December 11, 2025

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

Good afternoon Mayor and Council Members. My name is Kaiba White and I’m speaking on behalf of Public Citizen and our Austin supporters. We are very concerned about the conversation that took place in November about rushing to put a deposit on gas peakers for Austin Energy. The Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan that City Council – including most of you – adopted just last year lays out a process to follow before approving the addition of gas peakers to the Austin Energy portfolio. The plan commits to “a report to the City Council following the feasibility phase prior to moving forward to the pre-development phase, and subsequently gathering Council feedback, and incorporating community input, prior to bringing a project forward for approval. Further, should Austin Energy seek Council approval for any peaker units, we will show any analysis performed demonstrating why a carbon-free alternative was not available and how the requested action will impact the utility’s ability to reach the goal of 100% carbon-free by 2035.” None of this has been done. The all-source RFP is currently open and it’s entirely possible that clean energy alternatives to gas peakers that are quicker to deploy and potentially more affordable will be proposed.  

Purchasing gas peakers that wouldn’t go into service until at least 2030 is a de facto abandonment of the carbon-free by 2035 goal. Those assets would operate for at least 30 years and carbon-capture on peakers isn’t practical. If you’ve read or heard anything about carbon offsets in recent years, you’ll know that isn’t a solution either, as they are rife with a lack of accountability and sometimes outright fraud. In short, they don’t work. What does work is to stop burning fossil fuels.  

Natural gas isn’t the “clean” fossil fuel that the industry would have you think it is. While gas plants produce less CO2 and other air pollution than coal plants, once you look at the entire lifecycle impact and account for the massive amount of methane that is leaked directly into the atmosphere, natural gas has a very similar impact on climate change to coal. And the air and water pollution created by natural gas extraction is creating wastelands and many health problems, including with fetal development.  

We don’t push for carbon-free goals just because they sound good. We’re trying to protect our communities. We’re trying to keep our climate livable – and it’s increasingly not. A record 563 people in Texas died from heat in 2023. At least 135 people were killed – many of them children – in central Texas flooding this summer. These are tragedies of our own making. It’s comforting to think that our small contribution doesn’t matter in the larger scope of climate change, but that that thinking has led to a tragedy of the commons, to each of us and each community contributing to our communal suffering.  

You are in a position to do something to help to stop the climate crisis. Instead of rushing to invest in more fossil fuel infrastructure, we call on you to shut down Austin Energy’s existing coal and gas-burning power plants.  

---

 If you agree that the City of Austin should look to clean energy solutions instead of rushing into the purchase of fossil fuel infrastructure, we encourage you to use this page to send the Austin City Council an email.  

December 10, 2025

AI Toys Pose Danger to Children This Holiday Season

Parents should avoid purchasing toys powered by AI

By J.B. Branch

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

With the holiday season quickly approaching, Public Citizen anticipates Artificial Intelligence (AI) companies pursuing toys as a lucrative opportunity to expand their market. A recent Pew Research survey shows that one-in-ten parents say their 5 to 12-year-old children are using AI chatbots, while Common Sense Media reports that nearly 3 in 4 teens have used AI companions. Toy companies are eager to pursue this new trend too — for example, Mattel and OpenAI announced a partnership to develop toys that feature AI technology. 

This holiday season is one of the most important for shoppers to be vigilant with AI-powered toys flooding the market, or disguising themselves by calling them “push-to-talk” or “voice activated” features. This is concerning because AI enabled toys have little regulatory oversight and parents need to be aware of the risk they pose to children. Whether it’s toys speaking inappropriately with children or data being collected, the risks of AI-powered toys are too great to ignore. Parents should avoid purchasing any toys powered by AI, at the very least until adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure the safety of children 

We have already seen the harm AI-powered toys can expose children to. Last month, FoloToy’s AI-powered teddy bear was pulled from the shelves after reports that it engaged in explicit sexual messages, informed users where to find knives, and how to make knots for tying people up. U.S. PIRG has highlighted a number of toys that have problematic AI technology embedded. Importantly, this company used an OpenAI large language model (LLM), the same family of models that will be used in the Mattel partnership. AI-generated content is rampant in the video gaming community with little regard for transparency. Epic Games CEO suggested that disclosure of AI-generated content is unnecessary: “It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production.” 

Why Parents Should Monitor Their Children’s Usage of AI

• AI is powered by data that often contains language inappropriate for minors and some models have been trained with data sets that include child pornography.
• Many AI models have a tendency to tell users what they want to hear which can create unrealistic expectations and unhealthy relationships
• AI toys can record video and audio of children, which can often be used to train future models, causing privacy concerns for parents and their kids.
• AI products and toys can be hacked, the stolen data can then be used for illicit purposes like creating audio and video deepfakes of children.
• Some AI-powered toys force parents to share their children’s data by becoming non-operational if parents opt out of data collection. 

Protecting Children from AI Harms this Holiday Season

• Do not buy children toys that are powered by AI.
• Before allowing children to use AI-powered technology, review privacy agreements or opt out of sharing sensitive data.
• Be aware of features, like “voice activation” which can be used to record children and use the data for training.
• Monitor toys that use this technology, and offer prompts to see how it might respond.
• Check for toys that have offline modes, or can work without cloud-based connections.
• Teach children about AI and its inability to have feelings, even if it acts like it does.
• Tell Congress to protect children’s rights by regulating AI.

Letter to Congress Calling for the Preservation Critical State-Level Investor-Protection Resources in Digital Asset Market Structure Legislation

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

Letter to Congress_ Crypto_Preemption

December 10, 2025

Honorable John Thune                         Honorable Mike Johnson
Majority Leader                                      Majority Leader
US Senate                                               U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510                        Washington D.C. 20510

Honorable Chuck Schumer                 Honorable Hakeem Jeffries
Minority Leader                                     Minority Leader
US Senate                                              U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510                       Washington, DC 20510

RE: Preserve Critical State-Level Investor-Protection Resources in Digital Asset Market Structure Legislation

We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our concerns with recent federal legislative proposals to establish a new market structure for digital assets, including electronic trading and complex derivatives involving cryptocurrencies, that would fail to preserve existing state laws and the means for consumers to enforce them. We urge Congress to ensure the continued viability of state laws and regulations in any federal market structure legislation by making it clear in the legislative text that the bill does not preempt state law and does not hamper the ability of states to adopt stronger protections for investors and consumers.

In our federalist system, states have long been charged with primary responsibility for protecting their citizens from wrongdoing such as fraud and misconduct. In recent years, state regulators, utilizing state law, have brought dozens of enforcement actions against bad actors in the digital asset industry, helping to ensure that harmed consumers are adequately remedied and protecting against future wrongdoing by putting bad actors on notice that illegal practices will be prosecuted.

Today, every state has securities laws that work in tandem with federal law to protect consumers from fraud and other unfair practices in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of securities. This dual system of federal and state regulation has protected investors for nearly a century. Investors and consumers of crypto warrant this same level of dual protection.

Past legislative proposals concerning digital asset regulation, such as the CLARITY Act and FIT 21, would create federal frameworks for the digital asset and digital commodity industries. Those proposals, however, did not contain provisions to ensure that state laws and regulations in this area are not deemed preempted by the federal legislation. The absence of explicit language in the legislative text does not eliminate concerns regarding federal preemption. To provide this assurance, future bills should include a provision specifying that state consumer protection laws are not preempted by the legislation. Such a provision will allow investors to receive the full protection of both state and federal law.

In a rapidly evolving industry, such as the digital asset industry, the best protection for investors and the marketplace is for state and federal laws to work simultaneously. We urge Congress to include a savings clause for critical state consumer protection laws in any future legislation seeking to create a federal framework for digital assets.

Sincerely,

Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.
American Association for Justice
Americans for Financial Reform
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR)
Center for Justice & Democracy
Demand Progress
Friends of the Earth US
JustLeadershipUSA
National Association of Consumer Advocates
National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients
Next 100 Coalition
Oregon Consumer Justice
Oregon Consumer League
Our Revolution
People’s Action Institute
Public Citizen
Public Good Law Center
Public Justice
Texas Watch
The Academy of Financial Education
The Value Alliance
UltraViolet Action
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council

cc: United States Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs;
United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

50+ African and Global Civil Society Organizations Call on African Leaders to Demand Fair Terms in U.S. Health Agreements

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

Add your organization to the letter here.

