

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.
Melissa Thrailkill, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 436-9682, ext. 313
mthrailkill@biologicaldiversity.org
Kristina Johnson, Sierra Club, (415) 977-5619
Kristina.johnson@sierraclub.org
Peter Nelson, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-0202
PNelson@defenders.org
Erik Molvar, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, (307) 742-7978
erik@voiceforthewild.org
Elise Jones, Colorado Environmental Coalition, 303-405-6704
elise@cecenviro.org
A coalition of conservation groups is fighting to protect millions of acres of western wildlife and habitat from midnight regulations finalized by the Bush administration that would open public lands to oil-shale exploration, leasing, and development.
Today the Center for Biological Diversity, The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Red Rock Forests, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Wilderness Workshop, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, Colorado Environmental Coalition, and Western Colorado Congress formally notified the Bush administration of their intent to file federal lawsuits under the Endangered Species Act over the administration's rush to create a commercial oil-shale industry in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. In the letters notifying the administration of the impending lawsuit, the groups inform the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, that its refusal to consider the effects commercial oil-shale development will have on endangered and threatened species is in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The agency has 60 days to respond to the letters.
The letters separately challenge two final decisions issued by the BLM in November. One involves that agency's issuance of final regulations setting out the terms for a commercial oil-shale industry in the Rocky Mountain West. The other involves the BLM's finalization of land-management plans that open 2 million acres of public lands in this region to oil-shale and tar-sands leasing. The amendments to 12 resource-management plans, coupled with the finalization of the regulations, open the door for the development of a huge and destructive web of industrial facilities on some of America's wildest lands.
"In its rush to pave the way for oil-shale development before leaving office, the Bush administration broke the law once again by refusing to protect the West's endangered wildlife," said Melissa Thrailkill, staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "These latest unlawful, midnight-hour approvals need to be rescinded immediately. Dirty energy development will have enormous and damaging effects on the waters, wildlife, and lands of the West, and will also have a massive global warming impact that is simply unacceptable."
Oil-shale development will destroy habitat, cause air pollution, and deplete and pollute scarce water resources in the arid West. To turn oil-shale into a usable fuel source, the rock, or shale, must be strip-mined and baked off-site or cooked in place underground to release a substance that can be turned into oil.
The production of this resource will require huge amounts of electricity, including the construction of as many as 10 new polluting power plants in the three states, leading to dramatic increases in emissions of greenhouse pollutants that cause global warming. The massive global warming impact from oil-shale production would push species threatened by global warming -- including the polar bear, ribbon seal, Pacific walrus, American pika, and ocean corals -- further toward the brink of extinction.
Oil-shale production will also require vast amounts of water from the already overtaxed Colorado River basin; the BLM estimates it will require three barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. This would strain the Colorado River basin, jeopardizing four endangered fish species in Colorado, as well as the water supply on which residents and agriculture depend.
"Global climate change is already threatening the water supplies that are critical for millions of people and wildlife," said Elise Jones, executive director of the Colorado Environmental Coalition. "The greenhouse gas emissions from oil-shale development would perpetuate this problem at the same time it sucks the Colorado River Basin dry."
"In addition to threatening our water resources, oil-shale development could destroy some of the best hunting, fish habitat, and recreation in the Rockies," said Lawson LeGate, a Salt Lake City-based Sierra Club representative. "We can't allow this lame-duck administration to create a wildlife dead zone as it leaves town."
In addition to affecting fish species, this development will also have a negative impact on birds, such as the Mexican spotted owl, as well as the black-footed ferret and greater sage grouse - species state and federal agencies have spent years trying to recover. Numerous plant species that grow only in shale soils (such as the Clay-reed mustard and Dudley Bluff twinpod) are also threatened by oil-shale production. The development will also threaten sensitive and unique lands in the region.
"In Wyoming, the oil-shale leasing decision threatens Adobe Town, the state's most spectacular wilderness. In fact, the state of Wyoming designated this area as 'Very Rare or Uncommon' to shield it from oil-shale extraction and other types of mining," said Erik Molvar, wildlife biologist with Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. "Pair this with the potential destruction of key sage grouse strongholds and it becomes clear that oil-shale development would be a disaster for Wyoming."
Despite these environmental harms, the Bush administration hastily moved forward in issuing the final regulations and land use amendments. With these final decisions, leases could be issued before the Bush administration leaves office.
"Not only are these actions patently unlawful under the Endangered Species Act, but aggressive oil-shale development on public lands moves us in the wrong direction as we step up to meet significant challenges posed by global warming," said Robert Irvin, senior vice president for conservation programs at Defenders of Wildlife. "Fish and wildlife are already struggling to cope with the stresses of climate change; instead of exacerbating the situation through the risky development of oil shale, federal agencies should be focused on developing sustainable and integrated solutions to energy, climate, and wildlife problems."
