Progressive Politics

1751 readers
765 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1
 
 

While many in the U.S. have been focused on the actions of the Trumpadministration, said the group in a Thursday statement, legislators in over 15 states have introduced more than 100 bills to stop citizen-led initiatives from being placed on ballots in upcoming elections—and to stop them from becoming law even if a majority of voters support the measures.

2
 
 

Pastor Steve Berger runs a little-known political influence project that has reached several powerful GOP politicians.

3
 
 

The White House has just used its “emergency powers” to bypass congressional oversight for a $3 billion weapons transfer to the Netanyahu regime, right after posturing as a stern tough guy who cares about making peace in his controversial dustup with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

4
5
327
Common Ground (lemy.lol)
submitted 10 hours ago by arotrios to c/progressivepolitics
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26226188

cross-posted from: https://lemy.lol/post/39626252

We have to agree where we ARE before we stand a chance to agree about what we do from here.

6
 
 

DRM and big tech's war on ownership has led me to make my own media libraries, and you should too.

7
15
Clear Thinking v. Curtis Yarvin (www.notesfromthecircus.com)
submitted 8 hours ago by TokenBoomer to c/progressivepolitics
 
 

The spectacle that unfolded in the Oval Office was not merely a diplomatic blunder; it was a stark manifestation of the ideological rot that has been festering at the heart of our democracy.

8
9
submitted 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) by [email protected] to c/progressivepolitics
 
 

As the title goes. This would involve turning the tax levels / brackets into an exponential mathematical curve. One of the benefits off of the top of my head, is that people wouldn't be scared of their salary increasing just enough, to actually lower their clean income. Another one would be that you can lower even further the tax rate for middle / low class, because you (the government) would receive more from taxes. Any opinions/ideas for this?

9
 
 

As the title goes - I think it's a good solution for some of the Western World's problems, like politicians not following their campaign promises. On the other hand, conflicting politics are a big possibility, which would create further problems. Any ideas?

10
 
 

Michigan officials have become the latest Democratic figures to publicly slam the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, the GOP’s nationwide proof of citizenship bill that could disenfranchise millions of voters.

“Policies like these are like taking a chainsaw to our democracy,” Michigan Rep. Stephen Wooden (D) said in a press conference Thursday. “And as someone who has used a chainsaw in the past, I know this for a fact. It may get the job done, but it’s going to cause a lot of damage in the process, if you’re not using it right.”

The SAVE Act, which was recently reintroduced in Congress, would require anyone registering to vote in federal elections to provide documentary proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate.

This will impact people registering to vote for the first time, as well as those who moved to a new address, altered their party affiliation or changed their name and need to re-register or update their information.

One in 10 voting-age citizens, which is over 21 million people, can’t readily access documents to prove their citizenship because they either didn’t have it or can’t access it easily, according to a 2024 survey. This disproportionately impacts voters of color.

The SAVE Act could also disenfranchise millions of married women and transgender individuals whose legal name doesn’t match the one on their birth certificate and don’t have a valid passport.

Currently, around 146 million Americans don’t have a passport, which is nearly half of the country’s population, according to the Center for American Progress — an independent, nonpartisan policy institute.

Also, these citizenship documents must be presented in person at election offices, which would eliminate online and mail-in voter registration. This would hit rural voters who have to travel long distances to election offices the hardest.

“States have invested decades of technological development and resources to ensure that voter registration is accessible to all Americans, but the SAVE Act would rip away these services,” the Center for Progress said in an article on its website.

Democratic officials on the federal and state levels have repeatedly warned about the detrimental impacts of the SAVE Act since it was first introduced in May in the last session of Congress.

The bill passed the House in July but was stymied by the then-Democratic Senate and former President Joe Biden.

At the time, Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) said the bill is about “scaring,” “silencing” and “disenfranchising” Americans, as well as “further damaging the foundations of our democracy.”

Now that the Republican Party controls the Senate and President Donald Trump, an ardent supporter of the SAVE Act and the GOP’s noncitizen voting narrative, is in the White House, the legislation could have more success this time around.

On Thursday, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) held an event alongside state legislators and advocacy groups to spread this message.