LETTER TO AFRICAN LEADERS: URGENT NEED TO PROTECT SOVEREIGNTY BY DEMANDING FAIR TERMS IN HEALTH AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

We, as organizations concerned with the right to health and health and data security, write to express our serious concern with the content of the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that African states are currently negotiating with the U.S. government for the provision of health aid.

Although the “America First Global Health Strategy” (which lays out the U.S. administration’s goals for health aid) claims that the U.S. aims to support country ownership over health programs, the MOU and its related agreements instead dictate U.S. terms that are not guided by African national or regional interests.

We are particularly alarmed by the MOU audit section and U.S. requests for access to data and information, including those dictated in a “Data Sharing Agreement”^[1] and “Specimen Sharing Agreement.”^[2] These agreements would require African governments to grant the U.S. government expansive access to data systems and to provide the U.S. government with access to pathogen information. These agreements would give the U.S. undue leverage over your governments, including to decrease or cancel health assistance for perceived noncompliance, and undermine your national health and personal security. These terms also raise serious potential human rights violations, including with respect to breaches to the right to privacy, discrimination, reproductive health, and states’ responsibility to ensure equitable access to the benefits of scientific progress.

While we appreciate that several African states are working to advance national interests in their negotiations with the U.S. government, the rushed timeline and extremely limited inclusion of civil society in the negotiation process risks producing outcomes that harm the public. Thus,  there is an urgent need to stand up to U.S. demands and ensure agreements are balanced, including by broadening civil society participation and offering counterproposals to U.S. terms that may be extractive or harmful.

The agreements related to the MOU have very dangerous implications for African countries and even beyond:

1. Up to 25-year obligations: While the MOUs will last for 2–5 years, the commitments for sharing pathogen information and granting access to data systems remain in place for up to 25 years.
2. Retained U.S. access after termination: In the case of the Data Sharing Agreement, even if the agreement is terminated, African governments are required to provide the U.S. government continued access to data systems for ten years from the date of termination.
3. Excessive access to national data: The Data Sharing Agreement would grant the U.S. government or its contractors direct access to various data systems, including those covering national health warehouses, health management information, surveillance and outbreak response, health commodity inventory management, lab management, ​​pharmacy management, and electronic medical records. This goes far beyond data access reasonably required to oversee U.S. health funding.
4. Security risks: The data sharing agreement lacks substantive safeguards for privacy and raises serious security concerns. Allowing direct access to national databases, potentially including personally identifiable information, exposes sensitive information to potential risk of breach.
5. No provision of conformity with local laws: The Data Sharing Agreement states only that the agreement should conform to U.S. law, without reference to the partner country’s national laws which a signed agreement could contravene. If an agreement inconsistent with local laws (such as laws on data use and privacy protections) is signed, this could mean your government would need to change domestic laws in order to lawfully conform to the obligations imposed by the U.S. government.
6. Obligation to provide the U.S. with pathogens: Under the proposed Specimen Sharing Agreement, the partner country would agree to share pathogen data (specimens, samples, sequencing data, and any other associated data related to novel and emerging infectious diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential) with the U.S. government within five days of receiving a request from the U.S. government.
7. Onward sharing: The Specimen Sharing Agreement allows the U.S. government to share the pathogen data with other entities for the purpose of developing medical countermeasures, thus keeping the monopoly of the products in the hands of U.S. government and U.S. pharmaceutical companies.
8. No reciprocal benefits from pathogen sharing: The Specimen Sharing Agreement gives no assurance that the partner country would receive any medical product resulting from the shared pathogen or would receive the technology of such products to enable local production. The example of COVID-19 is still alive, when South Africa shared data on the omicron variant but received no vaccines in return and the companies that held the vaccine technology refused to share it with South African developers. The agreement shows no explicit consideration for regional manufacturing in return for pathogen sharing. This means that access to relevant therapeutics, tests and vaccines will remain dependent on the will of the U.S. government and pharmaceutical companies contingent upon donations. The danger of a repetition of the COVID-19 saga, when Africa was ‘last in line’ to receive medical tools developed from African data, is real.This runs directly counter to Africa’s push for regional manufacturing and deeper self-reliance. It also risks locking African producers out of value chains built on African data.
9. African position in multilateral fora undermined: For the past four years, the Africa Group — a negotiating bloc consisting of 47 African nations, including your country — negotiated a WHO Pandemic Agreement and is currently negotiating an annex to the agreement that will establish a multilateral pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) system. The Africa Group has advanced a strong, informed, and unified position throughout these negotiations with an emphasis on developing multilateral systems for pandemic preparedness and response that are coordinated, cooperative, accountable, and operationalize equity through the creation of a multilateral PABS system that ensures sharing of pathogen information is met with reciprocal assurance of access to benefits including timely access to countermeasures (vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics) and technology transfer and research collaboration to support diverse research and production capacity.^[3]Currently the Africa group with the equity group, which together include 80 countries representing 75% of the world population are strongly calling for legal contracts to determine the conditions of sharing and using pathogens and information.^[4]  The U.S. MOU  includes none of this. By agreeing to one-sided bilateral pathogen sharing agreements with the U.S., your country risks breaking solidarity with broader African and Global South negotiating blocs, disrupting negotiations toward an equitable system for pathogen and benefit sharing, and fragmenting arrangements for pandemic preparedness and response that are needed to keep everyone safe.

African nations are building health sovereignty and evaluating how foreign assistance can best support national and regional health objectives. The Africa CDC’s newly-launched “Africa’s Health Security and Sovereignty Agenda” (AHSS), for example, emphasizes sovereignty over health data and moving global health partnerships beyond donor–recipient models to more country-led and equitable models.^[5] Therefore, bilateral partnerships should be co-developed, mutually beneficial, aligned with national interests, and consistent with regional and international efforts to strengthen health systems and disease response.

It is time for African countries to ensure that the proposed MOUs and related pathogen and data sharing agreements are fair and supportive of national health security. This cannot be achieved through the current U.S. MOU.

We urge you to ensure that MOUs and related agreements are aligned with national laws, are transparent, and are open to public scrutiny before signing. We additionally urge you to ensure the specimen sharing text matches the Africa Group position on pathogen access and benefit sharing language at the WHO Pandemic Agreement PABS annex negotiation and that any data access arrangements leverage mechanisms for data sharing and review that provide country-led and public-facing accountability without granting direct access to national systems.

Sincerely,

Resilience Action Network Africa (RANA)
People’s Health Movement Africa
Public Citizen
50 Fathers Movement
Achvok
Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
African Civil Society Platform for Health (CiSPHA)
ASSOCIATION BURKINABE D’ACTION COMMUNAUTAIRE ABAC/ONG
Association des Femmes de l’Europe Méridionale
Child Way Uganda
Coalition of women living with HIV and AIDS
Community Initiative Action Group Kenya
Confraternity of Patients Kenya (COFPAK)
Data Etc
EANNASO
Empowerment Community organisation
Forum for African Women Educationalist (FAWE)
Global Health Council
Good Health Community Programmes
Health Global Access Project
ICHANGE
IDEAo (Inclusivity, Diversity & Equity Advocacy Organization)
Innovations for Development
Itabashi Peace Museum campaign
JCRC
LAMBDA
LENDING HANDS INITIATIVE
LHL International Tuberculosis Foundation
Malawi Civil Society Advocacy Forum
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
OSSEDI Malawi and Zambia
Oxfam in Africa
People’s Health Movement Kenya
Phakama Africa
Raise Your Voice
Salud por Derecho
Sinatsisa Lubombo Women and girls Empowerment organization
Speak Up Africa
Strategic Issues and Research Council
SWF International
T1International
Talk AB[M]R
The Queer Republic
The Society for Children Orphaned By AIDS Inc. (SOCOBA)
Treatment Action Group
Treatment Advocacy and Literacy Campaign TALC Zambia
Union Congolaise des organisations des PvVIH (UCOP+)
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines
VillageReach
WACI Health
Women for Water Partnership
Women of Destiny
Wote Youth Development Projects CBO
YEM Kenya

^[1]https://open.substack.com/pub/emilysbass/p/exclusive-us-demands-log-in-credentials?r=d219o&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

^[2]https://open.substack.com/pub/emilysbass/p/first-look-full-text-of-america-first?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

^[3] https://apps.who.int/gb/igwg/pdf_files/IGWG2-initial-text-proposals/Africa_Group.pdf

^[4] See, https://healthpolicy-watch.news/africa-stuck-between-global-pathogen-sharing-talks-and-conflicting-us-bilateral-agreements/

^[5] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)02315-3/fulltext?rss=yes

December 5, 2025

Stop the Next Epstein; Stop Stablecoin “Rewards”

Congress’ new crypto law transfers wealth from community banks and may open the door to the next Jeffrey Epstein.