Conservation groups are not alone in voicing worry over the impacts of oil-shale development on wildlife, rivers, and public lands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the states of Colorado and Wyoming and wildlife management agencies, have all raised concerns about impacts to the States' natural resources. The Denver Water Board, which provides drinking water to millions of Denver-area residents, also told BLM that development of oil shale could undermine the Board's attempt to balance needs of Front Range water users and imperiled wildlife that rely on Colorado's rivers.
Documents obtained by the groups through the Freedom of Information Act show that the Fish and Wildlife Service raised concerns to the administration about the dangers that such development will have on threatened and endangered wildlife. The documents show that from very early on, the BLM was made aware of the impacts -- which are, in some cases, devastating for species -- but chose to turn a blind eye to its legal duties, as well as requests by the Service, to adopt necessary conservation measures.
In short, the documents demonstrate that Fish and Wildlife Service officials believed that:
"Rather than consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a more environmentally sound program, the BLM did everything it could do to evade the law," Thrailkill said. "Commercial oil-shale development could help lead us to catastrophic climate change, driving thousands of plants and animals around the world extinct. It's clear that moving forward without fully analyzing and addressing the harmful impacts of this energy development will lead us further down the path of no return."
"At a time when we should be strengthening protections for species," said one advocate, "not weakening them, it’s clear there is growing opposition to efforts that put special interests ahead of science and conservation."
Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives planned to mark Earth Day with a "catastrophic" attack on the Endangered Species Act, but ultimately canceled Wednesday's vote at the last minute, a development celebrated by conservationists nationwide.
After reports of "problems" getting some Republicans to back the ESA Amendments Act and a procedural vote that "showed shaky support from party members," as The New York Times put it, the House adjourned without a final vote on the bill—which the newspaper called "an embarrassing setback" for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).
While the lead sponsor, House Committee on Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), claimed that "we just have a few provisions we've got to work through on it, and hopefully in the next couple of weeks, we'll be able to vote on it," Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "this should be a wake-up call to Rep. Westerman that not even his own colleagues support his extreme attacks on wildlife."
"It's time for him to drop this failed crusade," Kurose declared. "Good riddance."
Other wildlife defenders joined Kurose in enthusiastically welcoming the blow to what Bradley Williams, the Sierra Club's deputy legislative director for wildlife and lands protection, called "extremely harmful legislation."
"We are encouraged to see that the House of Representatives has pulled this bill after outcry from Republicans and Democrats," Williams said in a statement. "By rejecting a bill that would have gutted protections for endangered and threatened species across the country, Congress is sending a clear message that protecting wildlife is a shared American value, not a partisan issue."
Jewel Tomasula, policy director for the Endangered Species Coalition, which has hundreds of member organizations, said that "given the more than 58,000 emails sent to elected officials, along with hundreds—if not thousands—of calls made in just the past few days, it is clear that the American people support the Endangered Species Act, understand its value, and want its protections for threatened and endangered wildlife to remain in place."
"This is a welcome sign that efforts to gut protections for imperiled species are not moving forward on Earth Day," Tomasula continued. "We're glad Congress is hearing their constituents' concerns about Westerman's harmful bill and taking pause to listen. For now, the important work to protect endangered species can continue. This Congress should leave the ESA alone."
Major #EarthDay win 🎉: H.R. 1897, aka the Endangered Species Act Amendments Act was just pulled from house floor consideration following outcry from both Republicans and Democrats who oppose the bill.
[image or embed]
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) April 22, 2026 at 2:36 PM
Sara Amundson, president of Humane World for Animals Action Fund, similarly said that "on Earth Day, pulling the House vote on the deeply flawed Endangered Species Act bill is a clarion call that legislators need to stop heeding their own leadership and start doing the will of their constituents."
"At a time when we should be strengthening protections for species like grizzly bears and sea turtles, not weakening them, it’s clear there is growing opposition to efforts that put special interests ahead of science and conservation," Amundson said. "We urge Congress to abandon this harmful proposal altogether and instead focus on upholding and strengthening the Endangered Species Act for future generations."
Defenders of Wildlife legislative director Mary Beth Beetham proclaimed that "now we can really celebrate Earth Day!"
"The public defeat of the Westerman bill is a direct result of sustained constituent pressure," she stressed. "Congress is finally listening to the majority of Americans who support the Endangered Species Act, rather than centering politics and money in its policy decisions."
"The decision to not advance the vote keeps current safeguards in place, which have protected 99% of species from extinction," Beetham added. "While there is still much more work to secure lasting protections for wildlife, today's outcome is a meaningful victory for conservation."
"This is a solution in search of a problem, and another example of this commission prioritizing culture war politics over the real issues that affect consumers every day," said the only Democratic FCC commissioner.
In the Trump administration's latest attempt to push transgender people out of public life, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr said Wednesday that his agency is weighing whether ratings on television shows should be modified to warn viewers when trans people are acknowledged.
