

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Leda Huta, Endangered Species Coalition, 202-320-6467
Susan Holmes, Earthjustice, 202-667-4500, ext 204
Andrew Wetzler, Natural Resources Defense Council, 312-780-7429
James Navarro, Defenders of Wildlife, 202-772-0247
Kristina Johnson, Sierra Club, 415-977-5619
Colin Durrant, Conservation Law Foundation, 617-850-1722
Today more than 100,000 citizens opposed
the Bush Administration's attempts to severely weaken the Endangered Species
Act.
"In the midst of a financial crisis,
it is incredible that Americans, despite their numerous other worries, rose up
and declared that they wanted an end to the destruction of endangered species
protections. To think that more
than 100,000 individuals took notice and opposed these regulations being pushed
through by Bush, Cheney and company is astounding. Demonstrating such massive opposition
ensures that Bush and friends will not be able to go quietly into the night
while destroying one of our country's greatest wilderness laws," said Leda Huta, Executive Director of the
Endangered Species Coalition.
Representatives from the Endangered Species
Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Sierra Club,
National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity
delivered over 100,000 comments emailed in from Americans of all walks of life
after the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration refused to accept public comments in the form of e-mails or
faxes.
"Over 100,000 people around the country are
telling the Bush administration to abandon its last-ditch attempts to
remove protections for our nation's wildlife and wild places," said Melissa
Waage at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "With only three months left in
office, President Bush should consider his legacy on the environment and take
steps to protect our endangered species, not harm them. Public reaction has been
swift and clear: diminishing protections for our endangered species will not be
tolerated."
The Bush administration proposals
would significantly weaken the Endangered Species Act. According to a Congressional Research
Service report, the proposed regulations may violate the Endangered Species Act,
allow federal actions to proceed that would harm endangered species and create
more work for federal agencies, not less, as the Administration claims.
"The Bush administration proposal
eliminates the critical checks and balances needed to protect endangered species
and cuts scientists from the process of making decisions that need to be
science-based," said Mike Daulton, with National Audubon Society.
"In its waning days in office,
the Bush administration is trying to fast track oil drilling, mining, logging
and development by stripping away protections for our public lands and wildlife
heritage," stated Matthew Kirby with Sierra Club. "The Bush administration has
attempted to unravel the Endangered Species Act quietly and without notice. It
isn't working. Tens of thousands of Americans have already demanded protection
for this cornerstone environmental law."
Over 80 Members of Congress also sent a
letter asking the Bush administration to withdraw the proposed regulations and
the Senate attempted to hold a hearing to delve into them more deeply.
"The
wildlife agencies are the 'keepers of the flame' for our threatened and
endangered wildlife. They are the only experts equipped to make decisions based
on looking at the whole picture for a species, and taking them out of the
decision-making process is the height of recklessness," said Jamie Rappaport
Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife. "The danger that these
proposed changes spell for imperiled wildlife is clear, not only to us but to
the thousands of Americans who have urged the Bush administration to drop these
proposals."
"Such a major change to a bedrock
environmental law deserves open and honest debate with Congress and the American
public," said Susan Holmes of Earthjustice. "Yet, the administration refused to
defend their proposal by canceling
their scheduled appearance before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works
committee last month-a rarely, if ever, seen occurrence. This only demonstrated how desperate
they are to hide their unpopular changes."
Well over 100 conservation, scientific,
education, religious, sporting and community organizations asked the
administration to stop their assault on one of our nation's most important
conservation laws.
"The
Bush administration's proposed wholesale evisceration of the consultation
regulations would have a particularly nefarious impact on our ability to protect
species such as the polar bear from global warming and would allow corrupt
agencies such as the Mineral Management Service to proceed without check, " said
Bill Snape with the Center for Biological Diversity.
"What New
England's imperiled wildlife need is better science-based
management, not less. The Bush proposal takes us in the wrong direction and
would only create more problems for North Atlantic right whales,
Canada lynx and
other imperiled species such as the Atlantic wolffish," said Sean Cosgrove of the Conservation
Law Foundation.
