Connect with us

Politics

Smart business? Currying favor? Why big tech leaders are friending and funding Trump

Published

on

Smart business? Currying favor? Why big tech leaders are friending and funding Trump

Four years ago, several of California’s most influential tech titans determined that then-President Trump was such a threat to democracy they barred him from posting on their social media platforms.

“We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg wrote on his platform on Jan. 7, 2021 — one day after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in a violent attempt to keep him in power.

Today, some of the same tech leaders, including Zuckerberg, are taking a strikingly different tone as Trump prepares to retake the White House. They are meeting with him personally, touting the business opportunities they see under his next administration, announcing policies that appear designed to appease him and bankrolling the pageantry of his return with huge donations to his inaugural fund.

On Tuesday, four years to the day since his post announcing Trump’s Facebook suspension, Zuckerberg posted a video arguing that the “complex systems” his company has built to moderate dangerous, illicit and misleading content have led to “too much censorship” — a favorite argument of Trump’s — and will be dramatically scaled back.

Calling the recent elections “a cultural tipping point,” Zuckerberg said Meta — which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — will “get rid of fact checkers” and instead rely on users to challenge misleading posts. The company will greatly reduce its content restrictions on some of Trump’s favorite political subjects, such as immigration and gender, he added, and ratchet up the amount of political content its algorithms steer to users.

Advertisement

It also will move remaining safety and content moderation teams out of California and into Texas, which Zuckerberg suggested would provide a less “biased” environment, and work directly with Trump “to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more.”

Industry experts say the changes are part of a broader shift in public political posturing by big tech’s heavy hitters — one that began long before Trump’s November win but has escalated greatly since, and is greater than the perfunctory bowing of pragmatic business leaders with the changeover in government every four years.

Some have defended the shift. In an interview with the Associated Press last month, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff credited it to the incoming Trump administration showing more interest than the Biden administration in industry concerns and expertise.

“I think a lot of people realize there is a lot of incredible people like Elon Musk in the tech industry and in the business community,” Benioff said. “If you tap the power and expertise of the best in America to make the best of America, that’s a great vision.”

Others say the shift reflects a financial calculation, in line with the libertarian streak that has long run deep in tech circles, that Trump’s penchant for deregulation and disdain for content moderation — which he has claimed is biased against conservatives — will be good for the bottom line, the experts said.

Advertisement

The tech executives see an opportunity to wipe their hands of the expensive responsibility to clean up their platforms, the experts said, and a useful excuse to do so under the guise of free speech — an ideal Trump has often cited in order to ridicule platform moderation.

“It is a recognizing that Trump’s power is enormous, as we’ve seen through the election, that he’s definitely here to stay for these four years, [and] that the MAGA movement is the biggest social movement in the United States,” said Ramesh Srinivasan, director of the UC Center for Global Digital Cultures. “When it comes to Meta and these big companies, their interest is in maintaining if not increasing their valuation and/or profitability, and they’re gonna go with whatever the easiest ways are to achieve just that.”

That posture is unsurprising and financially savvy, he and other experts said, but also alarming — particularly in light of Trump’s promises to wield the Justice Department as a political weapon against his enemies and the tech leaders’ willingness to counteract that threat with cash and other consolations to the White House, they said.

Sarah T. Roberts, co-founder and faculty director of the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry, said the tech donations to Trump’s inaugural fund were “quite a vulgar demonstration” that in order “to succeed in the marketplace in the next four years, it will require currying favor with the president.”

A major problem is that decisions by Meta, X and others to capitulate to Trump by tossing away years of accumulated know-how and expertise in the area of content moderation are not in the best interests of platform users around the world who are harmed when such safeguards aren’t in place, said Roberts, author of “Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media.”

Advertisement

The tech leaders know that, too, but don’t seem to care, she said.

“They know from their own internal research that there is harm without measures and efforts to intervene, and they are making very calculated decisions to ignore their own evidence, dismantle those teams, [and] sell out their own work and workers,” Roberts said.

Also at work, said Rob Lalka, a business professor at Tulane University, is a long-running strategy among big tech leaders to reshape American capitalism in their favor by gaining influence in Washington.

“They are getting involved in politics in ways that go beyond the money,” he said. “They’re interested in power.”

Money and power

Zuckerberg, Elon Musk of X, Tim Cook of Apple, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Sundar Pichai of Google and other leaders in the cryptocurrency and AI industries who have backed Trump control platforms and services that play an outsize role in shaping civil discourse and political debate, experts said.