“This bill is not about election security. It’s a trick,” Benson said. “The president’s allies in Congress have a plan in motion to block millions of American citizens from casting their ballot in future elections.”

Benson said she and Democratic lawmakers, like Wooden, are working to pass the Michigan Election Security Act, “a plan to protect Michiganders’ right to cast a ballot by improving current laws and codifying existing procedures,” according to a statement.

“I urge any state or federal lawmaker who is truly interested in strengthening the security of our system to work with us on plans like the Michigan Election Security Act instead of mass voter suppression schemes dressed up as security improvements,” Benson said.

11
 
 

In an Oval Office shitshow for the ages, Trump and Vance try to humiliate Ukraine’s wartime leader Zelensky.

12
 
 

The former head of Kazakhstan’s intelligence service, Alnur Mussayev, recently claimed in a Facebook post that Donald Trump was recruited by the KGB in 1987, when the 40-year-old real-estate mogul first visited Moscow.

The allegation would, if true, be a bombshell. Mussayev provides no documentary evidence —but then how could he? He alleged that Trump’s file is in Vladimir Putin’s hands.

Mussayev isn’t the only ex-KGB officer to have made such an assertion. Several years ago, Yuri Shvets, a former KGB major now resident in Washington, D.C., served as one of the key sources for Craig Unger’s best-selling book, “American Kompromat: How the KGB Cultivated Donald Trump, and Related Tales of Sex, Greed, Power, and Treachery.”

Just after Mussayev made his claim, another ex-KGB officer living in France, Sergei Zhyrnov, categorically endorsed the allegations in an interview with a Ukrainian journalist. According to Zhyrnov, Trump would have been surrounded 24/7 by KGB operatives, including everyone from his cab driver to the maid servicing his hotel room. Zhyrnov said that Trump’s every move would have been recorded and documented, and that he could have been either caught in a “honey trap” (“All foreign-currency prostitutes were KGB — one hundred percent,” he said) or perhaps recorded bribing Moscow city officials in order to promote his idea of building a hotel in the Soviet capital.

None of these former KGB operatives has provided evidence, but the fact that three KGB agents located in different places and speaking at different times agree on the story suggests this possibility should not be dismissed out of hand. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the first Trump administration and from the initial weeks of the second, it is that everything, including what appears to be impossible, is possible.

Also lending credence to the allegations is the fact that kompromat on Trump would easily, simply and convincingly explain the president’s animus toward NATO, Europe and Ukraine, his admiration of Vladimir Putin and his endorsement of authoritarian rule. One could even invoke “Occam’s razor,” the philosophical principle that claims that simple explanations should be preferred to complex ones.

We could then dispense with contorted explanations that focus on Trump’s mercurial and narcissistic personality on the one hand and American party realignments on the other. Indeed, even if true, these explanations could be accommodated as bells and whistles adorning the central narrative propounded by three KGB agents.

Naturally, Trump and his supporters will bristle. Surely, the three KGB agents are on somebody’s payroll. Who wouldn’t want to discredit the U.S. president? It could be the CIA or FBI, except that these are now firmly in the hands of Trump loyalists. Besides, would they have the ability to buy or coerce residents of Kazakhstan and France? Ditto for other Western intelligence services.

Perhaps it’s Putin? But he surely has no interest in undermining a president who supports his policies toward Ukraine, NATO and Europe.

Somewhat more plausible would be an officer or officers within the Russian intelligence community who oppose Putin and Trump’s designs. This version seems unlikely, but only at first glance, since we know that Putin’s seemingly impregnable regime is actually riven with cracks.

But why would a clandestine opposition make up a story and convince Shvets to spill the beans several years ago? Wouldn’t the dissidents know it’s true?

Perhaps all three ex-KGB agents are simply lying, in the hope of attracting attention and bolstering their fame? A resident of Washington might have this motive, but a Kazakh and Frenchman?

What leads me to think that there might be something to the allegations is the fact that an acquaintance had a very similar experience at just the same time. A left-leaning ladies’ man, he was wined and dined in Moscow for several years in the late 1980s, courted by the ladies — by his round-the-clock interpreter, as well as by a woman who approached him in a department store and invited him home.

We’ll probably never know the truth. But even with no slam-dunk evidence, the allegations should be, to say the least, disturbing, especially for the genuine patriots in the MAGA camp.