By Bartlett Naylor

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

A loophole in a cryptocurrency law Congress approved last summer may help finance the next Jeffrey Epstein.  This overlooked snafu may permit Interest payments on stablecoins., potentially financing sex traffickers, cartels and sanctioned regimes

Stablecoins are crypto where one dollar buys one token. The new law claims interest payments on stablecoins are banned, making the product less attractive than a traditional, FDIC-insured bank account. But major stablecoin issuers are sidestepping the ban by offering “rewards” to purchasers — some of which exceed bank deposit rates.

This is not conjecture and where there is smoke there is fire. The Monster Jeffrey Epstein flirted with cryptocurrency to finance his human trafficking operation, as revealed by the trove of 20,000 documents released by the House Oversight Committee. He also lived near Howard Lutnick, who led Cantor Fitzgerald, as it held the underlying assets for the Tether stablecoin cryptocurrency, which is the largest. Where is Lutnick now? He is now Trump’s Commerce Secretary.

Epstein ultimately remained with traditional finance, using JP Morgan Chase as they failed to ask any questions

The next Epstein may, and the current human traffickers do, favor stablecoins.

Human traffickers already prefer stablecoins because they offer fast, cross-border, semi-anonymous transfers — perfect for hiding illicit proceeds.

 

The trend is unmistakable:

• The State Department’s  2021 Trafficking in Persons reportnoted that human trafficking networks increasingly use cryptocurrency to launder the proceeds of their crimes.
• The Wall Street Journal reported that Russian oligarch networks, Iranian financial networks, the terrorist group Hamas, the Maduro regime in Venezuela, and international drug cartels evaded sanctions by using stablecoins to conduct cross-border transactions that would be much more difficult, if not impossible, through conventional banking channels.
• The New York Times reported reported that at least $28 billion linked to criminal activity has flowed through crypto exchanges in just the last two years.
• Georgetown researchers reported that in 2024, illicit transactions with one form of crypto, namely stablecoins, passed $51 billion, up from $46 billion in 2023.

 

In crime generally, crypto makes for fast, cross-border, largely anonymous transactions. “At least $28 billion tied to illicit activity has flowed into crypto exchanges over the last two years,” the New York Times reported Nov. 17.

 

Worse, the loophole risks fueling criminal networks, including human traffickers who already use crypto, while drawing money away from consumers and the community banks that support local economies. Some of that money going into stablecoins is money not going into community banks, which can be recycled into home and small business loans.  Treasury analysts warn that if stablecoins begin offering yields comparable to bank accounts, as much as $6.6 trillion—about 36% of all U.S. deposits—could move out of insured institutions and into payment stablecoins.

Honest consumers who simply want a good interest payment for their savings may unwittingly abet the crooks if they buy stablecoins. That’s because a money laundering operation requires legitimate money to hide. An honest dollar goes into the stablecoin fund and might come out to redeem a trafficker.

Congress will shortly consider another cryptocurrency bills. While Public Citizen opposes this bill on many grounds, it is critical that any final bill close this stablecoin “rewards” loophole. Community banking should thrive, not the next Epstein.

December 3, 2025

Testimony to FDA’s Circulatory System Devices Panel regarding the premarket application for the V-Wave Ventura Interatrial Shunt System

By Michael T. Abrams, M.P.H., Ph.D.

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

I am Michael Abrams, senior health researcher with the nonprofit, consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. I have no financial conflicts of interest related to today’s topic.

The V-Wave Ventura Interatrial Shunt System is being evaluated by this committee for potential FDA approval as a treatment for symptomatic heart failure that is nonresponsive to guideline therapy and where the left ventricular ejection fraction is less than 40%. Because this device is implanted into the heart via catheterization, it is a class III device, thus requiring the sponsor to demonstrate the highest level of safety and effectiveness evidence before approval is granted.

The FDA briefing document for today’s meeting is largely critical of the sponsor’s premarket application (PMA).[1] That PMA is mostly based upon the sponsor’s updated analysis of its RELIEVE-HF, a randomized controlled trial involving 508 heart failure patients assigned 1:1 to either the shunt installation or a sham procedure. This trial was designed to test the expectation that the V-Wave would offer relief to all heart failure patients, regardless of their ejection fraction.

That prespecified primary therapeutic goal was not achieved. However, post-hoc analyses, which split the sample into those with ejection fraction less than 40% (low ejection fraction) and others, revealed that the shunt was beneficial for the low ejection fraction subgroup. Based on these results, the sponsor now seeks approval of their device.

FDA reviewers, appropriately, have concerns about such analyses driving an approval decision.

Here are some of those concerns:

The subgroup testing was to be performed only if the full-heart-failure-group effectiveness endpoint was met. Accordingly, false-positive results (type 1 errors) are a concern, and the subgroup analyses should be “interpreted with caution”[2] and considered as “hypothesis-generating”[3] and “for descriptive purposes only.”[4] To underscore this fundamental statistical principle, the FDA cited a 2016 paper by Pocock and Stone which says that “we find it hard to think of an example in which an apparent benefit in a subgroup in a trial with a negative outcome has led to a confirmation in a subsequent trial.”[5] The FDA further described at least three cardiovascular trial series (PRAISE, TACT, and PARAGON-HF) that first demonstrated significant subgroup effects but later had to reject those effects because they were not confirmed by a second trial.[6]

The FDA review also noted that the low-ejection-fraction subgroup analysis did not show significant V-Wave benefits on the primary outcome variable, just on a subset.[7] For example, the FDA review said this: “It is important to note that in the HFrEF (low ejection fraction) subgroup, shunt subjects did not experience an improved health status (or) quality of life (status) compared to control subjects.”[8]

Finally, it should be noted that the post-hoc analysis, upon which this application was built, showed that shunt recipients with preserved ejection fraction (>40%) experienced significantly more harm than their matched controls, based on the sponsor’s primary analytic strategy. This unanticipated result exposes plausible risks associated with this device.[9]

One other caution described by the FDA is that ejection fraction measurement (a percent) is subject to error and changes over time due to factors other than treatment, such as the natural evolution of the disease. Accordingly, it is uncertain that a single ejection fraction threshold (40%) can reliably indicate a shunt treatment or otherwise.

Regarding adverse effects of the V-Wave shunt, the FDA noted that major adverse events, such as all-cause death or stroke, were not evident within one month of shunt installation. However, within two years, cerebrovascular or pulmonary risks became apparent with V-Wave shunt use.[10]

These and related points lead to the following conclusion: The benefit-to-risk profile of the V-Wave interatrial shunt for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction remains speculative. Public Citizen urges the committee to recommend that the FDA reject this PMA. Further FDA consideration of the PMA should be contingent on the sponsor conducting a new and appropriately powered clinical trial comparing shunt installation to a sham placebo and that enrolls participants with an ejection fraction less than 40%.

Thank you.

—

[1] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Executive Summary: V-Wave Venture Interatrial Shunt System. Meeting of the Circulatory System Devices Panel. December 3, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/media/189898/download. Accessed December 1, 2025.

[2] Ibid. p. 22

[3] Ibid. p. 21

[4] Ibid. p. 22

[5] Ibid. p. 22

[6] Ibid. pp. 23-24

[7] Ibid. p. 44

[8] Ibid. p. 45

[9] Ibid. p. 55

[10] Ibid. pp. 30-32

Reining in Big Tech: Policy Solutions to Address the Data Center Buildout

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

Key Takeaways

Big Tech is rapidly building out a vast network of data centers to power artificial intelligence—without adequate oversight, transparency, or accountability. Further unchecked expansion threatens to raise consumers’ electricity bills even higher, drive more climate-warming emissions, harm local communities, drain water resources, and impact grid stability. 

