in response to a video of Neal's speech, tweeted, "Oh… forgot to mention that I'm also going to be funding moderate candidates in heavily Democrat districts, so that the country can get rid of those who don't represent them, like this jackass."

The statement sparked outrage and resistance from congressional Democrats.

"Everyone knows I'm always ready," Neal toldBusiness Insider, while the Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee tweeted out sarcastic memes.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezcalled for change on social media on Friday, writing, "How about the House add campaign finance reform to the CR so Republicans and Democrats alike can stop being so scared about what a billionaire man-child thinks before they vote on anything around here?"

Ultimately, after another Republican-led spending bill failed to clear the House on Thursday, Johnson introduced a paired-down CR that included key measures backed by Democrats such as relief for disaster victims and aid for farmers. That bill passed the House on Friday and the Senate early Saturday, narrowly averting a government shutdown that would have deprived hundreds of thousands of federal employees of paychecks over the holidays.

But Musk's intervention established a precedent "that should upset every American who believes in our democratic form of government," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said.

"Musk is getting carried away with himself, using his limitless fortune and his ownership of X to try to turn American politics to the authoritarian right," former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote on his Substack on Friday.

"Wealth inequality is rapidly undermining our democracy," Reich continued. "Musk is the poster boy for a wealth tax."

Musk's primary challenge to Neal bolstered calls for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to ban super-PAC spending in its primaries.

"Elon Musk, worth $455 billion, spent $277 million to buy the Republican Party," Sanders staff director Warren Gunnels wrote on social media on Friday. "He has also pledged to replace Democrats in primaries with those who represent his special interests. If the DNC doesn't ban super PACs in primaries, what will this picture look like in 2 years?"

Reich also argued that "the DNC must bar dark money and limit campaign contributions in all Democratic primary campaigns. The incoming chair of the DNC, selected on February 1, should make this a key part of their strategy for the 2026 midterms and beyond."

Liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.

A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.

"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."

"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."

The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.

Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.

"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.

Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.

The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:

1. Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
2. JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
3. Mizuho (Japan)
4. Gazprombank (Russia)
5. SMBC Group (Japan)
6. Bank of America (U.S.)
7. Citigroup (U.S.)
8. Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
9. Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
10. RBC (Canada)

While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.

All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.

"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."

The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.

The top 10 LNG investors are:

1. BlackRock
2. Vanguard
3. State Street
4. Fidelity Investments
5. Capital Group
6. GPFG
7. JP Morgan Chase
8. Brookfield Asset Management
9. Blackstone
10. MSBI

Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.

Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.

"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."

To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.

"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."

More than a decade after it sparked massive protests in the state capital, a Wisconsin judge on Monday struck down a controversial law that effectively ended public sector collective bargaining in the state.

In his final judgement, Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost crossed out 85 sections of the 2011 law known as Act 10, which was championed by then-Republican Gov. Scott Walker. Frost's ruling restored the union rights of teachers, sanitation workers, nurses, and other public sector employees.

"After 14 years of battling for our collective bargaining rights, we are thrilled to take this step forward," Rocco DeMark, a building service worker and SEIU Wisconsin worksite leader, said in a statement. "This victory brings us immense joy. Our fight has been long, but we are excited to continue building a Wisconsin where we can all thrive."

"We realize there may still be a fight ahead of us in the courts, but make no mistake, we're ready to keep fighting until we all have a seat at the table again."

Act 10 severely weakened the power of public sector unions in Wisconsin by only permitting them to bargain for wage increases that did not surpass inflation. It also raised what public employees paid for healthcare and retirement, ended the automatic withdrawal of union dues, and required workers to recertify their union votes every year.

The law has had a major impact on the Wisconsin workforce. Between 2000 and 2022, no state saw a steeper decline in its proportion of unionized employees, a drop that the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum partly attributed to Law 10. Unions say that the law has caused a "crisis" for the state's education workforce, as 40% of new teachers leave within six years due to low pay and an unequal wage system. There is also a 32% vacancy rate for state correction officers.

Act 10 had one exception, however: Certain "public safety" employees such as police and firefighters were exempt from the collective bargaining restrictions imposed on "general" employees. It was this division that unions used to challenge the law in November 2023, arguing that it violated the equal protection clause of the Wisconsin Constitution. In July, Frost affirmed that the law was unconstitutional when he struck down an attempt to dismiss the suit. Then, on Monday, he specified exactly which parts of the law would be struck down.