13
 
 

Democratic senators sustained a filibuster Thursday that blocked action on about a dozen bills because of opposition to Republican-backed legislation to change who appoints the Board of Trustees of the Alabama Department of Archives and History.

Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, and Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, used Senate rules to talk for hours in protest of the archives bill.

The Senate eventually adjourned after considering and passing only two bills on its 13-bill agenda for the day.

“We’re just using all the tools in the toolbox for us not to get to that bill today,” Singleton said.

Singleton said the changes to the Archives and History Board could open the door for efforts to influence the agency’s work in the same way as Republican-backed bills to stop DEI programs and restrict teaching of “divisive concepts” on race and other topics.

“We don’t know what this new board would do, what they’re trying to set it up to do,” Singleton said. “When you start talking about DEI, wiping out history - what’s to say they won’t get over to Archives and wipe out history?

“We just need to make sure that this board stays intact, this board stays as independent as it possibly can to continue to do the great work it has been doing for this state so they can preserve the history of this state.”

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Chris Elliott, a Republican from Baldwin County, said that was not the intent of the bill.

“I think you heard a lot of hyperbole there, none of which is reflected in the actual legislation,” Elliott said.

Under current law, Board of Trustees appoints its members subject to confirmation by the Senate.

Elliott’s bill would change the law to say that the governor, speaker of the House, and president pro tempore of the Senate would appoint the board members. The changes would be phased in as vacancies occur, Elliott said. There are three vacancies on the 17-member board now.

Elliott said the latest version of the bill is a compromise developed after discussions with the archives board.

Despite the holdup Thursday, Elliott said he still expects the bill to pass during this legislative session.

Elliott initially brought the bill two years ago after Archives and History hosted a lecture on the history of gay people in Alabama called “Invisible No More: Alabama’s LGBTQ History,” as part of its Food For Thought series.

Elliott and other lawmakers objected to the program but the agency went ahead with it. Elliott said he proposed changing the board to make it more responsive to elected officials.

“At that time it became apparent to a number of legislators both in the House and Senate that this board was self-appointed and that they were continuously reappointing themselves to this board and that there was no appointing authority,” Elliott said. “And that’s not a healthy thing, for a board to operate without some appointing authority.

“It came to everyone’s attention that we needed to address that. And we have worked through this and come up with a solution that’s reasonable and measured.”

Singleton said today he did not think the Archives Board had done anything wrong. He said Democrats would continue to oppose the bill.

“We don’t want this bill so we’re going to do everything we can to keep this bill from being passed,” Singleton said.

14
 
 

House Democrats are known to be wary of playing any kind of role in shutting down the government. Hell, they hate being perceived as having even considered the idea that a government shutdown could do them political good.

During the 118th Congress, they routinely bailed out a narrow Republican majority when GOP lawmakers just couldn’t pass their own agenda. But now, in the age of Elon and DOGE and with the latest government funding deadline approaching and the House Republican majority as narrow and fractious as ever, there’s real skepticism that Democrats will save Republican leaders from their own failures.

Republican lawmakers certainly are concerned, as evidenced by the fact that they’re already blaming Democrats for not bailing them out.

“Republicans do not have the votes to keep government open on our own,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.). “So if Democrats want to shut it down, they can.”

Such spin runs hard into some pretty obvious realities. As Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, noted to The Bulwark, Republicans hold the agenda-setting White House, comfortably control the Senate, and maintain a House majority, their whisper-thin two-seat margin notwithstanding. With a governing trifecta come opportunities but also responsibilities.

“Who’s in charge? White House, House, and Senate,” DeLauro said. “They got it all. They got the trifecta. Where are they? They can’t govern.”

While Democrats still don’t want the perception of cheering on a shutdown, the party has also grown convinced that it must secure some concession from Republicans in any government funding arrangement. House Democrats aren’t eager to cut a deal with an administration that has thrown government contracts, appropriated funds, and whole agencies into a woodchipper without lawmakers’ input, let alone consent.

15
 
 

A federal judge in California ruled Thursday that the Office of Personnel Management—an agency taken over by lieutenants of billionaire Elon Musk—violated the law earlier this month when it ordered the firing of thousands of probationary employees across the government.

