

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.

The National Park Service has failed to
protect desert tortoise and other non-game wildlife from reckless and
excessive hunting in the Mojave National Preserve of California,
according to a lawsuit filed today by Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER). The Mojave preserve is one of approximately 40
park units where the NPS has yet to put hunting rules in place, as
required by its own Management Policies, to protect park wildlife from
needless depredation.
The failure of NPS to adopt hunting rules at the Mojave National
Preserve means that non-game wildlife, such as badgers and skunks
(classified as "varmints") are subject to virtually year-round hunting
under state game rules. Another casualty has been the threatened desert
tortoise, which is protected by law from hunting but is often the
victim of reckless hunters. One study, for example, found nearly 15% of
desert tortoise carcasses showed signs of gunshot. In addition,
carcasses left by hunters attract ravens, which prey on tortoises. As a
result, the official Recovery Plan for the desert tortoise plus the
Mojave Preserve General Management Plan both prescribe that hunting be
restricted to big game and upland birds.
Despite promises to put these hunting rules in place, NPS never
acted. In June 2002, PEER and other groups petitioned the Secretary of
the Interior to promulgate hunting rules for Mojave. In April 2004, a
top Interior official said in a letter to PEER that "The park fully
intends to pursue promulgation of federal regulations," but did not
follow through. In May 2009, PEER wrote to Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar again requesting action but never received an answer. Today's
suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, charges
Interior with failing to provide "prompt consideration" of the 2002
PEER rulemaking petition, as required by the Administrative Procedure
Act.
"This lawsuit is not anti-hunting. All we are trying to do is
make sure that this legitimate recreational activity is done in a manner
compatible with the Park Service mandate to protect non-game wildlife,"
stated PEER General Counsel Paula Dinerstein, who filed the complaint.
"Congress established the Mojave National Preserve back in 1994 but the
Park Service has yet to ensure that hunting inside the Preserve
conforms to law and agency policy."
While hunting is generally prohibited in national parks,
national preserves typically allow hunting. Some of the biggest units
of the National Park System are preserves, such as Big Cypress in
Florida and Mojave. Although hunting is allowed in national preserves,
the NPS has the legal duty to regulate it to protect wildlife by
adopting special rules. To date, however, only around one-third of the
62 national park units which allow hunting have special rules as
required by agency policy.
"We have been surprised and disappointed that the Park Service
national leadership does not seem to place a priority on protecting park
wildlife," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting the agency's
apparent abandonment of a proposed ban on lead ammunition and its
failure to publicly oppose repeal of rules forbidding the carrying of
loaded firearms in national parks. "Despite our hopes for change, we
fear there will be further retreats from protections for national park
resources."
Read the PEER lawsuit
See the unanswered 2009 letter to Sec. Salazar
View the 2002 PEER petition
PEER protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. We work with current and former federal, state, local, and tribal employees.
"Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs."
Pope Leo XIV on Friday vehemently rejected the notion that "God" endorses any war in remarks many interpreted as an implicit rebuke of President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and others who claim that the Christian deity figure supports the illegal US-Israeli war of choice against Iran.
"God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs," the pope said on X. "Military action will not create space for freedom or timees of peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples."
"Absurd and inhuman violence is spreading ferociously through the sacred places of the Christian East, profaned by the blasphemy of war and the brutality of business, with no regard for people’s lives, which are considered at most collateral damage of self-interest," the American pontiff added. "But no gain can be worth the life of the weakest, children, or families. No cause can justify the shedding of innocent blood."
This, after the pope responded to Trump's genocidal threat to destroy Iran's civilization by urging "all the people of goodwill to search always for peace, and not violence, to reject war, especially a war which many people have said is an unjust war."
Responding to President Trump’s threat that “a whole civilisation will die tonight”, Pope Leo XIV calls for peace, says “let's remember, especially the innocent children, the elderly, sick. So many people who have already become, or will become victims of this continued warfare,… pic.twitter.com/2LygUzjuC6
— Catholic Sat (@CatholicSat) April 7, 2026
The pope's latest remarks also followed Trump's assertion that God supports the US-Israeli war on Iran and the claim by Hegseth, a Christian nationalist, that American airstrikes on Iran—which have killed more than 2,000 people including hundreds of children—are being "carried out under the protection of divine providence."
Pope Leo used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what many observers interpreted as a swipe at Hegseth after the self-styled secretary of war publicly prayed that God "trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle."
“This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” the pope said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”
The pontiff also criticized the Trump administration ahead of its brief invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife in January.
The pope's latest comments came on the heels of reporting that a senior Pentagon official bullied Cardinal Christophe Pierre, the Vatican’s US diplomatic representative, telling him that the United States “has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world," and that "the Catholic Church had better take its side."
Another Pentagon official allegedly mentioned the Avignon Papacy, a period in the 14th century when popes resided in France and were essentially controlled by the French monarch—a reference some Vatican officials reportedly took as a threat.
Did…the Trump regime lowkey threaten to kill the pope?
[image or embed]
— Max Berger (@maxberger.bsky.social) April 8, 2026 at 2:32 PM
Early during the war, Congressional Freethought Caucus Co-Chairs Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel Ranking Member Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) led 27 of their colleagues in requesting the Defense Department investigate reports that US commanders were invoking the apocalyptic theology of "End Times" prophecy to justify attacks on Iran.
American leaders have claimed divine sanction for their wars since the nation's inception, from George Washington claiming that "the hand of Providence" favored the revolt against Britain, to George W. Bush declaring that "God is not neutral" as he launched the decadeslong "crusade" against terror after 9/11 that has killed nearly a million people in more than half a dozen countries, almost all of them Muslims.
"Governments must restore their aid budgets, and shore up the global humanitarian system that faces its most serious crisis in decades," said an advocate with the international charity Oxfam.
The global anti-poverty group Oxfam International warned this week that US President Donald Trump’s decision to slash foreign aid by more than half could kill nearly 10 million people by the end of the decade.
Responding to new data released Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) showing the largest annual drop in the history of official development assistance, Oxfam said “wealthy governments are turning their backs on the lives of millions of women, men, and children in the Global South.”
The OECD released preliminary data on international aid that was provided last year by member countries of the organization's Development Assistance Committee (DAC), finding the largest annual drop in the history of official development assistance.
OECD member countries provided $174.3 billion in aid last year, according to the new data, representing 0.26% of the countries' combined gross national income.
In 2024, the countries sent $215.1 billion, or 0.34% of their gross national income to developing countries, including across the Global South—helping to provide nutritional assistance and healthcare initiatives among other programs.
US foreign aid spending dropped by 56.9% after Trump dismantled the US Agency for International Development, cut smaller aid programs, and pushed Congress to rescind previously approved foreign assistance.
"At a time when aid cuts are already driving instability and fostering greater inequality, government donors are cutting life-saving aid budgets while financing conflict and militarization."
Overall, wealthy OECD countries provided 23.1% less in foreign aid last year than they did in 2024—a greater decline than what the Institute of Global Health in Barcelona projected in February when it released a study in The Lancet, evaluating the impact of development assistance funding declines around the world.
The institute found that aid cuts in 2025 alone, which it assumed would represent a 21% decrease in funding, would lead to 695,238 excess deaths. If cuts continued at the same rate, an estimated 9,416,417 people could die of preventable diseases like malaria and AIDS, starvation, and other impacts by 2030.
The drop in foreign aid spending would suggest even more people could be killed by the cuts over the next four years.
“We are in a time of increasing humanitarian needs; strong pressures on the poorest and most fragile countries; and facing growing global uncertainties and massive insecurity," said Carsten Staur, chair of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which compiled the data. "In this situation, the world needs more ODA, not less—to help fight extreme poverty, improve resilience, and mobilize more private resources."
Trump's cuts helped make Germany the largest provider of development assistance for the first time ever, providing $29.1 billion to countries in need. The US sent $29 billion while the United Kingdom provided $17.2 billion, Japan sent $16.2 billion, and France sent $14.5 billion. All five of the top ODA providers reduced their foreign aid spending, accounting for 95.7% of the total decline.
Eight out of the DAC's 34 member countries either maintained or increased their development aid spending, and four countries—Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, and Sweden—exceeded the United Nations' target of spending 0.7% of their gross national income on ODA.
Didier Jacobs, development finance lead for Oxfam, emphasized that while "recklessly" cutting foreign aid, "the Trump administration has been preparing to ask Congress for tens of billions in additional funding for bombs, ammunition, and other military equipment relating to its unlawful war against Iran."
"At a time when aid cuts are already driving instability and fostering greater inequality, government donors are cutting life-saving aid budgets while financing conflict and militarization. Cuts from donors including Germany, France and the UK will be felt by the world’s poorest," said Jacobs.
In addition to slashing military spending instead of crucial foreign aid, he said, "there are other ways to find tens of billions, such as by taxing the $2.84 trillions of dollars that the super-rich hide in tax havens.”
"Governments must restore their aid budgets," he said, "and shore up the global humanitarian system that faces its most serious crisis in decades."
"It is unacceptable that Treasury may not have performed the most basic planning before it was launched," said US Sen. Ron Wyden.
The top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee revealed Thursday that an adviser to the US Treasury Department admitted he was unaware of the agency doing any work to prepare for the economic fallout of President Donald Trump's war on Iran, which has plunged the global economy into chaos and cost American drivers billions at the pump.
Sriprakash Kothari, a top adviser to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trump's nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, told US Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) staff behind closed doors that "not only did he not perform any work related to energy markets leading up to the war, but that he wasn’t aware of anyone at Treasury who did," Wyden wrote in a letter to Bessent.
Wyden quotes Kothari as saying he did no work to prepare for economic impacts of the war "leading up to the conflict," just "subsequent" to its start on February 28.
"When later asked to clarify this response, he reiterated that he had not performed any analysis or work related to energy markets, or any other economic facet, in the lead-up to military action in Iran," Wyden added. "He further told staff that the work he performed subsequently occurred after learning about the February 2026 strikes in the news. Mr. Kothari was then asked whether he was aware of anyone at Treasury performing analysis or work related to energy markets in the lead-up to potential military action in Iran, he responded that he was not aware of anyone performing any such work."
Wyden wrote that given the "rapidly growing affordability crisis" in the US—a crisis intensified by Trump's war on Iran—"it is unacceptable that Treasury may not have performed the most basic planning before it was launched."
"Every problem resulting from the conflict which we are seeing now," wrote Wyden, "was not only foreseeable but was predicted by the intelligence agencies, which reported as recently as last March that Iran was 'capable of inflicting severe damage to an attacker' and of 'disrupting shipping, particularly energy supplies, through the Strait of Hormuz.'"
In just six weeks, Trump's Iran war has cost American taxpayers over $30 billion and counting, and US drivers collectively spent over $8 billion more on gas during the first month of the illegal assault, which sent oil prices surging.
CNN reported last month that the Trump administration "significantly underestimated Iran’s willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US military strikes while planning the ongoing operation."
"While key officials from the Departments of Energy and Treasury were present for some of the official planning meetings about the operation before it started," CNN reported, citing unnamed sources familiar with the discussions, "the agency analysis and forecasts that would be integral elements of the decision-making process in past administrations were secondary considerations."