

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.

Gulf coast shrimpers and affected community groups from Alaska to
Louisiana to Florida pressed the federal government today to better
regulate dispersants -- the chemicals that oil companies routinely use
to break up oil slicks on water - before these chemicals are used in
future spill cleanups.
The non-profit environmental law firm Earthjustice filed a petition
(PDF) on behalf of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, Florida Wildlife
Federation, Gulf Restoration Network, the Alaska-based Cook Inletkeeper,
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Waterkeeper and Sierra Club asking
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to write rules that would
set out exactly how and when dispersants could be used in the future.
The move comes just one day after the Obama administration announced it was lifting a moratorium on Gulf Coast oil drilling.
"Unprecedented use of toxic dispersants during the BP Deepwater Horizon
Disaster without prior scientific study and evaluation on the effect to
Gulf of Mexico marine ecosystems and human health was a horrific mistake
that should never have been allowed to happen," said Clint Guidry of
the Louisiana Shrimp Association. "Potential ecosystem collapse caused
by toxic dispersant use during this disaster will have immediate and
long term effects on the Gulf's traditional fishing communities'
ability to sustain our culture and heritage."
The groups are also calling on the EPA to require dispersant makers both
to disclose the ingredients of their products and to better test and
report the toxicity of those products.
"Industry executives would like us to think that dispersants are some
kind of fairy dust that magically removes oil from water," said
Earthjustice attorney Marianne Engelman Lado. "The fact is we have very
little idea how toxic dispersants are, what quantities are safe to use
or their long term effects on everything from people who work with the
chemicals to coral in the water. We have little information about their
long-term impact on life in the Gulf, or even whether the mix of oil and
dispersants is more harmful than oil alone."
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson herself has raised concerns about this
lack of information, calling for more data and better testing of
dispersants so that officials don't have to make "judgment calls on the
spot."
"We need to make sure that we understand the full effects of dispersants
on the environment and human health," said Florida Wildlife Federation
President Manley Fuller. "And when dispersants are used, we need to be
sure they are as safe as possible."
The groups' petition comes on the heels of a draft report issued last
week by the federal Oil Spill Commission that acknowledged that federal
agencies were unprepared for the tough decisions they faced over whether
to allow some 1.84 million gallons of chemical dispersants to be dumped
in the Gulf of Mexico during the record-breaking BP Deepwater Horizon
spill. The requested rules would ensure the agency never again be forced
to make such decisions without sufficient information and guidelines.
"Never again should the oil industry be allowed to dump hundreds of
thousands of gallons of dispersant into the sea as their preferred
method of response to an oil spill," said Cynthia Sarthou, of the Gulf
Restoration Network. "Because so little is currently known by EPA -- or
anyone else for that matter -- about the long-term impact to fish and
wildlife, the use of dispersants is a dangerous and potentially
devastating experiment."
The summer's catastrophe in the Gulf is not the first time the use of
chemical dispersants has come under fire. Workers involved in the
cleanup of the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska reported health problems --
including blood in their urine and kidney and liver disorders --
believed to have been linked to dispersant exposure.
"In Alaska, we have witnessed the long-term adverse health consequences
of the use of dispersants on the health of cleanup workers," said Pamela
Miller, Executive Director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. "The
indiscriminate use of toxic dispersants also threatens the health of
subsistence and commercial fisheries that are essential to the culture
and economy of Alaska."
"Oil corporations in Alaska now reach for dispersants as one of their
first tools for oil spill response," said Cook Inletkeeper Bob
Shavelson. "Countless Alaskans rely on our wild, healthy fisheries, and
we have a right to know about the toxic dispersants used in our
waters."
The group also filed a 60-day-notice of intent to file a lawsuit (PDF)
prodding the agency to provide information long required by the Clean
Water Act identifying exactly where dispersants may be used and how much
is safe.
"The largely unregulated use of dispersants is another example in the
all-too-long list of ways that oil, coal and gas industries act with an
open distain for environmental and human health," stated Scott Edwards,
Director of Advocacy for Waterkeeper Alliance. "Coal companies dumping
mine waste in our streams, gas extractors injecting harmful chemicals in
our drinking water and the oil industry poisoning our coastal
communities first with oil and now with untested dispersants all point
to one thing - it's time to end our irresponsible addiction to harmful
fossil fuels and move onto cleaner, renewable energy sources."