OPM "does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency," said Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a Clinton appointee, siding with a coalition of labor unions and advocacy groups that sued the federal agency.

Alsup also castigated OPM for falsely claiming the terminations it ordered were performance-based. The agency's order was "illegal" and "should be stopped and rescinded," said Alsup.

"That's just not right in our country, is it, that we would run our agencies with lies like that and stain somebody's record for the rest of their life?" the judge said. "Who's going to want to work in a government that would do that?"

It was unclear, however, whether Alsup's ruling would do much to stem the Trump administration's sweeping purge of the federal workforce, as it was limited to agencies directly involved in the case. It was also not clear that the ruling would result in fired probationary employees getting their jobs back.

According toBloomberg Law, "the judge listed the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Science Foundation among the agencies that are barred from engaging in layoffs ordered by OPM."

Politiconoted that "Alsup stopped short of ordering the agencies to reinstate the fired workers or to halt looming firing," saying he "doesn't currently have the authority to do that."

"We will continue to move this case forward with our partners until federal workers are protected against these baseless terminations."

Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, said in a statement Thursday that "we know this decision is just a first step, but it gives federal employees a respite."

"While they work to protect public health and safety, federal workers have faced constant harassment from unelected billionaires and anti-union extremists whose only goal is to give themselves massive tax breaks at the expense of working people," said Saunders. "We will continue to move this case forward with our partners until federal workers are protected against these baseless terminations."

Shortly before Alsup's ruling, the Trump administration fired hundreds of probationary employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including staffers tasked with maintaining key radar systems and creating weather forecasts.

More broadly, the Trump administration and Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency are aiming to gut the Social Security Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and other key federal bodies as part of their far-right ideological project.

Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said Thursday that Alsup's ruling underscores the administration's "disdain for federal employees and desire to privatize their work."

"Our union will keep fighting until we put a stop to these demoralizing and damaging attacks on our civil service once and for all," Kelley added.

16
 
 

The planned blackout is scheduled to run from 12 a.m. EST through 11:59 p.m. EST on Friday. The activist group advised customers to abstain from making any purchases, whether in store or online, but particularly not from big retailers or chains. It wants participants to avoid fast food and filling their car gas tanks, and says shoppers with emergencies or in need of essentials should support a local small business and try not to use a credit or debit card.

17
 
 

Despite this being the worst flu season in 15 years, President Donald Trump's administration has abruptly cancelled a critical meeting that infectious disease experts were counting on to make sure the latest flu vaccine is the strongest.

18
 
 

geteilt von: https://lemmy.ml/post/26542245

WTF people ? AmeriKKKa was never denazified either, was it? Fuck!

Free speech and public health are both on the line. As one whistleblower observed in the British Medical Journal, the Trump administration is banning basic words from the entire US federal research system, hampering scientific research on minority communities: “The words that must not be used include ‘bias’, ‘biased’, ‘women’, or ‘female’, and it’s impossible to see how scientifically valid research can be conducted without these words.”

This includes three of the American conservative movement’s most prominent critics of ‘diversity’: Peter Boghossian, Christopher Rufo, and Richard Hanania.

Documents dissected in Alt Reich reveal that Boghossian, Rufo, and Hanania have each been bankrolled by the top funder of this foundation.

The foundation, originally known as the “Pioneer Fund”, was relaunched and rebranded in 2022 as the “Human Diversity Foundation” (HDF) by Danish eugenicist Emil Kirkegaard.

Established in 1937 by a pro-Nazi American textiles magnate, Wickliffe Draper, the Pioneer Fund had direct ties to Nazi eugenicists and senior officials in Hitler’s regime. It actively promoted Nazi ideology in the US by distributing Nazi propaganda films.

The Nazis pinpointed Jews as the most dangerous group. Following the Holocaust, when antisemitism was no longer socially acceptable, the Pioneer Fund’s activities focused more broadly on minority groups and black communities.

By the mid-20th Century, scientific racism was discredited within the scientific community as biologists and geneticists increasingly discovered that the majority of the traits studied in eugenics had little genetic basis.

But last year, Hope Not Hate revealed that a network of white supremacist activists was secretly rehabilitating the Pioneer Fund under the new Human Diversity Foundation brand identity.