"Judge Frost's ruling is a monumental victory for Wisconsin's working class," Democratic Wisconsin State Assembly Member Darrion Madison toldCourthouse News Service. "All Wisconsinites deserve the opportunity to live in a state that treats all workers with respect and dignity."

The lawsuit was brought by Ben Gruber, Matthew Ziebarth, the Abbotsford Education Association (WEAC/NEA), AFSCME Local 47, AFSCME Local 1215, Beaver Dam Education Association (WEAC/NEA), SEIU Wisconsin, Teaching Assistants Association (TAA/AFT) Local 3220, and Teamsters Local 695.

"Today's decision is personal for me and my coworkers," said Gruber, who serves as president of AFSCME Local 1215. "As a conservation warden, having full collective bargaining rights means we will again have a voice on the job to improve our workplace and make sure that Wisconsin is a safe place for everyone."

The news was also celebrated by state›wide advocacy groups and national leaders.

"We applaud today's ruling as a win for workers' rights and as proof that when we come together to ensure our courts and elected leaders are working on behalf of our rights and freedoms instead of partisan antics, we can accomplish great things," said A Better Wisconsin Together deputy director Mike Browne.

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said: "This decision is a big deal. Act 10 stripped workers of the freedom and power to have a voice on the job to bargain wages, benefits, and working conditions. It's about the dignity of work. And when workers have a voice, they have a vehicle to improve the quality of the services they provide to students, patients, and communities."

"Former Gov. Scott Walker tried to eliminate all of that, and it hurt Wisconsin," she continued. "Now, many years later, the courts have found his actions unconstitutional."

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote on social media, "I voted against Act 10 more than 13 years ago, and am thrilled our public servants are able to once again organize and make their voices heard."

This is not the first time that Act 10 has been challenged in court, but it is the first time since the state's Supreme Court switched from a conservative to a liberal majority in 2023. Since Republican lawmakers have promised to appeal Frost's ruling, the law's ultimate fate could depend on elections in April 2025, which will determine whether the court maintains its liberal majority, according toThe Associated Press.

As they celebrated, the plaintiffs acknowledged the legal fight was not yet over.

"We realize there may still be a fight ahead of us in the courts, but make no mistake, we're ready to keep fighting until we all have a seat at the table again," Gruber said.

WEAC President Peggy Wirtz-Olsen said: "Today's news is a win and, while there will likely be more legal legwork coming, WEAC and our allies will not stop until free, fair, and full collective bargaining rights are restored."

Betsy Ramsdale, a union leader who teaches in the Beaver Dam Unified School District, said that public sector collective bargaining rights ultimately helped the state.

"We're confident that, in the end, the rghts of all Wisconsin public sector employees will be restored," she said. "Educators' working conditions are students' learning conditions, and everyone benefits when we have a say in the workplace."

Since richest-man-alive and X-owner Elon Musk endorsed former Donald Trump for president in July, he has emerged as the No. 1. financial backer of Republican candidate's campaign. But his support hasn't only come in outright donations. His tweets in support of the former president, according to a new analysis ,are worth a total of $24 million.

In a report published Monday, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) found that Musk's political posts between July 13 and October 25 received over twice as many views as U.S. "political campaigning ads" run on X during that time. If any of those advertisers had wanted to reach the same number of people as Musk, they would have had to pay $24 million.

"X has long dropped its pretense to be anything but a loudspeaker for its owner's opinions, personal vendettas, and conspiracies," CCDH wrote on the platform as it shared the report.

Since he endorsed Trump, Musk made a total of 746 posts that mentioned key terms such as "Donald Trump," "Kamala Harris," "voting," or "ballots." These posts were viewed a total of 17.1 billion times compared with 7.7 billion times for all paid political ads.

What's more, at least 87 of Musk's election-themed posts between January 1 and October 23 contained "false or misleading about the presidential election."

These were seen 2 billion times, and none of them was appended by a "community note," a mechanism by which X users can fact-check or provide context to inaccurate posts.

CCDH pointed to two main genres of misleading tweet shared by Musk: those claiming that the Democratic Party was importing immigrant voters and those claiming that U.S. voting systems are not reliable.

For example, on September 18, Musk wrote: "The Dem administrative state is flying millions of future voters directly into swing states. They are being sent to cities and towns throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona. Given that this is a sure path to permanent one-party rule, it is a very smart strategy."

Musk made more than 66 posts along these lines that were seen nearly 1.3 billion times.