Advertisement

An important check on their sweeping powers is government regulation, which has increased in recent years as countries grapple with the threats such platforms pose to consumers and democracy, including through the spread of misinformation and hate speech.

Individual nations and the European Union have increasingly issued mandates for content moderation and the safeguarding of children, issued take-down orders for content deemed illegal or dangerous, and filed antitrust and other litigation to break up or fine the companies for anticompetitive business practices.

Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta and X — formerly Twitter — have all faced antitrust litigation or review in recent years, some of which originated under the first Trump administration. None responded to requests for comment, though they have denied wrongdoing in court.

They or their chief executives also have all pledged donations to Trump’s inaugural fund, which pays for galas, parades and dinners.

Meta and Apple’s Cook have said they will contribute $1 million to Trump’s fund. Google has said it’s giving $1 million and that the inauguration will be streamed on YouTube. Amazon, led by multibillionaire Jeff Bezos, has committed to giving $1 million in cash plus a $1-million in-kind contribution by streaming the inauguration on Amazon Video.

Advertisement

Musk, the world’s richest man, spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars — the most of any single donor in the 2024 election cycle — to help reelect Trump and Republicans in the House and Senate, including through two separate political action committees, campaign finance filings show.

Musk has been in Trump’s inner circle ever since, and Trump has appointed him to lead a new “Department of Government Efficiency.”

Bill Baer, former head of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division in the Obama administration, said the tech leaders are “currying favor” — which he added was “not a crazy thing for them to be doing” given Trump’s focus on loyalty.

“They want to make sure that, if there is an enemies list being compiled, they’re not on it,” Baer said.

It’s also unclear how the Trump administration is going to handle tech platforms or the investigations into their operations, Baer said. Both Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance have “expressed some concern about tech platforms,” and there “seems to be a mixed view among Republicans in Congress,” he said.

Advertisement

Baer’s concern, however, is that the Trump White House will make good on its promises to “control law enforcement in a way that would allow it to protect its friends and to pursue its enemies, and that includes people who are currently being sued on antitrust grounds as monopolists, as well as people being investigated for those behaviors.”

If Trump does so, the tech leaders’ willingness to pay into his inaugural fund and appease him in other ways will raise legal questions, Baer said — especially if the antitrust cases against them suddenly go away, or they get off easy.

It’s “something that the public ought to be concerned about” Baer said. “Our whole economy is built on the notion that competition results in innovation, in price competition, in quality improvement.”

‘Everyone wants to be my friend’

At a December news conference, Trump remarked on the “much less hostile” reception he has received from tech leaders.

“The first term, everybody was fighting me. In this term, everybody wants to be my friend,” Trump said.

Advertisement

When asked about Meta’s announcement Tuesday — which followed another naming Dana White, chief executive of Ultimate Fighting Championship and a staunch Trump loyalist, to Meta’s board — Trump simply said Zuckerberg has “come a long way.”

The remark was a nod to the argument by Trump and other Republicans that big tech is steeped in liberal bias and that its algorithms and content moderation are designed to help Democrats and hurt Republicans.

Experts say there is plenty of evidence to show that bias is a myth — not least of all the latest actions of tech’s most powerful leaders.

But regardless of those leaders’ personal politics, they have all “drawn the same conclusion” that they must stroke Trump’s ego, Roberts said.

“If that’s the price of doing business, I guess they are prepared to do it — while selling out a lot of other people and putting them in danger.”

Advertisement

Lalka, of Tulane and author of “The Venture Alchemists: How Big Tech Turned Profits Into Power,” said the fact that Trump is surrounded by tech leaders reflects how vastly Silicon Valley has shifted its posture on politics since 2016 — when venture capitalist Peter Thiel raised industry eyebrows by donating $1.25 million to Trump’s first campaign.

Lalka said Americans underestimate, and should be better informed on, the degree to which Silicon Valley types have since infiltrated government — Vance, among others, also has deep ties to Thiel — and how much they stand to permanently alter American governance to better serve their own free market interests.

Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” and the aligned plans under Project 2025 to fire career civil servants in favor of Trump loyalists are perfect examples, he said.

“What they’re arguing for here is much more Silicon Valley of an idea — which is that anything that is legacy, that is traditional, needs to be rejected in favor of the new, the novel, the innovative, the technological,” Lalka said. “Do we have that appetite for risk taking based on these people who are coming in? As a general public, I’m not sure about that.”