• Electricity prices in some data center-heavy regions have surged over 250% in five years, with estimates predicting data center electricity demand could double—or even triple—by 2028. 
• Tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are securing massive tax breaks and cutting sweetheart deals to avoid paying their fair share for the buildout—while shifting the financial burden to consumers.  
• These same companies are frequently hiding behind non-disclosure agreements to evade public scrutiny, bypass local input, and obscure critical details about energy use, water consumption, and even the identity of the data center operator.
• Over half of the electricity used to power data centers currently comes from coal, oil, and gas, undermining many states’ clean energy goals and worsening the climate crisis. The Trump administration’s 2025 AI Action Plan doubles down by fast-tracking fossil-powered development and weakening environmental oversight.
• Data center developers often promise local job creation to win political and public support, but those promises rarely hold up.
• While state and local-level policies are essential to rein in Big Tech, there are virtually no federal laws in place governing the data center buildout. Policymakers at all levels of government must act with urgency to confront the harms already unfolding from unregulated data center expansion.

Introduction

Big Tech is rapidly expanding a nationwide network of data centers to power artificial intelligence—fueling corporate profits while leaving the public to shoulder the costs. Built at breakneck speed and with little to no government oversight or public input, this development is unfolding without necessary guardrails to protect the public interest. Further unchecked expansion threatens to drive more climate-warming emissions, harm local communities, and impact grid stability and the cost of living with estimates predicting data center electricity demand could double—or even triple—by 2028. 

Big Tech should pay for the buildout. Despite record profits, tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are securing massive tax breaks and cutting sweetheart deals with utilities to avoid paying their fair share and shifting the financial burden of the buildout to consumers. Many data center deals are struck behind closed doors, with non-disclosure agreements keeping impacted communities and ratepayers in the dark and denying them any say in ensuring the development will serve the public—not just corporate interests at the expense of everyone else. 

Working families across the country are stuck paying more for electricity, and many are being hit with incessant noise, light pollution, and toxic emissions. Residents’ electricity costs in some data center-dense areas have surged over 250% in just five years. At PJM—the world’s largest power market—capacity auction prices spiked 800% in 2024, in part due to data center growth. That same year, consumers across seven PJM states paid $4.3 billion more in electricity costs to cover data centers’ new transmission infrastructure.

A more robust public debate is required to determine whether Big Tech’s proposed AI deployment is contrary to the public interest. Instead of addressing the risks, the Trump administration’s 2025 AI Action Plan doubles down on unfettered data center growth by bypassing environmental review and fast-tracking permitting, while using dirty energy like coal and gas to fuel the energy demand. This comes at a time when the U.S. needs to dramatically scale back its reliance on fossil fuels and instead deploy clean, renewable energy that is cheaper and quicker to build in most places. 

Meanwhile, the AI industry is in the midst of the largest financial speculative bubble in global history, with myriad circular financing deals that suggest the data center buildout hype may implode. OpenAI’s founder recently implied the industry could be the recipient of federal bailouts in the event of a speculative collapse—the same tech tycoon who once declared that “AI will probably, most likely, sort of lead to the end of the world.” 

We need strong guardrails to prevent data centers from becoming new engines of destruction, worsening the climate crisis, driving up costs for ratepayers, and hitting countless American communities with long-lasting environmental and health harms. This guide outlines actionable steps for policymakers at all levels of government to rein in Big Tech and protect consumers, workers, and the climate from the data center buildout. 

State and Local Policy Solutions for Communities and the Climate

Foundational Protections 

1. Prohibit, restrict, or temporarily pause new data center development.

The Problem: As detailed throughout this guide, Big Tech often locks local and state officials into restrictive non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to keep communities in the dark while companies negotiate massive tax breaks and other financial deals behind closed doors. The proliferation of NDAs limits public engagement until projects are all but locked in. Given the breakneck speed of this development, the reliance on dirty fuels like on-site diesel generators, and the mounting harms communities are already experiencing, state and local governments should consider blocking new projects until data center operators commit to full transparency and disclose essential details such as the identify of the operator, expected water usage, noise and light pollution impacts, and how the facility intends to meet its massive electricity demand.  

Recommendation:

• State and local governments should consider placing temporary moratoriums on new data center projects until baseline protections are put in place. Policymakers should also consider issuing ordinances that ban new data centers or the expansion of existing data centers. (See GA example here and MD example here.)

2. Create baseline requirements for all data centers.

The Problem: Many data center deals advance without any binding protections for consumers and communities. Big Tech is dictating the terms, while regular people face higher electricity bills, health risks from air pollution, threats to property values, and other harms associated with the buildout. Rather than merely give in to Big Tech, state and local policymakers should enact consumer and community protections for all new and existing data centers.

Recommendation:

• Establish conditional commitments from data centers: Policymakers should establish baseline criteria prior to considering any data center proposal or request for proposal (RFP), approving a permit, or agreeing to any tax breaks or other financial incentives (note that we also suggest limiting or repealing tax incentives and requiring Big Tech pay its way in recommendation 6). These criteria should include: banning non-disclosure agreements, ensuring robust and sustained community engagement, requiring minimum operational commitments and decommissioning bonds, implementing strict water conservation measures, procuring renewable energy, and committing to local hiring and high-quality apprenticeship programs that offer good-paying jobs.

The following recommendations build on this framework, offering guidance for states and localities as they negotiate enforceable commitments with data center developers.

Community, Climate, and Consumer Safeguards 

3. Enact transparency and accountability standards.

The Problem: To weigh the costs and benefits of data centers and set the ground rules for any potential development, state and local governments should empower the public with the information necessary to oversee and participate meaningfully in the decision-making process. At present, many data center developers operate under a veil of secrecy, hiding even the name of the tech company behind the development, and using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to keep the community in the dark, stifling public debate and avoiding accountability. State and local policymakers should reverse this harmful and anti-democratic trend, instead ensuring transparency and accountability around existing and proposed data centers.

Recommendations:

• Prohibit or strictly limit non-disclosure agreements: Prohibit non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) from binding any public official in a manner that prevents communities and local governments from knowing who is building facilities or what the impacts will be. 
• Require transparent, online disclosure: Require states to post the following information publicly for at least 90 days before issuing or responding to an RFP, project application, or permit request:
  • the identity of the developer/operator;
  • any proposed or approved tax incentives or subsidies;
  • expected water and energy use;
  • local environmental impacts including from land use conversion and pollution;
  • claims regarding short- and long-term job creation, and any supporting evidence from the developer; and
  • potential harms like noise and light pollution.

This information should be accessible on a state website or other public channels, with monthly reporting requirements to ensure up-to-date information.

• Notify and directly engage impacted communities: In addition to public reporting, government officials must notify impacted communities directly and require that each project include opportunities for meaningful community engagement (see examples of community benefits programs here). 
• Require minimum durational commitments: Data centers should be required to operate for a minimum number of years at any approved site to prevent companies from abandoning facilities after short-term use. This ensures communities and utilities aren’t left with stranded infrastructure costs or environmental damage when tech firms relocate.
• Require decommissioning bonds. Data centers should be required to post a decommissioning bond or similar financial assurance to cover the full cost of future site cleanup, infrastructure removal, and environmental remediation. This ensures that local or state governments are not left with stranded assets and forced to pay the cleanup costs if a company shuts down or abandons a data center.

4. Commission an independent study to estimate energy and water demand.

The Problem: Most states are approving data centers before studying the projected impacts to the grid and water resources, even as our grid struggles to keep up with rising energy demand and as climate-driven droughts threaten water supplies in many regions of the US.

Recommendation: 

• Commission an independent study on energy and water impacts: State-commissioned independent studies should estimate both short- and long-term energy demand, water use, operational costs, and required infrastructure linked to data center growth. Studies should also outline how local decision-making can be integrated into statewide oversight and approval processes. Virginia’s statewide study found that data centers could increase the state’s energy use 183% by 2024, illustrating why such analyses are essential before allowing new facilities to move forward. 

5. Repeal or limit tax incentives.

The Problem: Data centers often seek state and local financial incentives such as tax breaks, grants, loans, or other financial support in exchange for the promise of economic growth and job creation. They rarely deliver on these promises. Data centers create few permanent, high-paying jobs, and generous tax breaks deprive communities of critical revenue needed to fund schools, infrastructure, and other public services.

Recommendation:

• Repeal or limit financial incentives: States and localities should avoid offering data centers blanket tax breaks, property tax abatements, millage rate preferences, or other giveaways that enable unchecked growth and shift costs to consumers. Any incentives should be strictly conditional and meet the demands in this guide, such as preventing increases in consumer electricity prices, using 100% clean and cheap renewable energy, paying for water use while implementing strict conservation measures, and hiring locally and investing in workforce development.