19
 
 

Amid Elon Musk’s whirlwind campaign to cut thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in government services in the name of efficiency, a bombshell report Wednesday revealed a staggering amount of taxpayer cash that goes directly to him.

The richest man in the world is one of the biggest earners paid from public money, the Washington Post found.

A deep dive into government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits found the South African billionaire has reaped $38 billion dollars of government cash.

The Post reported the payments started more than 20 years ago, as Musk secured a low-interest loan from the Energy Department as CEO of the then-struggling Tesla. That department is one of many now hit by mass layoffs and cuts led by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

The Post spoke to unnamed sources from inside the government to back up its story.

Almost two-thirds of the cash came in the past five years, according to the report. Just last year, at least $6.3 billion was committed to Musk’s companies. They included cash to build a Tesla factory and NASA contracts to his company SpaceX to aid the moon program.

“The total amount is probably larger: This analysis includes only publicly available contracts, omitting classified defense and intelligence work for the federal government,” the Post reported.

It went on, “The Post found nearly a dozen other local grants, reimbursements and tax credits where the specific amount of money is not public.”

The report also found 52 contracts with seven government agencies that are set to pay another $111.8 billion over the next few years. All seven agencies have come under DOGE's microscope.

While Musk is not a paid government employee, he was a massive funder of now-President Donald Trump’s election campaign and is now a central part of his advisory team. He also heads DOGE, which he claims will slash trillions of dollars in government waste.

Musks’s part in the Trump administration has raised many red flags among onlookers about major conflicts of interest.

“Not every entrepreneur at this scale has been this dependent on federal money — certainly not Nvidia, not Microsoft, nor Amazon, nor Meta,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management.

20
 
 

"House Republicans have ignored the demands of their constituents and instead chosen to side with their billionaire donors."

21
 
 

"War profiteer Erik Prince, the same man infamous for spreading chaos and profiting off human suffering, is signing up to help carry out Trump's mass deportation and family separation agenda," said one critic.

22
 
 

On 23 January, faculty and staff from the City University of New York’s Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union voted 73-70 in favour of a resolution to divest from Israeli companies and government bonds and recommended the teacher’s pension divest $100m from Israeli companies and bonds.

However, less than a month after the resolution passed, union leadership organised a re-vote on the divestment resolution - which led to a 113-63 vote against it on 20 February.

Now, members of a university labour union have expressed concern that months of hard work to pass a resolution to boycott and divest from Israel had been undemocratically overturned by leadership.

CUNY’s PSC union is said to have around 30,000 members and is one of the largest academic unions in the country.

Speaking to the Middle East Eye about the union leadership’s move to hold a re-vote and revoke the resolution, Evan Rothman, sponsor of the resolution in the delegate’s assembly to boycott and divest, said union leadership had cited two aberrations - which impacted a total of four votes - as the key reason for conducting a second vote.

However, Rothman believed that the union leadership’s intense scrutiny of the electoral process and the decision to “fix” procedures was unusual and unprecedented.

“To me, this is another instance of the Palestine exception where we saw colleges and universities across the country bring out all of these policies that were understood to be formalities but never enforced,” Rothman said.

23
 
 

Clarksburg, West Virginia has lead service lines scattered throughout the city, which has caused elevated levels of lead in some children’s blood, resulting in health issues like developmental delays.

In 2023, the environmental-justice division of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced a new program designed to increase lead testing for local children and families so that officials could catch elevated lead levels early and prevent long-term health complications. Partnering with cash-strapped state agencies, the EPA bought kits that could measure lead levels in children with just a finger prick, gave out gift cards to incentivize testing, and offered testing opportunities in offices where families picked up benefits and received breast-feeding support.

The program invested $150,000 in lead-testing kits for Harrison County, where Clarksburg is located, which raised testing rates in children from about 8% to 41%, says Camilla McMillen-Haught, director of Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Nutrition in six West Virginia counties, including Harrison. Children with high levels of lead were then targeted for health interventions like dietary changes that would reduce their risk of long-term problems.

The future of the program is now uncertain, due to the Trump Administration’s focus on rooting out efforts to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and environmental-justice initiatives. A proposed expansion of the lead-testing program to states like Ohio is threatened as well.