The Clean Water Act requirements have been in place for decades, but
administration after administration has failed to comply with the law,
and there was scant data available to EPA officials when they were
confronted with the devastating Gulf Coast spill this summer.
"The BP oil disaster painfully showed just how little is known about
these chemicals. We should not be gambling with the health of our
coastal waters or the people who make their life from them. If
dispersants are going to be part of the toolbox for responding to future
emergencies, we need to be certain they're not doing more harm than
good. We call on EPA to pledge that never again will oil spill response
turn into an uncontrolled experiment in our nation's waters," said
Sierra Club Louisiana Representative Jill Mastrototaro.
###
Background Material:
To see the petition filed pressing EPA to establish new rules requiring
dispersant manufacturers to reveal the toxicity and ingredients of their
projects see: https://www.earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/dispersant-petition
To see the 60-day notice of intent to sue over long required Clean Water Act requirements, please visit: https://www.earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/dispersant-notice
To view the federal Oil Spill Commission report, please visit: https://www.oilspillcommission.gov/document/use-surface-and-subsea-dispersants-during-bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill---
CONTACT:
Marianne Engelman Lado, Earthjustice, (212) 791-1881, ext. 228, (917)
Clint Guidry, Louisiana Shrimp Association, (504) 952-4368
Cynthia Sarthou, Gulf Restoration Network, (504) 525-1528 ext 202, cyn@healthygulf.org
Manley Fuller, Florida Wildlife Federation, wildfed@gmail.com
Bob Shavelson, Cook Inletkeeper, (907) 235-4068, ext. 22, 907.299.3277 (cell) bob@inletkeeper.org
Pamela K. Miller, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, pkmiller@akaction.net
Scott Edwards, Waterkeeper, (914) 674-0622, ext. 13, sedwards@waterkeeper.org
Kristina Johnson, Sierra Club (415) 977-5619 kristina.johnson@sierraclub.org
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address," said the state attorney general.
The US Department of Justice on Monday continued President Donald Trump's crusade against transgender youth competing in sports in line with their identity by suing the Minnesota Department of Education and the state's high school league.
"The United States files this action to stop Minnesota's unapologetic sex discrimination against female student athletes," says the complaint, filed in a federal court in the state by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.
"The state of Minnesota, through its Department of Education, and the Minnesota State High School League require girls to compete against boys in athletic competitions that are designated exclusively for girls and share intimate spaces, such as multiperson locker rooms and bathrooms, with boys," the complaint continues. "This unfair, intentionally discriminatory practice violates the very core of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972."
The Associated Press noted that "the administration has filed similar lawsuits against Maine and California, and has threatened the federal funding of some universities over transgender athletes, including San José State in California and the University of Pennsylvania."
Tim Leighton, a spokesperson for the league, told the AP that it does not comment on threatened or pending lawsuits. According to The New York Times, Emily Buss, a spokesperson for the state department, said Minnesota's leadership was reviewing the complaint while remaining "committed to ensuring every child—regardless of background, ZIP code, or ability—has access to a world-class education."
While Trump and his allies have aimed to stop all trans women and girls from competing as they identify—including at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles—the fight with Minnesota specifically traces back to the president's February 2025 executive order, after which the administration began investigating the state.
The Minnesota Department of Education gets over $3 billion in federal funding. Democratic state Attorney General Keith Ellison sued to stop the administration from pulling that money last April. In September, the US departments of Education and Health and Human Services concluded that the state agency and league violated Title IX, and the case was referred to the DOJ in January.
In a Monday statement, Ellison said that the DOJ's lawsuit "is just a sad attempt to get attention over something that's already been in litigation for months."
"Donald Trump is currently facing an unpopular war that he launched, rising gas prices, massive health insurance price hikes, and a partial government shutdown caused in part by his ICE agents killing two Minnesotans in broad daylight," Ellison said, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address."
The DOJ filing about trans student-athletes came less than a week after Ellison and other Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration over its refusal to cooperate with state investigators probing the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents earlier this year, as well as the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was wounded but survived.
“Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," said one critic. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
Critics denounced the top Democrat on the US House Intelligence Committee after he said Monday that he would vote to extend a highly controversial authorization for warrantless government spying sought by President Donald Trump that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times under various administrations.
While acknowledging that many of his Democratic colleagues will vote against reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they do not trust Trump to use the provision's sweeping surveillance powers legally, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) signaled that he would support renewal and vote against any efforts for privacy protections.