Fact-checkers say these claims are false because it takes years for an immigrant to become a U.S. citizen and to be able to vote, and there would be no guarantee that such a person would vote for the Democrats. Existing laws already penalize noncitizens who vote with either deportation or incarceration.

In an example of the second category of lie, Musk wrote on September 4 that "not requiring ID, combined with mail in voting, makes it completely impossible to prove fraud (obviously)."

Musk has made 19 of these types of posts targeting either mail-in or electronic voting, which were viewed almost 532 million times. However, research has shown that voter fraud related to either mail-in voting or drop boxes is exceedingly rare. A full 36 states mandate that voters show an ID before voting, while 14 others have other ways of confirming identity, such as checking a signature against one on file. In all states, voter fraud is against the law.

"Given the sheer frequency of Elon Musk's posting of disinformation and partisan rhetoric, it is almost inevitable that he will be one of the top spreaders of election-related disinformation in this cycle," CCDH founder Imran Ahmed toldCNN.

"He is using the platform to persuade people that elections are rigged," Ahmed continued, adding "it is such a tragic waste of a phenomenally powerful tool."

As the Midwestern and Eastern U.S. braced for what could be the longest heatwave in decades for some locations, a wildfire near Los Angeles forced more than 1,000 people to evacuate over Father's Day weekend.

The climate crisis caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels is making both heatwaves and wildfires more frequent and extreme, and politicians and environmental advocates pointed out the role that state and national policy can play in fueling extreme weather.

"Each of the last 12 months have been the hottest on record," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media on Sunday. "This week, cities across the country will see record-high temperatures. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to surrender the fight against the devastation of climate change. We cannot let that happen."

"Politicians making bad policy decisions (like killing congestion pricing) is the number one cause of climate change, which makes heatwaves like this one worse."

Former U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly told oil and gas executives this spring that donating $1 billion to his campaign would be a "deal" for them because he would dismantle the Biden administration's climate regulations.

Sanders' remarks came as the National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Prediction Center forecast that "record-breaking heat" would "expand from the Midwest and Great Lakes to the Northeast this week, potentially lingering through early next week."

NWS said the heatwave would be the "first significant" heatwave of the season and could break daily temperature records and some monthly June temperature records for the portion of the country stretching from the Ohio Valley to the Northeast between Monday and next Saturday.

"The longevity of dangerous heat forecasted for some locations has not been experienced in decades," NWS said.

The heat index could come close to 105°F in many places, and nighttime temperatures of around 75°F mean that those without cooling infrastructure will see "little to no relief."

The high temperatures could impact millions of people from Michigan to Maine. As of Saturday, 22.6 million people were under extreme heat warnings, watches, or advisories, according toThe New York Times.

University of California, Los Angeles, climate scientist Daniel Swain told the Times that the heat would "affect a bunch of highly populated areas where there hasn't been quite as many stories about extreme heat recently," adding, "Now, it's New England's turn."

The NWS warned, "With the intense heat and high humidity it is important to take precautions to protect one's health, particularly those without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration."

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul issued a warning on social media on Saturday, pointing out that extreme heat is the leading weather-related cause of death in the U.S.

However, climate advocates criticized Hochul for exacerbating the root cause of more extreme heatwaves with her last-minute cancellation of a New York City congestion pricing plan earlier this month.

"Politicians making bad policy decisions (like killing congestion pricing) is the number one cause of climate change, which makes heatwaves like this one worse," the Sunrise Movement wrote in response to Hochul's post.

Long-time climate advocate and author Bill McKibben said: "This governor just blocked congestion pricing, one of the most important climate policy advances possible. She's redefining trolling."

Climate Central noted that, "while heatwaves are common in summer, this early season excessive, likely record-breaking heat is made as much as two times to five times MORE likely to occur in mid-June due to human-caused climate change (particularly overnight warmth)."

Meanwhile, on the West Coast, the Post Fire ignited at around 1:45 pm on Saturday local time in Los Angeles County, California, about 65 miles from downtown Los Angeles, The Washington Post reported.

As of Sunday afternoon, it had spread 12,265 acres and was 2% contained, according to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). Fire officials said the blaze was fanned by heat, low humidity, and wind and had damaged two structures.

"Currently crews are working to construct perimeter fire lines around the flakes of the fire. Aircraft are working to stop forward progress but have limited visibility," Cal Fire wrote on Sunday, adding that "the fire is pushing up into Hungry Valley Park. California State Park Services have evacuated 1,200 people from Hungry Valley Park. Pyramid Lake is closed because of the threat of the Post Fire."