Advertisement

Politics

Assassinations unleashed under Trump haunt Iran war endgame

Published

on

Assassinations unleashed under Trump haunt Iran war endgame

Shortly before President Trump ended a ceasefire with Iran this week, Israeli officials presented his team with intelligence indicating Tehran was hatching new plots to kill him.

It was not the first such warning. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have tracked evidence for years of Iranian efforts to target the president, with signals only increasing since the start of the war.

Their desire to target Trump and his top aides began six years ago, just outside Baghdad International Airport, when the president ordered a drone strike that killed Iran’s most powerful general. The assassination of Qassem Suleimani brought the two countries to the brink of war.

Yet even as full-scale war was averted, top Iranian officials vowed revenge for the strike, authorizing attempts on the lives not just of the president, but of his secretary of State and national security advisor, among others, even after they had left office.

Now, calls for revenge have reached a sharper pitch in Tehran, after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the start of the war in February.

Advertisement

At Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies this week, red flags of vengeance flew throughout the capital as protesters explicitly called on their government to “kill Trump.” His son, Mojtaba, the new supreme leader, was absent from the commemorations, fearing assassination himself.

Mourners hold an anti-President Trump banner at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque during mass funeral prayers for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family in Tehran on Sunday.

(Morteza Nikoubazl / NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory, where its embrace of political killings could ultimately place its own officials at unprecedented risk. And experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach: When both sides believe their survival is at stake, the trust required for diplomacy becomes far harder to achieve.

Advertisement

Israeli news organizations have reported that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cited Iranian attempts to kill Trump in recent years as part of his case to go to war in the first place.

A U.S. official told The Times that a range of serious threats exist against the president, including from Iran, but that Israel’s intelligence pointed to a more specific plot. The official did not provide further details. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has said in recent months that the government sees vengeance against U.S. officials as “its legitimate duty and right,” and “will fulfill this great responsibility and duty with all its might.”

“The Suleimani killing accelerated a lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations — and the taboo on targeting and killing foreign leaders, with U.S. military assets, has been more or less lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political professor at George Washington University.

“If the United States sets the example of how to conduct international relations, and it is using assassination of foreign leaders as a political weapon, it’s only logical that other countries will be more inclined to also engage in assassinations,” Dallek added. “It does seem likely that Trump will have a bigger target on his back.”

Advertisement

Returning from a NATO summit in Turkey on Wednesday, Trump was forced to switch back to an old model of Air Force One — equipped with specialized defensive technologies — from a new plane given as a gift by Qatar, after the Secret Service warned of potential threats to the aircraft from Iran.

“They want to take out the U.S. leader — me,” Trump told reporters aboard the plane. “I’m on whatever list. I saw this morning I’m on every single one of their lists. And so far, I guess I’ve been a bit lucky, but maybe that doesn’t last very long.”

The threat has remained on his mind in the days since. In an interview with the New York Post, Trump told the reporter, “I hope you’ll miss me,” adding that he has “been on their list for a long time.” And in a subsequent social media post Friday night, he warned of a catastrophic response he instructed the administration to pursue in the event Tehran succeeds.

“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote, “with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!”

The United States had a decades-old prohibition against assassinating foreign leaders before Trump’s presidency, codified in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 over concerns of a CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro.

Advertisement

The policy was only strengthened further by subsequent administrations, fearing a new international standard for targeted killings could result in unintended consequences in the halls of Washington.

Other administrations have been accused of targeting foreign leaders before. Under the Obama administration, an international coalition targeting the Libyan regime of Moammar Kadafi during the country’s 2011 civil war struck his fleeing convoy, leading to his capture and killing by rebel fighters.

But experts say Trump’s explicit targeting of Suleimani and Khamenei — and his public celebration of their deaths — marks a new paradigm.

“Through words and actions, President Trump has done more to normalize political violence than any other U.S. president, certainly in modern times,” said Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Our Own Worst Enemies: America in the Age of Violent Populism.”

“On the international front alone, the president routinely brags about killing Iranian leaders and seizing the leader of Venezuela, among others,” he added, “to the point that assassination is becoming the new normal in international politics.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

Published

on

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A bipartisan housing bill became law Saturday at midnight after President Donald Trump declined to sign it, capping a weeks-long saga over whether the president would veto the measure amid frustrations with Congress over his stalled agenda.

Trump refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act — legislation aimed at expanding the nation’s housing stock and lowering costs — in an attempt to pressure Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, despite the housing bill clearing both chambers with overwhelming majorities.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” he declared on Truth Social Friday morning. 

The Trump-backed election measure, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and impose voter ID requirements, has struggled to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. 

