

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.
David Ringer
601-661-6189
Missisissippi River Initiative Communications Coordinator
dringer@audubon.org
Delta Willis
212-979-3197
Senior Communications Manager
dwillis@audubon.org
Audubon experts across the Gulf Coast are
monitoring the spread of thousands of gallons of oil that threaten to
turn last week's drilling platform explosion into a growing
environmental disaster.
"The terrible loss of 11 workers may be just the beginning of this
tragedy as the oil slick spreads toward sensitive coastal areas vital
to birds and marine life and to all the communities that depend on
them," said Melanie Driscoll an Audubon bird conservation director, who
is monitoring the situation from her base in Louisiana. "For birds, the
timing could not be worse; they are breeding, nesting and especially
vulnerable in many of the places where the oil could come ashore."
Sensitive coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida
are all potential targets of the growing spill. "The efforts to stop
the oil before it reaches shore are heroic, but may not be enough,"
added Driscoll. "We have to hope for the best, but prepare for the
worst, including a true catastrophe for birds."
In Florida, Audubon is recruiting volunteers and making its Center for
Birds of Prey available for bird cleansing and rehabilitation.
Elsewhere, the organization is gearing up to help mobilize volunteers
and provide other assistance in the event the oil reaches sensitive
shorelines.
Several "Important Bird Areas," designated by Audubon and its partners
for their essential habitat value to bird species lie within
potentially-affected areas. Those under immediate threat include
Chandeleur Islands IBA and Gulf Islands National Seashore IBA in
Louisiana and Mississippi; and the Active Delta IBA in Louisiana, which
includes Delta National Wildlife Refuge and Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife
Management Area.
Among the birds are prompting special concern:
Brown Pelican -The state bird of Louisiana nests on barrier islands and
feeds near shore. Their breeding season just began and many pairs are
already incubating eggs. Removed from the U.S. Endangered Species list
only late last year, Brown Pelicans remain vulnerable to storms,
habitat loss and other pressures. Their relatively low reproductive
rate means any disruption to their breeding cycle could have serious
effects on the population.
Beach-nesting terns and gulls (Caspian Tern, Royal Tern, Sandwich Tern,
Least Tern, Laughing Gull, Black Skimmer) - These birds nest and roost
in groups on barrier islands and beaches. Some species have begun
nesting or building pair bonds in preparation for nesting. They feed on
fish and other marine life. Roosting and nesting on the sand and
plunging into the water to fish, they are extremely vulnerable oil on
the surface or washing ashore.
Beach-nesting shorebirds (American Oystercatcher, Wilson's Plover, Snowy Plover)
-These birds nest on the ground on barrier islands and beaches. They
feed on small invertebrates along the beach or - in the case of
oystercatchers - on oysters. They are at risk if oil comes ashore or
affects their food sources.
Reddish Egret - Populations of these large, strictly coastal egrets
have dwindled due to habitat loss and disturbance. As specialized
residents of coastal environments, they have nowhere else to go if
their feeding and nesting grounds are fouled by oil.
Large wading birds (Roseate Spoonbill, Ibises, Herons, Egrets) - Many
herons, egrets and other species feed in marshes and along the coast
and nest in large colonies called rookeries. They are vulnerable if oil
comes ashore in these areas. The central Gulf Coast region hosts
continentally and globally significant populations of many of these
birds.
Marsh birds - (Mottled Duck, Clapper Rail, Black Rail, Seaside Sparrow,
Marsh-Dwelling Songbirds) - Many of these birds are extremely
secretive, hindering understanding of their population dynamics.
Recovery efforts would be difficult or impossible if oil accumulates in
the coastal salt marshes where they live
Ocean-dwelling birds -Birds that spend a significant portion of their
lives at sea, including the Magnificent Frigatebird, may be affected by
oiled waters. Contact with oil could lead to ingestion or damage to
feathers. Oil also threatens their food supplies. These birds are
difficult to monitor, and potential impacts are not fully understood.
Migratory shorebirds (plovers, sandpipers and relatives) - These birds'
travels span the western hemisphere. But many species are currently en
route from wintering grounds in South America to breeding grounds in
boreal forests and arctic tundra. They congregate in great numbers on
beaches and barrier islands to rest and refuel during their long
journeys.
Migratory songbirds (warblers, orioles, buntings, flycatchers,
swallows, and others)- Many of our most colorful and familiar summer
songbirds fly nonstop across the Gulf of Mexico twice each year as they
migrate between their breeding and wintering grounds. The biggest push
of spring migrants moves across the gulf during a two-week period from
late April to early May. The journey across 500 miles of open water
strains their endurance to its limits. They depend on clear skies and
healthy habitats on both sides of the gulf in order to survive the
journey.
"It is unfortunate that it takes a potential disaster to remind the
nation of the risks involved with our addiction to oil," said Audubon
Legislative Director Mike Daulton. "This spill would give anyone pause
regarding the pursuit of risky drilling in environmentally sensitive
coastal areas. For the long term, we need to move as quickly as
possible from the addiction to fossil fuels to the promise of clean,
renewable energy."
Maps of Audubon Important Bird Areas in the region https://louisianacoast.audubon.org/birds-science-education/important-bird-areas/what-are-important-bird-areas
Brown pelicans recently delisted from being an Endangered species https://web1.audubon.org/news/pressRelease.php?id=1940&month=11-09
Now in its second century, Audubon connects people with birds, nature and the environment that supports us all. Our national network of community-based nature centers, chapters, scientific, education, and advocacy programs engages millions of people from all walks of life in conservation action to protect and restore the natural world.
"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.