An EPA staffer connected to the initiative was put on administrative leave in early February as part of the Trump Administration’s purge of federal government workers. The person told TIME they were pulled into a meeting and told they had 15 minutes to log out of their work email and settle their affairs. (The staffer asked not to be named for fear of being fired permanently.) An additional 167 members of the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights were put on administrative leave, according to the agency, many after receiving emails that said they were identified as spending more than half their time on environmental-justice initiatives.

These moves were part of President Trump’s executive order, titled “Ending Radical and Waste Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which he issued on his first day in office to target DEI and environmental-justice programs. (A Maryland judge on Feb. 21 largely blocked the Administration from carrying out much of the DEI executive order, though staff members and recipients of grants have not yet seen changes since then.) The Administration’s goal, it said, was to slash spending and end initiatives that single out minorities for help.

In the directive, Trump criticized his predecessor’s own executive order seeking to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities as “illegal and immoral discrimination.” New EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a video posted on X Feb. 12 that “the days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over.” He added, on Feb. 22, "UPDATE: I just cancelled another 21 wasteful DEI and Environmental Justice grants, with the help of our amazing @DOGE team, racking up $67m more in savings!"

But many of the environmental-justice programs targeted by the new Administration’s staff cuts and funding freezes do not benefit minorities or left-leaning environmental groups, according to Adam Ortiz, who until January served as the EPA’s Regional Administrator for Region 3, which includes Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Often they help poor, white communities in conservative areas—places that overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

Clarksburg, a beneficiary of the West Virginia lead-testing program, is a former manufacturing hub that is 90% white and has a poverty rate of 23.2%, about double the national average. Harrison County, where it is located, voted for Trump by a margin of 40 percentage points in 2024.

“These are communities that had the most hope in this Administration and are now feeling the most suffering,” says Jacob Israel Hannah, the CEO of Coalfield Development Corp., a nonprofit that does workforce development in 21 counties in West Virginia. Coalfield Development had won nearly $700 million in federal funding for projects across the state. Over half of its budget has come from federal grants in the past few years as the Biden Administration funneled “unprecedented” amounts of funding to Appalachia, Hannah says. But nearly all that money has been frozen by federal spending pauses targeting DEI, environmental justice, and clean-energy initiatives.

When asked about the idea that ending DEI and environmental justice activities hurts communities that supported Trump, an EPA spokesperson said in a statement to TIME that it is “working diligently” to implement President Trump’s executive orders. It placed the 168 Office of Environmental Justice employees on administrative leave after EPA career staffers determined that their functions “did not relate to the agency’s statutory duties,” the statement said. The agency is “in the process of evaluating new structure and organization to ensure we are meeting our mission of protecting human health and the environment for all Americans,” according to the statement.

Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, wrote in an email to TIME that “protecting the civil rights and expanding opportunities for all Americans is a key priority of the Trump Administration, which is why he took decisive actions to terminate unlawful DEI preferences.”

Funding freezes are another way that the Trump Administration has tried to weed out programs promoting DEI and environmental justice. One of the grants Coalfield Development Corp. won—worth around $130 million—would have created 1,000 new jobs by training unemployed coal workers to become solar installers and then to install 250 megawatts of solar on closed coal mines, says Hannah. But now, he says, when Coalfield staffers log into funding portals for the Department of Energy, the EPA, and the Department of Labor, they receive a message that their grants are “under review” and that they are not able to access the money they were promised. The grant applications included the term environmental justice because they would have helped underserved communities access jobs and clean power, Hannah says. If the grant goes away, “you will see the loss of what would have been over 1,000 new jobs in Appalachia,” Hannah says.

While some of the beneficiaries of environmental-justice projects have been low-income communities of color in cities, others are struggling white communities in Appalachia. The Biden Administration mandated that 40% of many of its climate and clean energy funds flow to “disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.” It also set aside $500 million for Appalachian Community Capital to launch a Green Bank for Rural America that would have prioritized investments in 582 counties across the region.

“The important thing to understand about all the grants at the EPA is that they prioritized reaching the communities most overburdened by pollution,” says Zealan Hoover, who was until recently the Director of Implementation at the agency, overseeing $100 billion in funding. “In every state, there was a wide range of communities receiving funding.” That includes Alaska Native communities, rural communities in the Southeast and Gulf Coast, and places across the country that have disproportionately high energy costs, Hoover says.