6. Require big tech to pay its fair share.

The problem: In regions dominated by data centers—some of which consume as much electricity as entire cities—monthly electricity bills have skyrocketed 267% or more in just five years. Public utility commissions oversee rate approvals, but state and local policymakers must step in to protect consumers from runaway energy costs. 

Recommendations: 

• Establish a new rate class where data centers pay full costs of energy needs: Through state legislation, policymakers should establish a data center “rate class” that charges data centers a rate per kilowatt-hour that is equal to the full cost of procuring the energy needed to serve them—including the costs of new or upgraded grid infrastructure—instead of passing those costs onto ratepayers. (See Oregon example here.) New rate classes can protect households and small businesses from footing Big Tech’s bill, but some proposals, like Dominion Energy’s in Virginia, are being criticized as not doing enough to shield ratepayers from rising costs.

• Additionally, require data centers to cover the full cost of power infrastructure: Tech companies should be required to pay the full cost of any new generation, transmission, or distribution infrastructure needed to power a data center. If a data center is unable to pay for these costs upfront, states and utilities should negotiate a rate structure or other scheme that prevents those expenses from being passed on to consumers or causes electricity bills to rise beyond a set percentage year over year.
• Prohibit any rate classes for data centers that would transfer cost to other consumers: Through legislation or regulation, utilities should be prohibited from creating any special rate class or power purchase agreement that would push costs onto residential or small business ratepayers.

7. Require clean energy and energy efficiency.

The Problem: Data centers’ energy demand is extending the life of polluting, fossil-fuel electricity plants, undermining states’ clean energy goals and worsening the climate crisis. As of March 2025, roughly 56% of the electricity used to power data centers comes from fossil fuels, and the Trump administration is actively pushing to revive the coal industry to power the buildout and promote co-location of data centers with gas power plants. To protect public health, avoid deepening our reliance on dirty energy, and hasten the clean energy transition, states and localities must require any data center development or expansion to align with their clean energy, energy efficiency, and climate commitments.

Recommendations:

• Require data centers to meet energy demand with renewable energy paired with storage: Data center operators should be required to power their facilities with 100% renewable energy, as seen in other domestic and international examples, paired with on-site or grid-connected storage. States can require or incentivize companies to bring online sufficient clean generation to match their full electricity needs, while contributing to new renewable buildout both on-site and on the grid. 
• Prohibit new fossil fuel infrastructure: Policymakers should phase out the use of existing on-site fossil backup generators while prohibiting new fossil fuel infrastructure such as gas pipelines, new gas interconnections, and on-site fossil fuel generation. 
• Adopt baseline energy efficiency standards: States and localities should adopt energy standards for data centers, similar to those outlined in the EU’s Energy Efficiency Directive, which requires energy audits, performance standards, and public reporting. Energy efficiency standards could utilize existing frameworks such as through LEED building standards, ENERGY STAR equipment and buildings, or ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.4-2022. 

8. Protect grid reliability by requiring load flexibility and authorizing forced curtailment.

The Problem: Data centers operate around the clock. When the grid is strained during heat waves, cold weather, or other peak demand periods, data center energy demand can threaten grid reliability and drive up costs for consumers. 

Recommendation: 

• Require load flexibility and authorize forced curtailment: Require data centers to reduce or shift their electricity usage during peak demand periods and times of grid stress, and empower state regulators and grid operators to temporarily limit data center electricity consumption during emergencies. To protect household ratepayers, data centers should not be compensated for compliance in either instance.

9. Conserve water resources.

The Problem: Data centers require enormous amounts of water for electricity generation, cooling, construction, and ancillary uses. A single large data center can use up to 5 million gallons of water a day—equivalent to a city of 50,000 people. This demand can place immense strain on water systems across the country from the Northeast to Georgia to historically drought-prone states like Arizona and Texas, and can pit corporate operations against current and future community water needs. 

Recommendations: 

• Require full transparency regarding water usage: Require full public disclosure of anticipated and actual water usage. Large tech companies’ public disclosures often exclude “secondary” water use—water used in generating the electricity to power their data centers—which results in massive underreporting and can lessen their public ambitions for water efficiency.
• Require strict water conservation measures: Measures should include implementing closed-loop cooling or zero-water cooling systems and using renewable energy, which is much less water-intensive than fossil fuel operations. 
• Make Big Tech pay for the water it uses: Impose an annual fee on data centers for every centum cubic feet or thousand gallons of potable water used in operation.

10. Disclose fossil fuel-enabling contracts.

The Problem: In addition to the direct impacts of the data center buildout, some tech companies use these facilities to power the AI tools sold to fossil fuel companies to expand fossil fuel extraction and production. In U.S. oil fields, AI software and cloud computing are reducing production costs, unlocking previously inaccessible reserves, and tripling output in places like the Permian Basin, while keeping fossil fuels competitive with clean and cheap renewables. These “enabled emissions” are absent from Big Tech’s carbon accounting standards and corporate sustainability frameworks, and they risk locking us into decades more climate-warming pollution and delaying the clean energy transition. 

Recommendation:

• Disclose fossil fuel expansion-enabling contracts: When considering a data center proposal, require the data center operator to disclose whether it is selling AI-driven tools or services to fossil fuel companies for the purpose of expanding fossil fuel production. Require the operator to publicly report this information so communities and policymakers can assess whether the facility aligns with state and local clean energy and climate goals.

11. Require local hiring and workforce development commitments.

The Problem: Data center developers often promise local job creation to win political and public support, but those promises rarely hold up. Construction jobs are only temporary and often filled by people with prior experience, and data center operations are often staffed with contract positions with few long-term, good-paying opportunities. This incentivizes jobs that lack union protections, benefits, or job security rather than support long-term career opportunities for local residents.

Recommendations: 

• Require high labor standards: Require data centers adhere to high labor standards, pay workers prevailing wages, and support the right to unionize. 
• Require local hiring: Require local hiring commitments for construction and operations, including requiring full-time, permanent job creation for each facility.
• Establish pathway programs: Require data center operators to invest in local workforce development by establishing apprenticeship and training programs in partnership with local high schools, community colleges, and labor unions. These programs should prepare residents for long-term careers in the digital infrastructure and skilled trades sectors (i.e., electricians, computer technicians, and engineers). Data center operators should commit to hosting quarterly open houses on-premise, inviting students and the community to learn about the data center’s operations.

Federal Reforms Needed to Protect the Public Interest

The Problem: State and local-level policies are essential for keeping data centers’ climate and community harms in check, but federal action is also urgently needed to hold Big Tech accountable. However, there are virtually no national laws governing data centers and their expansion. Congress has held hearings but only limited bills have been introduced, like Senator Whitehouse and Senator Fetterman’s Clean Cloud Act and Representative Obernolte’s Liquid Cooling for AI Act. Much more is needed to ensure federal oversight that protects consumers, communities, and the climate.  

Recommendations: Congress should enact the following reforms, at a minimum, to help rein in unregulated expansion:

1. Regulate data centers under federal bulk power market reliability standards. Designate certain large loads (i.e., data centers) as Registered Entities subject to the North American Electric Reliability Corp (NERC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) federal electricity reliability standards.
   • In March 2025, internal NERC and FERC documents were leaked to a journalist reporting that 30% of the data centers in Virginia’s “data center alley” suddenly went offline, nearly triggering catastrophic rolling blackouts close to the nation’s capital. This leak forced a NERC official to provide a public presentation to FERC weeks later that confirmed two separate reliability events involving data centers, prompting NERC to recommend that data centers be subject to federal electric reliability standards. Requiring data centers to register with NERC—just as more than 1,400 other large energy users already do—would ensure accountability, improve oversight, and help prevent future threats to grid stability.
2. Require load flexibility and forced curtailment. To prevent grid strain and electricity price hikes during peak demand, Congress should direct FERC to require load flexibility programs and forced load (i.e., energy demand) curtailment procedures for data centers, without compensation. 
3. Create new authorities for EIA and FERC related to data center energy use. Congress should authorize the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to collect and publish current and projected data center electricity use and energy sources. Other information outlined in the Clean Cloud Act should also be considered. Congress should also authorize FERC to require disclosure when power sellers are affiliated with data centers.Additionally, Congress should direct the Environmental Protection Agency to collect and report data center emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA), including establishing a specific reporting category for data centers. This would enable regulators and communities to assess large-load emissions impacts, improve transparency, and ensure data centers meet CAA requirements—and halt projects that do not.
4. Codify the November 2024 FERC order. Codify the November 2024 FERC order that determined shifting existing generation away from the bulk power market to serve a data center is unjust and unreasonable. A politicized FERC controlled by the Trump administration may seek to nullify this order.
5. Prohibit federal preemption to build data centers. Congress should restrict any president from using emergency authority to preempt state, county, or municipal laws—including zoning regulations—that govern where and how data centers and related energy facilities can be built. Congress should also disallow a currently politicized FERC from rewriting market rules for Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs). For example, FERC should be prohibited from issuing blanket 206 orders that would prioritize coal and natural gas generation or place co-location proposals at the front of the queue.
6. Subject data center computer systems to federal energy efficiency standards. While Congress has directed sweeping energy efficiency mandates for thousands of household consumer products and automobiles, no such efficiency mandates exist for large microprocessing computer networks featured in data centers or cryptomining facilities.