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the House has not passed a version of the bill that includes the president’s proposed crackdown on mail-in voting and banning men from women’s sports.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 3, 2026, in Washington. (Alex Brandon/AP)

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN

Under the U.S. Constitution, Trump had 10 days, not including Sundays, to sign or veto the housing measure after the House formally transmitted the legislation to the White House in late June. The president ultimately chose neither option, allowing the measure to become law without his signature.

Though Trump declined to veto the legislation, he sharply criticized elements of the bill and argued it should not have been a legislative priority in recent weeks.

Advertisement

“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in late June. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”

Trump went on to call the housing bill “a yawn,” adding, “compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

It would have taken a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto — a margin the House and Senate exceeded when they passed the legislation. However, it remains unclear whether so many Republicans would have defied the president had he vetoed the bill.

Trump also appeared to criticize the bill over a provision restricting Wall Street investors from purchasing single-family homes — a policy he first proposed during his January State of the Union address and later urged Congress to pass. Trump previously argued the investor ban would give individual homebuyers a leg up against private equity firms in the housing market.

“I don’t want to hurt people that own houses, too,” Trump later told reporters, appearing to reference the provision. “These people, for the first time in their lives, they have valuable houses. They’ve become rich. I don’t want to hurt them either. What you want to do is what’s good for everyone, get the interest rates down.”

Advertisement

The law also aims to boost housing supply by streamlining federal environmental reviews, loosening rules around the construction of factory-built homes, and incentivizing local governments to modify their zoning laws to allow more housing, among roughly 60 provisions.

Trump’s souring on the legislation created headaches for Republicans, who touted the bill as an affordability win as voters grapple with high housing costs.

“It’s irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a retiring lawmaker who lost re-election to a Trump-backed challenger, wrote on social media. “We need to start delivering relief to people for the high cost of housing ASAP!!”

Construction workers stand on the roof of homes under construction at a new housing development on June 24, 2026, in Valencia, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON

Advertisement

Trump abruptly canceled a signing ceremony for the legislation at the U.S. Capitol in June with GOP leaders. The stage had already been set, with at least one senior Republican arriving unaware the president had called off the event shortly before it was scheduled to begin.

The president then declared he would not sign the legislation until Congress passed the SAVE America Act, despite Senate GOP leaders insisting the votes do not exist to advance the measure.

Trump has also expressed frustration with the Republican-controlled Senate for declining to weaken the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation in the upper chamber.

“GET SMART REPUBLICANS, IF YOU DON’T, YOU WON’T BE IN OFFICE FOR LONG!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday.

Before Trump came out against the bill, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called it “one of the most significant pieces of housing affordability legislation in American history” and said it included an array of policies “long championed” by Trump.

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 15, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, Trump political operative James Blair touted the legislation for including the president’s Wall Street investor ban, which he referred to as a “signature commitment.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has argued that Republicans will still promote the landmark housing bill ahead of November.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively,” the speaker recently told reporters, referring to Trump. “And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump administration clears path for controversial Mojave Desert water pipeline

Published

on

Trump administration clears path for controversial Mojave Desert water pipeline

The Trump administration has signed off on a company’s plan to convert an oil and gas pipeline to pump groundwater from the Mojave Desert to thirsty California cities for the first time, a lucrative venture that critics say threatens natural springs and wildlife.

The federal Bureau of Land Management released documents Thursday saying that Cadiz Inc.’s plan to repurpose 162 miles of the pipeline to transport water “will not significantly affect” the environment.

“We’re excited to achieve this pivotal milestone. After many years of planning and environmental review, the project has now reached the construction stage,” said Susan Kennedy, chair and chief executive of Cadiz.

Environmental advocates and leaders of Native tribes, who have been fighting the project, criticized the decision.

Advertisement

“This groundwater mining proposal would drain the desert and rob the Mojave of its rare springs and wildlife habitat,” said Chance Wilcox, California desert associate director of the National Parks Conservation Assn. “It’s indefensible that the Trump administration would once again try to revive the pointless Cadiz project, by defying decades of scientific warnings and refusing to conduct an environmental review of the groundwater mining.”

The application for the federal authorization was filed by the Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co. The documents say the company plans to build seven pump stations, three of them located on federal land managed by the agency.

The 30-inch steel pipeline runs underground from Cadiz’s desert property, near the town of Amboy, northward to the town of Mojave.