Pictures of the comment delivery
can be found at: https://stopextinctionblog.blogspot.com/
Video of the comment delivery can
be found at: https://empivot.com/watch.php?mdid=999
The Endangered Species Coalition's mission is to stop the human-caused extinction of our nation's at-risk species, to protect and restore their habitats, and to guide these fragile populations along the road to recovery.
"They want to give $140 billion for ICE and Border Patrol without reforms, but $0 to lower Americans’ costs," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Congressional Democrats and advocacy groups on Tuesday slammed Senate Republicans' proposed budget resolution, which authorizes up to $140 billion in new deficit spending for Department of Homeland Security agencies responsible for President Donald Trump's deadly immigration crackdown.
Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced the fiscal year 2026 budget resolution, which the senator's office described as "the blueprint that unlocks the pathway for a targeted reconciliation bill that will provide funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP)" for at least the remainder of Trump's term.
"The resolution includes reconciliation instructions allowing for up to $70 billion of deficit increases each for the Judiciary and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees," explained the advocacy group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
ICE is already flush with a $75 billion funding boost thanks to Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed last July 4.
“The threats to our homeland from radical Islam are only getting more intense," Graham said, despite there being no significant attack by such forces on US soil in a decade. "Now is not the time to defund Border Patrol, and now is certainly not the time to put ICE out of business."
"These men and women have been dealing with the consequences of the over 11 million illegal immigrants that came to the United States during the Biden administration," the senator added.
There is no evidence that anywhere near that number of undocumented migrants entered the US during former President Joe Biden's tenure.
Responding to Graham's proposal, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said: "Earlier today, we caught our first glimpse of the Senate Republicans’ budget resolution. Forget being on the same page, Republicans aren’t even on the same planet as the American people."
"They want to give $140 billion for ICE and Border Patrol without reforms, but $0 to lower Americans’ costs," he continued. "Let me say that again: $140 billion for ICE and Border Patrol—no reforms, no accountability, no strings attached; $0 to lower Americans’ costs."
"That’s their priority. That’s why they are dragging the Senate through the arduous, convoluted reconciliation process: to put money in the coffers of Trump’s rogue agencies, rather than in Americans’ pockets," Schumer said.
"Democrats want to lower Americans’ grocery, gas, healthcare, and housing costs. Senate Republicans want to appease Donald Trump... by giving ICE and Border Patrol tens of billions of dollars to continue spreading violence in our streets," he added.
Center for American Progress (CAP) senior director of federal budget policy Bobby Kogan called the GOP budget proposal "a missed opportunity to help Americans."
"In addition to doing nothing to rein in DHS, many civil and human rights abuses, congressional Republicans’ reconciliation plan misses an opportunity to do affirmative good for struggling households," he said.
Kogan continued:
While there was broad agreement in Congress on the funding levels for the agencies within DHS itself, congressional Democratic leadership asked for a handful of reforms to try to prevent more killings of citizens and noncitizens and avoid another wave of other civil rights violations from being undertaken by the department. Congressional Republican leadership has rejected calls for legislative reforms to ICE and Border Patrol operations and is now instead using this process to provide funding with no oversight.
The Republican proposal comes as immigrant deaths in ICE custody have soared, with at least 17 people dying since January. DHS officers have also killed two US citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, during the Operation Metro Surge blitz in Minneapolis.
One expert stressed that "trust between the sides remains at zero."
President Donald Trump on Tuesday afternoon extended a two-week ceasefire for his and Israel's war on Iran, but the US leader also said that a naval blockade of the Mideast nation will continue, and fears of fresh attacks remain high.
Two weeks after threatening to take out the "whole civilization" of Iran just hours before the ceasefire agreement was reached, Trump took to his Truth Social platform again to announce the extension, without a clear timeline.