One of those evacuated was 33-year-old Oscar Flores, who was visiting Hungry Valley Park with his 12-year-old son on Saturday.

"It looked like it was the last day of the world," Flores told the Los Angeles Times. "People were loading quickly and merging out, driving fast. The ranger said you have 10 minutes [to get] whatever you can pack."

Forida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday signed a bill that erases most references to climate change in state law, deprioritizes it in policy decisions, and eases regulations for natural gas pipelines while banning offshore wind installations in state waters.

DeSantis signed the bill despite the fact that Florida is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to the climate crisis—both from sea-level rise and extreme weather such as heatwaves and hurricanes. Indeed, on the day of the signing, Key West tied for its highest heat index on record at 115°C, heat that was made at least five times more likely because of the burning of fossil fuels.

"This purposeful act of cognitive dissonance is proof that the governor and state Legislature are not acting in the best interests of Floridians, but rather to protect profits for the fossil fuel industry," Yoca Arditi-Rocha, executive director of climate education nonprofit the Cleo Institute, toldThe Associated Press.

The bill's opponents told AP that it exes out nine references to climate currently on the books. It also takes steps to promote fossil gas—which already provides nearly three-quarters of Florida's electricity—and makes it harder to ban gas stoves and other appliances.

Further, AP reported:

The legislation also eliminates requirements that government agencies hold conferences and meetings in hotels certified by the state's environmental agency as "green lodging" and that government agencies make fuel efficiency the top priority in buying new vehicles. It also ends a requirement that Florida state agencies look at a list of "climate-friendly" products before making purchases.

The law, which goes into effect July 1, "is very much out of line with public opinion," Greg Knecht, director of the Nature Conservancy in Florida, toldThe Washington Post. A full 90% of Floridians believe climate change is occurring, 69% of them want the state government to act on it, a Florida Atlantic University survey found.

Florida is already seeing the impacts of the climate crisis from Wednesday's high heat and humidity in the Keys to last year's Hurricane Idalia. Moving forward, Florida was ranked 10th in a list of states or provinces with the most physical infrastructure at risk from climate impacts by 2050.

"This feels like Act 1 of a Greek tragedy," the Environmental Voter Project wrote on social media in response to the signing.

Knecht told the Post that DeSantis and Florida's Republican-controlled Legislature were willing to address the effects of the climate crisis—the governor earmarked more than $28 million to study flooding vulnerability in each county last year—but would not acknowledge the cause of the problem or discuss solutions that involved reducing emissions.

"On one hand, we recognize that we're seeing flooding and we're seeing property damage and we're seeing hurricanes, and we're conveying to the public that we can build our way out of these problems," Knecht said. "And then on the other hand, we're turning around and saying, 'Yeah, but climate change isn't really real, and we don't need to do anything about it.'"

This may partly be because, as green advocates told Post, the climate crisis has become a culture war issue that DeSantis can use to attract media attention and right-wing voters, as he has done with high-profile attacks on abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights.

Others blamed the influence of the fossil fuel industry.

"Fossil fuel companies don't like competing with clean energy," Democratic Florida Senate candidate Carlos Guillermo Smith wrote on social media. "So they donated to Ron DeSantis who signed a law that bans offshore wind, eliminates energy efficiency grant programs, and deletes any reference to 'climate change' from state statute."

"GOP = Profits over people always," Smith said.

Progress Florida wrote: "While Gov. Ron DeSantis does the dirty work of corporate polluters, Floridians are left to suffer as the state becomes more unaffordable and the natural treasures of the people who have farmed, hunted, and worshipped here for generations are destroyed."

Major cable news networks Fox News Channel, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBCall failed to cover former President Donald Trump's promise to Big Oil executives that he would reverse President Joe Biden's climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his campaign, according to an analysis published by Media Matters for America late Tuesday.

When the news first broke, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch wrote, "You won't read a more important story today." Yet, in the four days after the story broke, it only received 48 minutes of cable airtime—all on MSNBC.

"The most under-covered Trump story is his complete selling-out of the American people on issues they care about most," Jesse Lee, a former Biden communications adviser, posted on social media in response to the report. "If gas prices go up soon, these same networks that ignored Trump's $1 billion oil bribe will cover it constantly—and crucify Biden."

"He is basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children... are growing up on just if these guys will write him a check."