The BLM said in its authorization that repurposing the pipeline for water “would comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.” The agency said it has “reasonably determined that the impacts of groundwater withdrawal associated with Cadiz’s groundwater extraction project are outside the scope of analysis.”

Cadiz’s attempts to export water from its property 200 miles east of Los Angeles have drawn controversy for decades.

Advertisement

In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that requires the project to undergo scientific study and gain approval from the State Lands Commission before it can take water from the Mojave and sell it to California cities.

Activists opposing the company’s plans include civil rights leader Dolores Huerta.

“Cadiz spells destruction for water, sacred lands, and the desert economy,” Huerta said in a statement. “It is exactly this type of greed and injustice that I have dedicated my life to oppose.”

Leaders of nearby tribes have also objected to Cadiz’s plans to pump from the desert aquifer near the Mojave Trails National Monument and Mojave National Preserve.

“It is the living heart of the desert,” said Daniel Leivas, chairman of the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe. “To drain it would be to drain the life out of the entire desert. No profit is worth such desecration.”

Advertisement

Chairman Timothy Williams of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe said the company’s plan “to pump and sell 25 times more groundwater each year than the aquifer can replenish would desecrate our traditional territories.”

“Pumping more groundwater than is sustainably replenished is not only negligent, but dangerous to the American Desert Southwest,” he said in the joint statement with other opponents of the project.

For years, while pursuing its plan to sell water far away, the company has been using wells on its property to irrigate nearly 2,000 acres of farmland growing lemons, grapes and other crops. It has drilled more wells in anticipation of being able to export water once the government approved its pipeline.

The company intends to pipe water to communities in San Bernardino County and says it’s “expected to provide one of the lowest-cost sources of new water in the drought-plagued Southwest.” It says the federal permit “marks a key milestone as we finalize project financing with prospective investors.”

Cadiz bought the 220-mile pipeline from El Paso Natural Gas in 2020. Once construction is completed, the company says the pipeline will be able to transport up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per year — about 5% of what Los Angeles uses each year.

Advertisement

The Los Angeles-based corporation is also seeking to build a new pipeline along a railroad right-of-way to transport water to the south.

Environmental groups have repeatedly filed lawsuits challenging the project.

Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, called the Trump administration’s decision “a green light for environmental destruction.”

She said six of the proposed pumping stations slated to be built are in the habitat of desert tortoises, a species in decline.

“We’ve successfully fended off this project before and we’ll continue to fight to stop this zombie from coming back,” Anderson said.

Advertisement

In 2021, the Biden administration reversed a Trump administration decision that had cleared the way for Cadiz to pipe water across public land. In 2022, a federal judge scrapped the pipeline permit that the Trump administration had issued.

But during President Trump’s second term, the company has again made headway on its plans. In February, Cadiz announced that the federal Environmental Protection Agency had invited it to submit an application for a $194-million low-interest loan for the northern pipeline project.

The company said in May that it reached an agreement with the federal Bureau of Reclamation to provide funding for a review of its potential role in “augmenting water supplies” along the shrinking Colorado River.

The company has also been lobbying the Trump administration. The group Public Citizen said in a recent report that Cadiz, through its nonprofit Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co., enlisted former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s new lobbying firm, the Bernhardt Group, and has spent at least $330,000 on lobbying in 2025 and 2026.

Records show lobbyist Luke Johnson has repeatedly accompanied Kennedy at meetings with Interior Department officials.

Advertisement

“The extensive influence of David Bernhardt’s boutique lobbying firm on the agency he formerly led highlights how insider firms staffed with former Trump officials have grown in recent years,” said Alan Zibel, a research director with Public Citizen. He said Bernhardt and his lobbyists “have learned how to master influence-peddling in the anything-goes era of Trump 2.0.”

Earlier this month, an Arizona water agency announced it signed an initial “memorandum of understanding” agreement to buy up to 10,000 acre-feet of water per year from Cadiz’s Mojave Groundwater Bank. The Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District provides water to farmlands in Pinal County, where growers are dealing with water cutbacks.

The company said that for this to happen, it would need to build pipelines and reach deals to exchange water across state lines.

Members of California’s congressional delegation have raised concerns. In a recent letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla called for a thorough environmental review, saying that federal agencies and peer-reviewed scientific analyses have “warned of the significant and irreversible impacts that Cadiz’s project could have on federal lands and surrounding communities.”

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) said in a letter to Burgum that he is concerned about the company’s long-standing effort to extract and export groundwater.

Advertisement

“The area I represent cannot afford to absorb the long-term costs of a commercially driven groundwater export scheme,” Ruiz said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending