

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."
"Too much money contorts any human being," said one critic of the Amazon founder.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos drew ridicule on Wednesday after he claimed that doubling the amount of taxes he pays wouldn't be beneficial to society.
During an interview on CNBC, journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Bezos about arguments made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that the super-rich have lower effective tax rates than average Americans given how much of their wealth comes from unrealized capital gains and not traditional income earned through actual labor.
"I pay billions of dollars in taxes," replied Bezos, whom Forbes estimates is worth $267 billion. "If people want me to pay billions more, then let's have that debate. But don't pretend, you know, that that's going to solve the problem. You could double the taxes I pay, and it's not gonna help that teacher in Queens, I promise you."
Bezos on CNBC: "You could double the taxes I pay, and it's not gonna help that teacher in Queens. I promise you." pic.twitter.com/ocbf34XZhA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 20, 2026
A 2021 investigation by Pro Publica found that Bezos' effective tax rate of less than 1% between 2014 and 2018, as he paid a total of $973 million in taxes over a period in which his net worth grew by $99 billion.
As explained by the Institute of Taxation and Policy (ITEP), this effective tax rate was "significantly lower" than the tax rate paid by middle-class Americans over that period.
"There were multiple years where Bezos paid nothing at all in income taxes," ITEP noted. "While having billions of dollars of wealth, Bezos consistently avoided income tax by offsetting earned income with other investment losses and various deductions, all while Amazon stock was rapidly rising."
Democratic congressional candidate Melat Kiros in Colorado suggested Bezos had a point about taxation—"because we tax income, not wealth.
"Bezos takes out a tiny salary, pays the income tax, and lives off loans borrowed against his stocks, basically tax-free," said Kiros. "They all do this and now 935 billionaires hold more wealth than 170 million Americans. It’s time to tax wealth."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, took issue with Bezos' claim that doubling his taxes would produce no benefits.
"Jeff Bezos paid $500 million for his super-yacht and $75 million for his super-yacht’s mini-yacht—both of which he’s allowed to write off on his taxes," she wrote in a social media post. "That alone would cover $180 in classroom supplies for every public school teacher in the US."
Craig Harrington, research director at Media Matters for America, marveled at how out of touch Bezos seemed to be.
"There’s a funny thing about being uber wealthy," he observed. "They get so rich that they lose all sense of place, they essentially manifest as stateless people with no connection to or understanding of the world outside their private airports and resplendent villas."
Journalist and screenwriter David Simon expressed a similar view of the impact of immense wealth on Bezos' psyche.
"Too much money contorts any human being," Simon wrote. "And what was once a man is now, for the rest of the world, a fully metastasized cancer."
Author Hemant Mehta, meanwhile, simply wondered if Bezos "auditioning to be the next Bond villain."
Fifty state legislators across the country, from Maine and Missouri to Oklahoma and Oregon, are condemning President Donald Trump's attempt to spend $1 billion in taxpayer money on his White House ballroom project in a letter reported exclusively Wednesday by Common Dreams.
"Across America, families are being squeezed from every direction," the legislators wrote to the president. "Housing costs have put homeownership out of reach for millions. Healthcare premiums are skyrocketing after Republicans killed the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits. Gas prices, groceries, utilities, and basic necessities cost more than ever."
"The affordability crisis is the defining challenge facing our constituents, and they sent us to our state capitals to fight for relief," the lawmakers stressed in the letter, organized by Defend American Action. "That is why we are appalled that you are demanding $1 billion in taxpayer money for a personal White House ballroom."
The ballroom is the feature of a project that has already involved "demolishing the historic East Wing and ripping out Jacqueline Kennedy's Rose Garden," as the letter notes. "It began as a privately funded $200 million proposal, ballooned to $400 million, and is now being billed to taxpayers at $1 billion."
The White House has claimed the $1 billion in taxpayer funding is necessary for security-related enhancements to the ballroom project, including a subterranean bunker. On Tuesday, standing outside the construction site, Trump said the roof of the new wing would be home to a "drone empire," an element not previously disclosed.
Trump's GOP narrowly controls both chambers of Congress and is trying to use the budget reconciliation process to secure the funding. After Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled against Republicans' initial plan on Saturday, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) pledged to try "a new approach," and is also reportedly under pressure from the president to fire MacDonough.
The president and his allies in Congress have ramped up their push for the ballroom project since a shooting last month at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington, DC, for which a man has been charged with attempting to assassinate Trump.
"Your administration claims that your personal ballroom is a national security investment and a major priority. The reality is that it is a vanity project for the wealthiest man to ever occupy the Oval Office, and it will not put a single dollar back in the pockets of working families," the state legislators wrote to Trump. "A clear majority of Americans oppose it, by a two-to-one margin. Not one of your working constituents, not a nurse in Ohio, not a factory worker in Michigan, not a single mother in Arizona, will benefit from this ballroom. Only billionaire donors and well-connected insiders will ever stand inside."
By speaking out against Trump spending $1 billion on this project, Maryland state Del. Adrian Boafo (D-23) told Common Dreams, state legislators are sending a message that "we're trying to focus on how we actually help people live comfortably here in Maryland—and frankly, not just in Maryland, but all across the country."
"His actions have made life harder on everyday American people," Boafo said of Trump. The president's war on government employees has hit Maryland particularly hard, with residents of the state having lost an estimated 25,000 federal jobs.