The story of Trump's quid pro quo offer to fossil fuel executives was first reported by The Washington Post on May 9. It detailed a dinner the former president hosted at Mar-a-Lago in April attended by leaders of oil and gas firms including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum. During the dinner, Trump told the executives that a $1 billion donation would be a "deal" for the industry "because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him."

To assess how cable covered—or didn't cover—the story, Media Matters for America looked at the transcripts from May 9 to May 12 for CNN; Fox News Channel; MSNBC; ABC's "Good Morning America," "World News Tonight," and "This Week;" CBS' "Mornings," "Evening News," and "Face the Nation;" and NBC's "Today," "Nightly News," and "Meet the Press." They searched the transcripts for the words "Trump," "former president," or "Mar-a-Lago" close to the words "oil," "donor," "executive," "billion," "industry," "fossil," or "fuel," as well as any version of the words "environment" or "CEO."

Only the MSNBC transcripts turned up any results. These included:

1. Just over 18 minutes—or nearly 40% of the total—on "Velshi" on May 11, featuring interviews with climate activist Bill McKibben, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington president Noah Bookbinder, and The Atlantic's David A. Graham.
2. A discussion on the May 9 edition of "Alex Wagner Tonight" between host Wagner and guests former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
3. An interview on the May 10 edition of "All in With Chris Hayes" withNew York Times climate reporter Lisa Friedman.
4. An exchange on the May 11 edition of "Alex Witt Reports" between host Witt and New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker.
5. An interview on the May 12 edition of "Ayman" with Princeton University sociology professor Kim Lane Scheppele and New York Times columnist and analyst Michelle Goldberg.
6. Mentions on "The ReidOut" and "The Weekend."

Several of the MSNBC interviews did highlight the importance of the story—which has prompted an investigation by a top House Democrat.

McKibben told Ali Velshi that "in a very real sense this is the most important climate election ever."

Others focused on the blatant corruption of the exchange. Graham noted that it was particularly brazen.

"He is making it clear what the quid pro quo is without any kind of pretense. It's just right here, 'You give me money; I'll do what you want me to do,'" Graham told Velshi.

Rhodes called it "basic pay-to-play corruption," adding, "He is basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children... are growing up on just if these guys will write him a check."

There were also comments on what the news said about the fossil fuel executives themselves.

"These are the same executives who, in the wake of January 6, said, 'We're not going to support people who undermined our democracy,'" Bookbinder pointed out. "And there they are, these couple of years later, meeting with Donald Trump, courting his support, hearing his offer—his demands—that they give a billion dollars to his campaign."

Baker told Witt: "I think it's going to confirm for a lot of people who are already suspicious of the fossil fuel industry that they have, over the years, bought off Washington writ large. That's been a longtime conviction on the part of people who think that the energy industry has too much power."

"It's going to cause a lot of cynicism, obviously, especially if Donald Trump were to win and then to try to roll back some of these climate initiatives," Baker continued. "People will make the assumption—and it will have some obvious evidence to back it up—that he is doing so in exchange for large contributions from an industry that's affected by it."

They will, that is, if they caught the 48 minutes of reporting the story received.

The fossil fuel and automotive industries knew that their products could destabilize the climate as early as 1954, new research published by DeSmog on Monday reveals.

The Southern California Air Pollution Foundation, whose contributors included major oil and car companies, helped to fund the early climate research of Charles David Keeling, who went on to create the famous Keeling curve tracking the rise in global concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, DeSmog reported. The foundation was also informed of the potential implications of Keeling's research.

"This pushes back the fossil fuel industry's knowledge of the climate crisis a full two decades," Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media posted on social media in response to the news. "Think of the damage and lives that could have been saved if we started researching and moving to clean energy back then."

"These findings are a startling confirmation that Big Oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years—for twice my lifetime—and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day."

The revelations were based on documents found in the California Institute of Technology Archives, the U.S. National Archives, the Charles David Keeling papers at the University of California, San Diego, and Los Angeles newspapers, which established that the foundation helped finance Keeling's early measurements of carbon dioxide levels in the U.S. West from 1954-56.

The Southern California Air Pollution Foundation was established in 1953 to help address the problem of smog in Los Angeles. Its members included 18 car companies such as American Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. It also received funds from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Western Oil and Gas Association, now the Western States Petroleum Association. What's more, representatives from the Southern California Gas Company, the Southern California Edison Co., Chrysler, General Motors, and Union Oil—now Chevron—sat on its board of trustees, and beginning in 1955, that board was updated on findings by a "technical advisory committee" staffed with one API member and Richfield Oil Corporation—now BP—and Chrysler scientists.