"Based on the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so and, upon the request of Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, of Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal," Trump wrote. "I have therefore directed our Military to continue the Blockade and, in all other respects, remain ready and able, and will therefore extend the Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other."
Trump has imposed the blockade in response to Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that's a key trade route, including for fossil fuels. As part of the blockade, the president said Sunday, US forces seized Touska, a nearly 900-foot Iranian-flagged cargo ship.
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, concluded Tuesday that Trump's cave "reflects the outcome I have argued is the most likely: No deal, no sanctions relief, no nuclear compromise, no return to war, while Iran continues to control the strait. Not a stable situation, but one in which Trump pockets the central thing he sought—exiting the war—while Iran is bereft of the main thing it was looking for: sanctions lifting."
While a spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said that he welcomes Trump's announcement as "an important step toward de-escalation and creating critical space for diplomacy and confidence-building between Iran and the United States," and encouraged all parties "to build on this momentum," comments out of Iran suggested limited progress.
Drop Site News co-founder Jeremy Scahill reported Tuesday that "an Iranian official tells me that, as of this moment, Iran's position remains unchanged: Lifting of the naval blockade is a condition for a second round of talks."
According to Reuters chief national security reporter Phil Stewart, an adviser to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran's Parliament, said that Tuesday's extension means nothing and could even be a ploy to buy time for a surprise strike, plus the US continuing its blockade is the same as bombardment and must be met with military force.
Noting Stewart's reporting on social media, Center for International Policy senior fellow Sina Toossi noted that reporting and warned that "after coming under surprise attack twice, some in Tehran are calling for Iran to take initiative and strike first, including at US vessels or tankers ready to exit Hormuz."
Toossi also stressed that "trust between the sides remains at zero and renewed war could break out at any time."
"Let's be real, Pakistan isn't deciding whether the US goes to war with Iran," he added. "They're a conduit, not a driver. More a convenient excuse and diplomatic cover than having any sort of actual influence over Trump on Iran."
Ahead of the extension, Toossi had published an op-ed in The Guardian arguing that "having fought what they see as an existential war with the US and Israel and held their ground, Iranian officials see little reason to rush into major concessions. The priority is not a sweeping deal, but reducing the risk of war while preserving core sources of power, from Hormuz to its nuclear program."
"In the short term, that may simply mean extending the ceasefire rather than reaching a substantive agreement. Beyond that, the likelier outcome is an interim arrangement, or a broad memorandum-of-understanding-style framework that defers key details, rather than a decisive breakthrough," he continued. "In this view, the conflict is not being resolved but managed—and with time, Iran believes its position will strengthen as the global fallout from energy disruption makes renewed escalation a cost no one is willing to bear."
A Tuesday report from the climate advocacy group 350.org estimates that during the first 50 days of the Iran war, consumers and businesses worldwide have paid an additional $158.6-166.9 billion due to soaring fuel costs.
Additionally, thousands of people have been killed in Iran and across the region, and at least tens of thousands of Iranian civilian infrastructure sites have been damaged since the US and Israel first launched attacks in February.
"They treated us like animals," said an Ecuadorian fisher who survived an attack on the Don Maca.
President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and US Southern Command have repeatedly taken to social media to brag about deadly boat bombings supposedly targeting drug traffickers in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean for nearly eight months. On Tuesday, survivors of some alleged US strikes on fishing boats accused American forces of torture.
The Ecuadorian fishing boat La Fiorella "went up in smoke" on January 20, and "the eight fishermen aboard have not been seen since," Camila Lourdes Galarza reported for Drop Site News on Tuesday. "Now, 36 survivors of two Pacific attacks fitting a similar profile alleged that they were abducted and tortured by American forces and taken by boat all the way to El Salvador before being returned to Ecuador."