Another nonprofit that saw its federal funding frozen is LiKEN (Livelihoods Knowledge Exchange Network), which works in Kentucky and West Virginia to help people in rural areas join global markets for sustainable agriculture and carbon capture. LiKEN received $3.1 million from the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Landowners Support Program from the Inflation Reduction Act. It hired 10 staff to open satellite offices in eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia that were set to become local hubs where the community could gather, says Betsy Taylor, the group’s executive director.

On Feb. 5, the organization received a form email from the U.S. Forest Service informing the group that its federal funds “are on hold until further notice.” LiKEN had to borrow money from private donors and furlough five staff. Taylor says she has a suspicion of why the money was frozen: “Diversity, equity, and inclusion. It was about serving underserved communities.” The vast majority of these communities were white, Taylor says.

The Administration’s funding freeze hits communities that would have benefited at a time of urgent need. Swaths of Appalachia suffered devastating floods on Feb. 15. “One of the things that has been surreal is the contrast between the shock that the government would not be honoring contracts that were congressionally approved, and the heroism of people on the ground who lost income rushing to communities affected by the floods,” Taylor says.

Many of the programs whose funding was paused or whose federal staff were placed on administrative leave focused on providing access to clean drinking water and functioning wastewater treatment plants, says Ortiz, the former EPA regional administrator. One project, spearheaded by a staffer now on administrative leave, according to Ortiz, sought to relocate a wastewater treatment plant in Richwood, W.V., that has been basically inoperable since a 2016 flood.

“Our environmental-justice work was really focused on places that historically didn’t have the ability to match funds or pay loans back,” Ortiz says. “For the first time since the 1930s and 1940s, these communities were receiving serious investments to rebuild critical infrastructure.”

24
 
 

As Recounted by His Friends

25
 
 

On February 3, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to create a sovereign wealth fund (SWF), saying the United States will have one of the largest funds in the world. That requires raising trillions of dollars very quickly. For context, Norway’s fund is currently worth $1.8 trillion U.S. dollars. Sovereign wealth funds are typically financed with surplus revenue from trade or natural resource development. Given that the United States is roughly $36 trillion in debt, experts question where the money would come from. The Trump administration seems to be signaling that selling out and selling off the nation’s public lands to the highest bidder might provide the necessary funding. Selling federal public lands would turn America’s treasured places into a financial asset for the Trump administration without the need for surplus revenue, making it a potentially enticing idea for the administration. What is a sovereign wealth fund and how would it be funded?

An SWF is a state-owned investment fund made up of money generated by the government, often derived from a nation’s natural resource revenues, budget surpluses, or foreign currency reserves. President Trump’s order charges the secretaries of the treasury and commerce departments with developing a plan for finding the money needed within 90 days of its signing. At the signing ceremony, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained where some of the money might come from: “We are going to monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people. We are going to put the assets to work.”

What exactly does this mean? Doug Burgum, President Trump’s secretary of the interior, explained that the nation’s parks, public lands, and natural resources—including timber, fossil fuels, and minerals—are assets on “the nation’s balance sheet.” Burgum speculated in his confirmation hearing that federal lands could be worth as much as $200 trillion. He argued that the U.S. government, run like a business, should know the value of the corporation’s assets and use those assets “to get a return for the American people.” Under Trump’s proposal, the value of public lands would be determined by their potential market value to grow an SWF, and not by their value to hunters and fishermen; family ranchers; and communities that rely on clean water and air as well as jobs and income that come from natural resource development, recreation, and tourism. Selling off America’s public lands

Simply increasing the leasing of natural resources will not be enough to seed an SWF. Leasing for oil and gas, timber, mining, and grazing brought in less than $17 billion in 2024. Oil and gas production is already at record levels, and the oil and gas industry has said it will not increase drilling substantially to avoid hurting its profit margins. To generate hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, the Treasury Department may find that selling public lands to the highest bidders is the only way to raise that kind of money quickly.

Selling public lands has long been on the agenda of the antiparks caucus, and some Republicans in Congress and in states have worked to undermine federal ownership of lands. For example, Utah’s governor asked the Supreme Court to rule federal land ownership unconstitutional; the court declined to hear the case in January 2025. The Republican Party platform includes selling federal lands for housing development. The U.S. House of Representatives adopted new rules that free it from having to consider the value of public lands if they are sold. These rules would make it easier for the Trump administration to give public lands over to the Treasury and Commerce departments to see how much money they could make to grow the SWF.

Land sell-off and the privatization of public lands to this extent would deprive Americans and local economies of the access to nature and resources that sustain them. Giving money managers and financiers control over land management is more than just a land grab; it is an attack on the democratic and meritocratic ideals that make America great. The future of U.S. public lands—and the values they represent—depends on the willingness of Congress and the American public to stand up and defend public ownership and multiple uses, including for conservation, recreation, and wonder. An investment risk waiting to happen

Once an SWF has accumulated wealth, that wealth is invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, and other financial instruments to earn even more money. Without proper sideboards between politicians and investment decisions, the SWF would likely serve to enrich Trump and his allies—not the American public. For example, David Sacks, Trump’s White House crypto czar, suggested that the SWF could buy bitcoin, which would reward campaign donors by inflating asset values and exerting ever more control over the nation’s economy. The secretaries of the treasury and commerce departments have yet to demonstrate that they would constrain the president’s or their own political influence over the SWF by setting up independent fund managers, auditors, or appropriate firewalls between government and private interests. A better way

Creating an SWF to use as a tool is not an inherently bad idea. In fact, it could be designed to solve the real problems rural and energy-dependent communities face. A lot has changed since the 1970s, when timber harvests, coal mines, and grazing permits sustained family wage jobs; taxes and royalties from those activities paid for good local schools and improved public safety; and local businesses thrived. Today, even where natural resource activity is booming, a basic social contract has been broken: Tax cuts, automation, and increasing corporate ownership mean leasing on federal lands does not deliver the same benefits to local workers, businesses, and schools as it used to.

An SWF could be part of the solution for communities left behind by changes in the United States and the global economy. For example, the Center for American Progress has suggested that the federal government establish an energy SWF modeled after the ones in Norway and New Mexico. This proposal would end direct oil and gas revenue-sharing payments and replace them with a permanent solution. A one-time, up-front endowment to capture and save fossil fuel revenue and provide stable and permanent distributions to communities. The ultimate result would be an immediate, predictable, and permanent source of income for resource-dependent communities as they transition—and it would not cost U.S. taxpayers anything.

These funds are designed to build intergenerational wealth and provide stable and permanent revenue that state and local governments depend on to fund schools, sheriff’s departments, public libraries, parks, and emergency services. With proper firewalls between land managers and fund managers, an SWF could be designed to build wealth when resources are extracted from public lands and keep public lands in public hands.

In New Mexico, the state controls two permanent funds built up from oil royalties and taxes; these SWFs will fully decouple the state’s budgets from annual oil and gas revenue by 2039. That means New Mexico would be the only oil-producing state in the United States that could transition away from fossil fuels without affecting the budget of local schools and other state services. Stable and predictable revenue from the permanent funds allows the state to reposition its lands to benefit the economy in multiple ways by taking a portfolio approach to land management. The state lands could be used for conservation; recreation; access to hunting, fishing, and bird watching; and energy development. The federal government would benefit from a similar management structure. Federal public lands have multiple values, and protecting multiple uses creates a more diverse and resilient—and larger—economy. Conclusion

President Trump’s proposed SWF has opened the doors to the idea of reforming the fiscal relationship between public lands and the states and communities who rely on them for revenue, jobs, recreation, clean air and water, resilience against natural disasters, and much more. The secretaries of the treasury and interior have stated clearly that public lands would be monetized—including selling out and selling off to the highest bidder—to raise substantial new revenue. Handing over public lands to an SWF may also change who benefits. To grow an SWF, royalties that currently are shared with state and local governments could be redirected into the SWF. A better approach would keep public lands in public hands and work on solutions that deliver the predictable and fair compensation state and local governments deserve. An energy and natural resources SWF could achieve these goals in a way that works for industry, state and local governments, and all Americans who use and love public lands.

view more: next ›