In a November 1954 research proposal from Keeling's research director Samuel Epstein, the foundation was informed of the potential implications of Keeling's measurements of carbon dioxide levels.

"The possible consequences of a changing concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate, rates of photosynthesis, and rates of equilibration with carbonate of the oceans may ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization," Epstein wrote.

DeSmog noted that this makes 1954 the earliest known date at which the fossil fuel industry both funded climate research and was informed of the possible consequences of its products. It comes five years before physicist Edward Teller spoke to API about global heating and around 25 years before ExxonMobil's research into climate change in the 1970s and '80s. In total, the foundation funded Keeling's early work for a total of $13,814, which would be around $158,000 today.

In reporting the news, Rebecca John pointed out that many of the same companies and industry associations that funded Keeling's early research would go on to fund a campaign denying climate science 35 years later, among them API, the Automobile Manufacturers Association, Chevron, and BP.

"It's important to know that the oil industry sponsored climate science research in the 1950s because it reveals a picture of a much more nuanced, closely connected world of science and the frontiers of scientific discovery than the oil industry has admitted to," John wrote.

Geoffrey Supran, who studies the history of climate disinformation at the University of Miami, toldThe Guardian that John's revelations "contain smoking gun proof that by at least 1954, the fossil fuel industry was on notice about the potential for its products to disrupt Earth's climate on a scale significant to human civilization."

"These findings are a startling confirmation that Big Oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years—for twice my lifetime—and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day. They make a mockery of the oil industry's denial of basic climate science decades later."

The Center for Climate Integrity put it more succinctly on social media.

"They knew. They lied. They need to pay," the group said.

The Guardian has removed Osama bin Laden's "Letter to the American People," which had been on its website for more than 20 years, after it went viral on TikTok and other social media sites.

"This page previously displayed a document containing, in translation, the full text of Osama bin Laden's 'Letter to the American People,' as reported in The Observer on Sunday 24 November 2002," the page previously hosting the letter now reads. "The document, which was published here on the same day, was removed on 15 November 2023."

In the letter, which is still available via web archive, bin Laden outlines his grievances against the United States, including its support for Israel, its placement of military bases in Islamic countries, and its participation in or support of other military actions or economic sanctions against people in the Islamic world. He justifies his attacks on U.S. civilians by arguing that they have the power to vote for governments that support different policies. Bin Laden also makes homophobic and antisemitic remarks, including blaming Jews as a group for the excesses of U.S. capitalism.

"The transcript published on our website 20 years ago has been widely shared on social media without the full context."

The letter saw a surprising resurgence on TikTok over the past two days, as posters documented their responses to reading it for the first time.

"The TikToks are from people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and backgrounds," journalist Yashar Ali wrote on social media. "Many of them say that reading the letter has opened their eyes, and they'll never see geopolitical matters the same way again. Many of them—and I have watched a lot—say it has made them reevaluate their perspective on how what is often labeled as terrorism can be a legitimate form of resistance to a hostile power."

The Wrap sourced the trend to a video posted by Lynnette Adkins that TikTok says is currently unavailable.

"I need everyone to stop doing what they're doing right now and go read 'Letter to America,' I feel like I'm going through an existential crisis right now," Adkins reportedly said.

Ali said he saw thousands of similar videos on TikTok and more on other social media platforms. 404 Mediareported Wednesday that searching for "Letter to America" on TikTok brought up a few dozen results, some with as many as hundreds of thousands of views. Videos using the hashtag #LettertoAmerica have together generated 1.3 million views. However, the outlet noted that some of the videos were "not particularly viral by TikTok standards." The top-liked video had 75,000 likes, but true TikTok phenomenons can bee seen hundreds of millions of times. It also noted that not all of the videos expressed support for bin Laden's views: Some simply explained the letter, the trend, or the 9/11 attacks.

The Guardian confirmed to both The Wrap and 404 Media that it had removed the letter because of its surge in online popularity.

"The transcript published on our website 20 years ago has been widely shared on social media without the full context," the paper said in the statement. "Therefore we have decided to take it down and direct readers to the news article that originally contextualized it instead."

404 Media noted that removing the letter absent major factual errors or danger to life was a "highly unusual move," one that has only prompted more commentary on TikTok and other social media platforms.