The journalist spoke with attorneys, relatives, and survivors, including Hernán Flores, captain of La Negra Francisca Duarte II, which was bombed by a drone with a yellow cylinder on March 17. Flores said: "A lot of us had wounds all over our bodies from the explosion. One young man was bleeding so much he filled the floor of our lifeboat with blood... The drone had flown through our cabin window, torn my nephew's foot so bad you could see flesh and bone, and made the boat's roof cave in on the back of my neck. A few seconds later, an explosion shook the boat, causing a terrible ringing in our ears. Out of exasperation, the guys threw themselves into the water, some without life jackets, even the ones who don't know how to swim."
The survivors made their way to a blue boat with "spear" on the hull, full of armed, blond, English-speaking men in camouflage uniforms—who drew their guns, handcuffed the fishers, put hoods over their heads, and held them on the vessel's "scorching metal deck for over 24 hours, blistering their skin," Galarza reported. They were only given a bottle of water, and "all but one fisherman were denied medical attention, despite the severity of what they had just endured."
They were eventually returned to Ecuador, where Trump has recently deployed US forces for a joint campaign targeting "narco-terrorists." However, first, they were turned over to El Salvador's Coast Guard—which, on April 3, also intercepted 20 more Ecuadorian fishers with "vision and hearing loss, bruised limbs, and perforated arms."
According to Galarza, those fishers had been aboard the Don Maca, and "they reported a strikingly similar account of an alleged attack by US soldiers: a bombarded boat, a round of bullets, and no due process." Sebastián Palacios, one of the survivors allegedly held hostage for eight days, said that "they treated us like animals."
⚡️New from @dropsitenews.com: Rare Survivors of Pacific Boat Strikes Allege US Forces Kidnapped & Tortured ThemAs airstrikes & reports of torture under Ecuador’s US-backed military regime continue to mount, fishermen tell Drop Site...By Camila Lourdes Galarzawww.dropsitenews.com/p/rare-survi...
[image or embed]
— Drop Site (@dropsitenews.com) April 21, 2026 at 2:50 PM
Galarza noted that US SOUTHCOM directed questions about all three incidents to Ecuador, whose Port Authority hung up after hearing that a phone call requesting comment was from journalists.
Harriet Barber got a similar response from SOUTHCOM for her Tuesday reporting on the Don Maca attack in The Guardian. The journalist spoke with survivors, including Palacios, as well as an attorney representing the crew, Fernando Bastias Robayo of the Human Rights Council.
"A US vessel intercepted them and forced them aboard. Once they were detained, their fishing boat was blown up," said the lawyer. "They were arbitrarily hooded and later abandoned on the Salvadorian coast. Any apprehension followed by incommunicado detention constitutes an enforced disappearance."
"It was a form of psychological torture, not knowing what's really going to happen to your life and having your face covered," he added.
Palacios told Barber that "I get scared in the middle of the night. I can't sleep well. My ears still hurt... I think that's it for me. I'm done with fishing. Going back out there is impossible. I thought they were going to kill us."
“If there were no drugs aboard those boats, it’s a hugely embarrassing ‘false positive’ for US intelligence at a time when that intelligence is being used to kill people, no questions asked.”
[image or embed]
— Adam Isacson (@adamisacson.com) April 21, 2026 at 10:23 AM
Tuesday's reporting came just two days after SOUTHCOM announced on social media that "Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by designated terrorist organizations... along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean," killing three alleged "male narco-terrorists."
Sunday's strike brought the death toll from Trump's boat-bombing campaign to at least 180, according to The New York Times. The Intercept's tally is 181, while the Washington Office on Latin America believes 182 people are dead. Critics of the campaign have accused the US administration of "war crimes, murder, or both."
Responding to Trump's latest confirmed attack, Amnesty International USA on Monday condemned "three more murders at sea" and declared that "Congress must act to stop these bombings."
So far, both chambers of the Republican-controlled Congress have refused to pass war powers resolutions aimed at halting Trump's boat strikes. Similar measures targeting his aggression toward Venezuela and Iran have also failed to advance.