In addition to these reforms, Congress should pause FERC’s proposed rulemaking on interconnecting large loads—including data centers—until FERC works directly with state regulators and consumer advocates to ensure grid reliability and protect ratepayers from rising costs. State regulators are already pushing back against this rushed rule over concerns that increasing connection of data centers to the grid could “impose undue costs on retail customers” and threaten state regulators’ ability to promote flexible systems and equitable cost allocation. Before approving new data center connections, FERC should consider fast-tracking connections of clean and cheap renewables that can meet energy demand and lower energy prices for consumers.

Conclusion

Policymakers must act with urgency to confront the harms already unfolding from unregulated data center expansion. By enforcing strict transparency and accountability mechanisms and community protections—alongside the requirement for clean and cheap renewable energy to power this expansion—policymakers can reduce the cost of electricity for consumers, strengthen grid reliability, protect public health, and supercharge the clean energy transition. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was written by Deanna Noël, climate campaigns director, and Meghan Pazik, senior policy advocate, with assistance from Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, and research support from Jessica Garcia, Senior Policy Analyst, Climate Finance.  

Notable sources for these recommendations include those in the Biden Administration’s January 2025 Executive Order on AI Infrastructure, AI Now Institute’s Data Center Policy Guide, Good Jobs First’s data center reform recommendations, University of Michigan’s data center study, and Tyson Slocum’s April 2025 Congressional testimony. Special thanks to Alli Finn and Kate Brennan at AI Now Institute and Savannah Wilson.

December 2, 2025

Force Placed Insurance

How insurers make BANK & how banks profit from insurance 

By Brya Arcement 

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

Did you know: if you don’t maintain home insurance on your home, the bank or mortgage servicer can do it for you? Sure, your home is the bank’s collateral, and they need to protect their assets. But when does this become insidious? Walk with me as we go deeper into the underbelly of the insurance world. 

For the longest, I never really gave insurance a thought. Like most people, I assumed that insurance, in all forms, was just a backup, a way to replace high priced items like a home, a car, or maybe even rare art. And in its most basic form, it is, right? 

Now, force-placed insurance is where the system gets pretty dark. When folks fall behind on their insurance payments during tough times, they often get an unwelcome surprise. Their bank has picked their insurance for them, and it might be several times the normal price; the kicker is that it barely protects them at all.

So what is FPI and why does FPI even exist?

Okay, now that I have your attention, you’re probably wondering, “what is force-placed insurance?” Like surplus lines insurance, this is a creature of many names. If you ask an industry lobbyist, they’ll insist it’s called lender-placed insurance. Because there is no “force” (eye roll). Whether it is referred to as lender-placed or force-placed, both terms mean the same thing. This type of insurance kicks in when someone’s required home or flood insurance policy lapses for any reason. The bank then buys coverage on your behalf and adds it to your mortgage payment. 

Force-placed insurance has been around and a staple in mortgage contracts for a long time. Your home secures your mortgage. It’s their collateral. So, if your house burns down without insurance, both you and the bank are SOL. 

Supposedly, it covers the extra work and risk of insuring these properties. In theory, I guess it makes sense. But in practice? Let’s chat about it. 

We’ve already established that FPI protects banks, not you. This is the MOST important thing to understand, and it’s bananas. FPI protects the outstanding amount on a mortgage. Not your personal belongings, not you, not your family. That means a FPI policy might only cover the amount left on your mortgage. If you’ve already paid off most of your mortgage, the bank could take the small insurance payment, pay off the mortgage, and walk away, leaving you without the money to rebuild.

Unlike regular homeowners’ insurance, force-placed coverage also typically doesn’t cover: 

• Your personal belongings
• Hotel or rental costs if you can’t stay in your home after a disaster
• Liability if someone gets hurt on your property 
• A lot of the things you ACTUALLY need insurance for

So if your home gets damaged for any reason, the insurance payout goes straight to the bank. You might walk away with absolutely nothing, zip, NADA for your personal losses. You’re paying for insurance that doesn’t really insure you. 

Climate change puts an insidious situation on steroids

Then there’s climate change, making a bad situation worse. As climate-driven disasters make insurance more expensive, companies are pulling out of what they deem as “risky” areas completely. This is already a major problem for areas currently dealing with insurance chaos (looking at you, Florida, California… and apparently Minnesota?). Homeowners are finding regular insurance either too expensive or straight-up impossible to get. 

Just imagine you’re a homeowner in California and you can’t afford regular insurance or find a company willing to cover you. The state-backed last resort option (typically called the “FAIR” Plan) is one backup. But that might be even more expensive. If you can’t afford that, then your policy lapses. And boom, your bank puts you on a force-placed insurance plan. FPI could become far more common for struggling families just trying to keep a roof over their heads. 

…and the prices, because it’s ALWAYS about money

Remember when I said prices might be exponentially higher than regular insurance? Let me paint a picture for you, dear reader. Force-placed insurance can cost way more than what you might normally pay for homeowners’ insurance. FOR LESS COVERAGE. You know what that sounds like? It sounds like the bank and the insurance company are in cahoots and have a pretty sweet deal. You’re stuck in the middle. 

Many of these policies also come with another sneaky provision called a forced arbitration clause. I’ll spare you from my rant on that for now, but here’s the basics: If you think you’ve been messed over, you might not be able to take the lender or insurer to court. Instead, you’re forced into a rigged arbitration system chosen by the insurer, which limits your legal options and makes it harder to join class action lawsuits with other folks in the same boat. 

Real cases, real damage, an unending cycle

This is when it gets truly heartbreaking. FPI hits folks who are already drowning, those who couldn’t afford regular insurance in the first place. Homeowners most commonly end up with FPI when they can’t afford to keep up with their insurance payments. FPI played a nasty role in the 2008 financial crisis and everything that came after. Homeowners who couldn’t afford their mortgages stopped making payments, and often stopped making their homeowners’ insurance payments too. And who’s most likely to face that situation? Families who are already on the financial edge. Look at you, paying attention. 

Force-placed insurance overwhelmingly harms low income communities and communities of color. This isn’t a coincidence; it’s a predictable pattern that follows the same path as other predatory financial practices exposed during the 2008 crisis. In 2006, the rate of subprime mortgages for Black Americans and Latinx folks was almost double that of white people (racism finds its way into everything, doesn’t it?) 

Black and Latinx homebuyers were hardest hit by the foreclosures that resulted from predatory lending, lower homeownership rates, and less generational wealth, and then got slammed with FPI when they couldn’t afford to maintain their policies. Foreclosure rates during the crisis were drastically higher in Black and Latinx communities. 

Do you see the connection? The communities that were already targeted by predatory lenders were the same ones that ended up with these exploitative insurance policies layered on top of their struggles. 

… and the scheming of it all

Because the bank selects the policy but doesn’t pay the price, there’s not much incentive to keep the cost down. Regulators at the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) looked into this and discovered what they called “reverse competition.” Instead of insurance companies competing to offer you lower prices (like capitalism is supposed to work, in theory), these companies have competed in the past to see who could offer banks the best kickbacks. Tell me, reader, why is it so hard for financial institutions to do the right thing?! Good grief. 

A real-life investigation uncovered that one bank put itself on both sides of the transaction. The bank paid inflated premiums to the largest force-placed insurance provider and then turned around and got most of the money back through a reinsurance deal with a subsidiary. 

The proof is in the puddin’

Abuses from the 2008 financial crisis ultimately led to new rules from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and individual states stepped in to establish requirements around kickbacks and notice periods. 

On February 9, 2012, in a settlement with the federal government and 49 state attorneys general, 5 big banks agreed to pay $25 billion related to homeowners who lost their homes in the financial crisis. Since then, class action lawsuits have followed. In 2024, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay more than $22 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the bank forced homeowners to pay for flood insurance that cost 10 times more than it should have. 

While those settlements sound big, they aren’t enough. FPI insurance is a major profit center. The NYDFS investigators found insurance companies were telling regulators they expected to pay 55% -58% of premiums in claims. Meanwhile, they were actually only paying out less than 25%. Bring back shame, people!

Mask off

Despite settlements, reforms, and regulatory actions, the penalties are too small, especially when insurers are making BANK. While class actions have continued, even the largest settlements only mean so much to such a lucrative industry.

Listen, Linda, as climate change leaves more folks struggling to afford their insurance, the risks will only grow. And while state programs like the FAIR Plan can be a backup, struggling homeowners may not be able to afford those premiums for long. 

Regulators can start by, at a minimum, collecting and publishing better, up-to-date data on the costs and who is paying them.  Without oversight and enforcement, FPI can function as a hidden tax on financial hardship. But now that you know about force-placed insurance, you can do something. Tell a friend, a family member (maybe a state representative), because the more folks that know this hidden system exists, the more exposed it becomes.

Trump’s U.S.-Malaysia Deal: Cementing Extractivist Colonialism

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

On October 26, 2025, Trump announced that he had signed an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade with Malaysia. While previously announced “deals” were lists of commitments for future negotiations, the U.S.-Malaysia deal was the first time the administration had published the text of a final agreement. The text eschews any semblance of fairness or balance, creating a laundry list of binding obligations on Malaysia in return for a slightly lower tariff rate than what was threatened initially on its exports to the United States.^[i]

Negotiated entirely in secret without any Congressional review or public input, the deal includes a legally binding trade deal as well as a critical minerals Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).^[ii] Together, these instruments illustrate how the United States is securing critical minerals through executive-driven, opaque, and asymmetric agreements with resource-rich countries in the Global South.

The Malaysia deal is a clear example of Trump’s bilateral bullying through punishing tariffs, geopolitical pressure, and executive overreach to force countries into supplying the U.S. with critical minerals without meaningful pathways to add value and move beyond low-cost raw extraction.^[iii]

Critical Minerals in Malaysia

Malaysia is a globally significant player in the minerals sector. It holds vast reserves of non-radioactive rare-earth elements, bauxite, tin, silica sand, and kaolin, which are critical for military equipment, wind turbines, and electric vehicle motors.^[iv] Their valuation is approximately RM 4.1 trillion (USD 860+ billion) for total resources.^[v]

Investors are interested in Malaysia because it has large unmined ionic clay deposits — the easiest type of heavy rare earth elements to extract — and because it hosts the only major rare earth processing facility outside China.^[vi]

Malaysia has ambitions for an industrial strategy to shift from upstream extraction to downstream value-addition to its supply chains, enabling it to profit from its mineral wealth. Malaysia’s plans prioritize manufacturing and technological self-sufficiency for higher-skilled jobs, supply chain integration, and sovereignty over its resources.^[vii]

Trump’s U.S.-Malaysia deal directly undermines these goals.

Implications of the U.S.-Malaysia Agreement

As part of its many concessions to the United States in the U.S.-Malaysia Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, Malaysia made a legally binding commitment to refrain from banning or imposing quotas on exports of critical minerals or rare earth elements to the United States.^[viii] This restriction targets the single most important industrial policy tool available to resource-rich countries seeking to catalyze domestic processing of their minerals. In neighboring Indonesia, export bans, quotas, and domestic processing requirements transformed Indonesia’s nickel sector and attracted massive downstream investment after the government prohibited raw ore exports.^[ix]

By locking Malaysia out of these policy tools for the U.S. market, the agreement effectively forecloses its ability to replicate Indonesia’s critical mineral export ban. The agreement simultaneously requires Malaysia to promote and facilitate U.S. investment in critical minerals assets and to provide licensing certainty for companies seeking to expand production capacity.^[x] These binding commitments ensure predictable upstream access for U.S. companies while constraining Malaysia’s leverage over its own mineral resources.

In short, the deal creates a two-tiered relationship where Malaysia assumes substantial obligations and costs, while the U.S. assumes almost none.^[xi] It is a model designed to assert U.S. dominance over Malaysia’s minerals, not to provide an economic partnership for Malaysia, nor to serve as an avenue for value addition to its mineral supply chains. It also further incentivizes mining, a notoriously dirty and dangerous industry, without enforceable rules to uphold labor and environmental standards.

Alongside the binding trade agreement, the United States and Malaysia concluded a Critical Minerals MoU. While it does not create enforceable legal obligations, its structure and content are significant. The MoU commits both governments to quarterly coordination, technical consultations, and “good faith” prioritization of U.S. investment in Malaysian critical mineral assets. It encourages Malaysia to streamline permitting processes, adopt “fair and equitable treatment” for investors, cooperate on reviewing mineral asset sales, and coordinate on pricing frameworks, including the possibility of price floors.^[xii]

Collectively, these provisions create an institutionalized channel through which U.S. agencies can shape Malaysia’s regulatory environment, investment decisions, and sectoral governance. “Soft law” instruments of this kind have long been a mechanism for influencing policy decisions without triggering Congressional involvement, WTO scrutiny, or public debate.^[xiii] Paired with binding commitments that limit Malaysia’s industrial policy autonomy, the MoU further solidifies Malaysia’s obligations to the United States regarding its mineral resources.

What This Means If Trump Continues This Model

What emerges from these dual agreements is a clear hierarchy. Binding disciplines restrict Malaysia’s policy space in areas that matter for long-term development, while non-binding commitments institutionalize a cooperative process designed to steer Malaysia’s sector governance in line with U.S. strategic interests. Comparable memoranda of understanding with Australia and Japan contain shared financing arrangements and joint project development commitments.^[xiv] Malaysia, by contrast, is positioned primarily as a host for U.S. investment and an upstream supplier of raw and intermediate materials.

This approach mirrors a broader pattern of wealthy countries treating Global South countries as extraction hubs whose domestic industrial ambitions must be managed.

If this model becomes standard, more resource-rich Global South countries will confront similar constraints on industrial policy, reduced room for value-added development, and heightened pressure to align their domestic regulatory structures with U.S. geopolitical priorities.^[xv] Trump, in turn, will increasingly use non-transparent bilateral arrangements — rather than respecting Congressional authority or multilateral processes — to bully other countries into shaping the global minerals economy his way.^[xvi]

 

Endnotes

^[i] The White House, “Joint Statement on United States-Malasia Agreement on Reciprocal Trade,” The White House, October 26, 2025.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/10EV/joint-statement-on-united-states-malaysia-agreement-on-reciprocal-trade/

^[ii] The White House, “Memorandum of understanding between the government of the united states of america and the government of malaysia concerning cooperation to diversify global critical minerals supply chains and promote investments,” The White House, October 26, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/10/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-government-of-malaysia-concerning-cooperation-to-diversify-global-critical-minerals-supply-chains-and-promote/

^[iii] Public Citizen, “Trump’s Secret Trade Deals with Malaysia and Cambodia Revealed: Imperialist Bullying on Behalf of Big Tech, Other Corporate Interests,” Public Citizen, October 29, 2025.

https://www.citizen.org/news/trumps-secret-trade-deals-with-malaysia-and-cambodia-revealed-imperialist-bullying-on-behalf-of-big-tech-other-corporate-interests/

^[iv] Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA), “Rare earth: An invaluable element for malaysia,” Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA). https://www.mida.gov.my/rare-earth-an-invaluable-element-for-malaysia/

^[v] International Trade Administration (ITA), “Malaysia Critical Minerals,” International Trade Administration (ITA), January 3, 2025. https://www.trade.gov/market-intelligence/malaysia-critical-minerals and

Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (MITI), “New Industrial Master Plan 2030 Mineral Industry,” Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (MITI), 2023. https://www.nimp2030.gov.my/nimp2030/modules_resources/bookshelf/e-14-Sectoral_NIMP-Mineral_Industry/e-14-Sectoral_NIMP-Mineral_Industry.pdf

^[vi] Lynas LAMP in Kuantan = 8% of global production

Cowater International, “Towards Sustainable Mining: supporting Malaysia in leveraging its critical minerals’ potential for inclusive growth,” Cowater International, May 15, 2025. https://www.cowater.com/towards-sustainable-mining-supporting-malaysia-in-leveraging-its-critical-minerals-potential-for-inclusive-growth/ and

Syed Muhammad Ibad, Haylay Tsegab, Numair Ahmed Siddiqui, Monera Adam, Santosh Mishra, Syahrir Ridha, Nisar Ahmed, Afifa Azmi, “The upstream rare earth resources of Malaysia: Insight into geology, geochemistry, and hydrometallurgical approaches,” Geoscience Frontiers, November, 2024.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987124001233

^[vii] International Energy Agency (IEA), “National Mineral Industry Transformation Plan 2021-2030 (NMITP),” International Energy Agency (IEA), 2021. https://www.iea.org/policies/16794-national-mineral-industry-transformation-plan-2021-2030 and

Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation (MOSTI), “National Advanced Materials Technology Roadmap 2021-2030 (NAMTR),” Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation (MOSTI), 2022. https://www.mosti.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Pelan-Hala-Tuju-Teknologi-Bahan-Termaju-Negara-2021-2030-versi-BI.pdf and

Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (MITI), “New Industrial Master Plan 2030 Mineral Industry (NIMP 2030),” Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (MITI), 2023.

https://www.nimp2030.gov.my/nimp2030/modules_resources/bookshelf/e-14-Sectoral_NIMP-Mineral_Industry/e-14-Sectoral_NIMP-Mineral_Industry.pdf

^[viii] The White House, “Joint Statement on United States-Malasia Agreement on Reciprocal Trade,” The White House, October 26, 2025.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/10/joint-statement-on-united-states-malaysia-agreement-on-reciprocal-trade/

^[ix] Rachmi Hertanti, “Between a mineral and a hard place Indonesia’s export ban on raw minerals,” The Transnational Institute (TNI), June 15, 2023. https://www.tni.org/en/article/between-a-mineral-and-a-hard-place

^[x] The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), “Fact Sheet: The United States and Malaysia Reach an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade,” The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), October, 2025.

https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2025/october/fact-sheet-united-states-and-malaysia-reach-agreement-reciprocal-trade

^[xi] Public Citizen, “Trump’s Secret Trade Deals with Malaysia and Cambodia Revealed: Imperialist Bullying on Behalf of Big Tech, Other Corporate Interests,” Public Citizen, October 29, 2025.

https://www.citizen.org/news/trumps-secret-trade-deals-with-malaysia-and-cambodia-revealed-imperialist-bullying-on-behalf-of-big-tech-other-corporate-interests/

^[xii] The White House, “Memorandum of understanding between the government of the united states of america and the government of malaysia concerning cooperation to diversify global critical minerals supply chains and promote investments,” The White House, October 26, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/10/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-government-of-malaysia-concerning-cooperation-to-diversify-global-critical-minerals-supply-chains-and-promote/

^[xiii] Lorenzo Cotula, Sunayana Sasmal, “Non-Binding Instruments in International Economic Diplomacy: A Look at the US Critical Minerals Deals,” EJIL:Talk!, November 12, 2025.

https://www.ejiltalk.org/non-binding-instruments-in-international-economic-diplomacy-a-look-at-the-us-critical-minerals-deals/

^[xiv] Lorenzo Cotula, Sunayana Sasmal, “Non-Binding Instruments in International Economic Diplomacy: A Look at the US Critical Minerals Deals,” EJIL:Talk!, November 12, 2025.

https://www.ejiltalk.org/non-binding-instruments-in-internatinal-economic-diplomacy-a-look-at-the-us-critical-minerals-deals/

^[xv] Sahabat Alam Malaysia, Consumers’ Association of Penang, “Malaysia-US pact surrenders Malaysia’s sovereignty,” Sahabat Alam Malaysia, Consumers’ Association of Penang, October 30, 2025. https://www.bilaterals.org/?malaysia-us-pact-surrenders

^[xvi] Public Citizen, “Trump’s Secret Trade Deals with Malaysia and Cambodia Revealed: Imperialist Bullying on Behalf of Big Tech, Other Corporate Interests,” Public Citizen, October 29, 2025.

https://www.citizen.org/news/trumps-secret-trade-deals-with-malaysia-and-cambodia-revealed-imperialist-bullying-on-behalf-of-big-tech-other-corporate-interests/

December 1, 2025

Civil Society Letter to EU HERA on Mpox/Smallpox Vaccine Procurement and Global Access

Public Citizen, Health Action International, Salud por Derecho, and 26 others call for stronger commitments to transparency and equitable access

Public Citizen Comments to Austin City Council Opposing Purchase of Austin Energy Gas-Burning Peaker Power Generation

Dear Commissioner Lahbib and Director-General Fink-Hooijer,

As organisations concerned with equitable access to health products in the European Union and beyond, we write to urge HERA to make publicly available the terms of its recent agreement with Bavarian Nordic for the supply of up to eight million MVA-BN mpox/smallpox vaccine doses.^[1]

While we welcome HERA’s continued commitment to mpox preparedness and response, including its recognition of the need for global access to medical countermeasures, we have reservations regarding the modality and structure of such endeavours. In particular, we are concerned by the lack of transparency regarding HERA’s funding contracts and we demand that transparency and accountability standards be upheld.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw first hand how contract secrecy can fuel price disparities and hide unfair conditions that favour private interests over public health. As a consequence, public trust is undermined. Conversely, disclosure of contract terms, including those intended to support equitable access to medicines, encourages greater accountability from all parties, improves the ability to negotiate affordable prices, and promotes public understanding about the use of EU funds to support outbreak preparedness and response. Indeed, the WHO Pandemic Agreement and WHO transparency resolution of 2019 emphasise the importance of improved transparency in markets for health products and in government agreements and purchasing schemes.^[2]

While the inclusion of terms on pricing for EU donations to LMICs is positive,^[3] we urge HERA to include terms in its agreements that more directly support timely, affordable and sustainable access to health products in developing countries. For example, by including terms that facilitate adequate global supply, equitable allocation of doses, and diverse manufacturing through technology transfer or socially responsible licensing schemes.^[4]

We call on HERA to learn the lessons of the COVID-19 crisis and embrace stronger commitments to transparency and global equitable access to health products.

Sincerely,

Health Action International
Salud por Derecho
Public Citizen
Action Santé
Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
Association Camerounaise pour l’Appui Social, le Bien-être et le Développement Communautaire (ACASD)
Association Humanitaire Possible Cameroun
Association of Women of Southern Europe AFEM
AVAC
BETTER FUTURE
BUKO Pharma-Kampagne, Germany
CEESE (interuniversity Cuba Europa medical Education and Science Exchange network)
GHIAA
Global Health Advocates (GHA)
Health Global Access Project
ICHANGE
ITPC Global
Kamukunji Paralegal Trust (KAPLET)
Médecins du Monde International Network
Peta Kebijakan
Pharmaceutical Accountability Foundation
Prescrire
Red de Acceso a Medicamentos de Guatemala
Spark Street Advisors
Third World Network
Treatment Action Group
UAEM Europe
Wemos
Wote Youth Development Projects CBO

 

References

^[1] The European Commission, The European Commission signs a joint procurement contract to strengthen preparedness against mpox and smallpox, 13 November 2025, https://health.ec.europa.eu/latest-updates/european-commission-signs-joint-procurement-contract-strengthen-preparedness-against-mpox-and-2025-11-13_en

^[2] WHO Pandemic Agreement, https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA78/A78_R1-en.pdf (see articles 9.5, 11.1.c, and 14.1); WHA72.8, Improving the transparency of markets for medicines, vaccines, and other health products, 28 May 2019, https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/essential-medicines/intellectual-property/gspa/a72_r8-en.pdf?sfvrsn=8ecefe84_3&download=true

^[3] Bavarian Nordic, Bavarian Nordic awarded new procurement framework contract by the European Commission to strengthen preparedness against smallpox and mpox, 31 October 2025, https://www.bavarian-nordic.com/investor/news/news.aspx?news=7360

^[4] Cynthia & Nchanji, MPOX outbreak in Africa: the urgent need for local manufacturing of the vaccine and decolonized health systems, 7 November 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12595634/ (emphasising the need for local vaccine manufacturing, including through equitable technology transfer, to enable access to vaccines during outbreaks and self sufficiency in the African region).