At the national level, Trump's tariffs and war on Iran have driven up prices of necessities, from gasoline to groceries, as working familes continue to feel the pain of the Republican Party's last budget reconciliation package—the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which gave more tax cuts to the rich while cutting healthcare and food assistance for Americans in need.
"Your budget reflects your values, and what you fight for reflects your values," said Boafo. "And clearly, all this president really cares about is himself and the cronies who are in his administration, and nobody else."
"Reject this $1 billion boondoggle and instead direct those resources toward the affordability crisis your policies have created. Govern for working families, Mr. President, not for yourself and your ultrawealthy donors."
The letter calls on Trump "to reject this $1 billion boondoggle and instead direct those resources toward the affordability crisis your policies have created. Govern for working families, Mr. President, not for yourself and your ultrawealthy donors."
The lawmakers also pointed out how the money could be better used:
That $1 billion could replace more than 200,000 lead pipes in America's drinking water supply, protecting millions of families from lead poisoning. It could fund home heating and cooling assistance for around 1.5 million American families struggling with utility bills. It could cover a full year of food assistance for more than 400,000 working people, low-income families, and disabled Americans. It could buy over 200 million free school lunches for lower-income children, or eliminate waiting lists for WIC food assistance to infants and pregnant women entirely.
Before joining the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Rep. Arvind Venkat (D-30), another letter signatory, was an emergency physician at a Pittsburgh hospital. He told Common Dreams that he has two problems with spending $1 billion of taxpayer funds on the White House ballroom. "The first is that the White House is the people's house. It's not President Trump's to decide what the architecture or structure should be, and clearly, he disagrees with that—and I think that is very dangerous, in terms of what it means for our governance and democracy."
"The second is with all the challenges we have—and I'm a physician, and I've seen, here in Pennsylvania, over 150,000 people who've lost health insurance," he continued. "I don't think we should be spending $1 billion to put a congressional imprint on what is a vanity project, when that money could be used in so many more productive ways, including to help get people health insurance that they've lost."
While the letter is directed at Trump, with federal lawmakers considering whether to give the president $1 billion for the project, Venkat said that "congressional Republicans should grow a spine. It's not their job to simply be a rubber stamp for the president. It's their job to represent their communities and to be a separate co-equal branch of government. Unfortunately, the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans in DC don't seem to feel that way."
Boafo—one of the Democrats running for the seat currently held by retiring former US House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md)—also said that "the Republican Congress should do their job."
"This president hasn't done anything to try to raise wages, neither has the Congress. They have totally just turned their back on the American people. And instead, put all their effort into a foreign war in Iran, and put their effort into White House renovations," he added. "It is just ridiculous. And frankly, this letter and this message is kind of the message I think Democrats need as we head into the midterms in the next couple months."
"This November, we're going to unite our party and welcome working people who are ready to come home," said the working class champion.
Bob Brooks, president of the largest firefighters' union in Pennsylvania and a champion of working-class politics, came out victorious in the Democratic primary race for the state's 7th district on Tuesday as he vowed to unify voters during the general election and flip a seat currently held by first-term Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie.
"This November, we're going to unite our party and welcome working people who are ready to come home," Brooks told a crowd of supporters, many holding union signs back the candidate, at a victory rally in Bethlehem, the historic steel town in the state's western Lehigh Valley.
Brooks, backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and a long list of national and regional unions but also endorsed by Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, overcame a crowded field—that included Lamont McClure, Ryan Crosswell, and Carol Obando-Derstine—to win the contest with nearly 48% of the total vote.
As Common Dreams reported, Republican forces launched a mysterious spending effort to thwart Brooks' campaign in the final weeks before the primary, with an outside group called Left PAC launching a $1 million ad campaign against him.
I am honored to be the Democratic nominee for PA-07.
On to November. pic.twitter.com/wsYngHqPrk
— Bob Brooks (@VoteBobBrooks) May 20, 2026
"Bob Brooks just showed what can happen when Democrats run unapologetically as working-class economic populists," said the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution in response to the win. "A firefighter and union voice running in tough political terrain by directly taking on corruption, concentrated wealth, and a system failing ordinary people."
Democratic strategist Lis Smith echoed many who said the fight to flip the 7th District from red to blue will be key in the effort to take the House away from Republicans in the fall.
"We need Bob Brooks and more Bob Brooks’s in Congress," said Smith. "This is one of Dems’ best flip opportunities."
And Sanders also weighed in, placing Brooks in the context of other progressives who won primaries this season and look to change the makeup of Congress come next year.
"Congratulations to Bob Brooks, a retired firefighter and union leader, on winning the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District," said Sanders. "His win follows the recent progressive victories of iron worker and union leader Brian Poindexter in Ohio, and union organizer Analilia Mejía in New Jersey. We’re making progress!"
Also in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, democratic socialist candidate Chris Rabb won his primary race in Pennsylvania's 3rd District, which represents large portions of Philadelphia.
The Working Families Party noted that the Brooks and Rabb victories, taken together, point Democrats toward a very important lesson.
“These are two candidates who centered working-class issues," Nicholas Gavio, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Working Families Party, which backed both candidates, told Politico. "They’re obviously from different districts and demographics. But the message of populism—in Philadelphia and in the Lehigh Valley—sells and works."