Carr posted a public notice on social media that the FCC's Media Bureau would be seeking public comment on whether the TV Parental Guidelines age rating system—established under the Telecommunications Act of 1996—should include notices for "transgender and gender nonbinary programming" in a similar fashion to existing labels for sex, violence, and other content that parents could consider "harmful" to children.
Carr wrote: "Recently, parents have raised concerns with the industry’s approach... They argue that New York and Hollywood programmers are promoting controversial issues in kids' programming without providing any transparency or disclosures to parents."
Neither Carr nor the FCC's notice elaborated on what supposedly harmful content children were being exposed to or which programs it would seek to warn families about.
The FCC notice also asked for public comment on whether other changes should be made to ensure that the TV Oversight Management Board, which oversees the rating system, represents a "range of family values." It also inquired about whether it should add board members from religious organizations.
While the FCC does not directly implement the programming ratings, it does have a role in overseeing them. As FCC chairman, Carr has brought an unusually heavy hand down on the rights of broadcasters to air content critical of President Donald Trump.
He has threatened to strip the broadcast licenses of networks that cover Trump's war in Iran unfavorably. Before that, he was briefly successful in his efforts to bully ABC into pulling the Trump-critical late-night host Jimmy Kimmel's show from the air.
By labeling transgender and nonbinary representation as dangerous to children, Carr would be taking yet another action to bring the media landscape into conformity with the Trump administration's agenda, which has consisted of systematic attempts to push transgender Americans to the margins of society and portray them as deviant and dangerous, particularly to children.
Among a slew of other anti-LGBTQ+ policies, the administration has reinstated a full ban on transgender people in the military, attempted to punish medical establishments that provide gender-affirming care, withheld passports and other legal documents from transgender people containing their preferred gender identifiers, and aggressively sought to pressure school districts into adopting policies that refuse to recognize trans students.
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the agency’s only Democratic commissioner, criticized Carr's push to revise TV ratings.
“American families are worried about affordability, access, and rising costs, not whether the TV ratings system has enough warnings about gender identity,” Gomez said in a statement. “The FCC’s own record shows the existing system is working fine."
While Carr claimed there had been many complaints about "ratings creep" from parents, Gomez noted that the most recent report from the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board said it received just 11 complaints about ratings guidelines in 2025 and that only two resulted in a ratings change.
Gomez said, "This is a solution in search of a problem, and another example of this commission prioritizing culture war politics over the real issues that affect consumers every day."
"At every turn, President Trump has sought to conceal the facts about his monstrous multimillion-dollar ballroom,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
While the financing of President Donald Trump's planned $400 million White House ballroom has been shrouded in mystery for months, government watchdog Public Citizen has obtained important new information about the project's funding.
Public Citizen on Tuesday unveiled a copy of the funding agreement the Trump administration has used for the ballroom project after months of legal wrangling that forced the group to file a lawsuit to compel enforcement of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request it made last year.
As summarized by The Washington Post, the ballroom contract's provisions "allow wealthy donors with business before the federal government to contribute anonymously to a sitting president’s pet project, while exempting the White House from key conflict of interest safeguards and limiting scrutiny by Congress and the public."
While dozens of big-name corporate donors—including Amazon, Apple, Lockheed Martin, Google, Altria, and Union Pacific Railroad—have been public about their donations to the project, the fact that some donors can choose to remain anonymous is raising serious concerns among ethics experts.
Charles Tiefer, a retired law professor at the University of Baltimore with a long history of scrutinizing government contracts, told the Post that the contract's anonymity provisions could give the Trump administration an escape hatch from future congressional scrutiny.
"If Congress knocks on the door," Tiefer said, "the White House is going to slam it shut and say, ‘You’re not allowed to know these donors.'"
This means that there is no way to know whether these donors have business before the government, and no way to know if they expect to get something in return for their donations.
Kathleen Clark, a government ethics lawyer and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told the Post that the contract's very narrow scope of reviewing for conflicts of interest among donors renders it "nothing more than a sham."
Jon Golinger, democracy advocate for Public Citizen, said the key takeaway from the newly unearthed documents is that "anonymous donations are the heart of this agreement."
"The questions this raises are, of the hundreds of millions being funneled in secret, who are these anonymous donors, and what are they hiding?" Golinger added. "The American people deserve answers, and we’ll keep fighting until they get them."
Wendy Liu, Public Citizen attorney and lead counsel on the lawsuit to obtain the contract, said the administration's initial refusal to comply with a FOIA request was "flatly unlawful," and "the American people are entitled to transparency over this multimillion-dollar project, and this win gets us a bit closer to knowing the truth."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) blasted the Trump administration's efforts to hide the contract in a statement given to the Post.
“At every turn, President Trump has sought to conceal the facts about his monstrous multimillion-dollar ballroom,” Blumenthal said. “His administration has kept the contract under wraps, the identities of big dollar donors secret, and the American people in the dark about what big corporations have to gain by funding this boondoggle.”