“There’s a lot of people who are going to switch from yes two years ago to no today," Himes told The Hill. "Because even though Donald Trump’s been president for five years, and he has never abused the program—I would know it pretty much in real time if he did—even though that’s true, people don’t trust Donald Trump."
"And you know, that word came up a lot in the classified briefing; there’s a huge trust gap here," he added. "So there’s going to be a lot of people switching on the Democratic side from yes to no.”
While Section 702 ostensibly limits warrantless surveillance to non-US citizens, such spying also captures the communications of Americans. The measure has been abused at least hundreds of thousands of times, including to spy on protestors, congressional donors, journalists, and others.
“Donald Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," Sean Vitka, executive director of the pro-democracy group Demand Progress, said in a statement Monday. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
"But instead, Rep. Jim Himes is failing his critical role as an overseer of intelligence agencies and using his political power to lobby his fellow Democrats in service of the Trump administration domestic surveillance agenda," Vitka continued. "It is unforgivably cynical and reckless for Rep. Himes to make it easier for this administration to spy on Americans, especially at a time when government agencies’ have made it clear that they intend to supercharge surveillance with [artificial intelligence], and when their misuse of these powers is horrifically on display.”
Nearly 100 civil society groups including Demand Progress are urging congressional Democrats to "stand firm" and vote against Section 702 reauthorization without reforms, including closing the so-called data broker loophole.
Among the Democratic lawmakers reportedly considering voting against the extension is Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who voted for reauthorizing Section 702 in 2024—when Congress extended the spying power until April 20, 2026.
“I supported it because I felt very comfortable that... additional guardrails were safeguarding Americans’ privacy in a sufficiently significant way as to justify the importance of getting this information on an urgent basis," he told The Hill. "And as a former prosecutor, I know how difficult it can be to get a search warrant, and especially in these cases where there often isn’t even probable cause, but my vote was taken on the expectation that the law would be implemented as written."
“And we now have an administration that has routinely, repeatedly, regularly—and seemingly and intentionally—violated numerous laws, undermined the Constitution, attacked our democracy, and simply cannot be trusted with the privacy information that is included in the materials gathered and potentially searched," Goldman continued.
"So unless I receive a lot more information about every single search for a US person that has been done by this administration since they came into office, I don’t see how I can possibly support the reauthorization," he added.
"Right now the US and Israel are realizing 'Greater Israel' by attacking-invading Lebanon and Iran," said one professor. "Hegseth is saying it's Greenland, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico next."
Alarm mounted Monday over the Trump administration's "Greater North America" plan, a geopolitical blueprint for US imperial hegemony from Greenland to Guyana that's drawing comparisons with a messianic project being pushed by President Donald Trump's far-right allies and war partners in Israel.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth first unveiled the plan earlier this month, telling reporters: "Trump has drawn a new strategic map, from Greenland to the Gulf of America to the Panama Canal and its surrounding countries. At the Department of War we call this strategic map the Greater North America."
"Why? Because every sovereign nation and territory north of the Equator, from Greenland to Ecuador and from Alaska to Guyana, is not part of the 'Global South,'" Hegseth added. "It is our immediate security perimeter in this great neighborhood that we all live in."
Graeme Garrard, a Canadian professor at Cardiff University in Wales, said Monday on social media in response to Hegseth's comments: "By 'Greater North America' he means 'Greater United States. The US is now and has long been a menace and threat to the sovereignty and independence of its hemispheric neighbors."
Numerous observers have compared Trump's "Greater America" with the "Greater Israel" movement, whose most zealous proponents want to conquer everything between the Nile and Euphrates rivers—that is, all of Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan; most of Syria and Kuwait; large parts of Egypt and Iraq; and some of Turkey—for Israel.
"Hesgeth's 'Greater North America' should be taken VERY seriously as a real threat," University of Lausanne professor Julia Steinberger, who is Swiss-American, said on social media. "Right now the US and Israel are realizing 'Greater Israel' by attacking-invading Lebanon and Iran. Hegseth is saying it's Greenland, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico next."
Based on the biblical boundaries of ancient Jewish kingdoms, Greater Israel is rooted in the supremacist supposition that the Abrahamic deity figure God promised the Jews all of the lands between the Nile and Euphrates.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—and other prominent right-wing Israelis support the Greater Israel vision and are working to make it a reality by accelerating the illegal settler colonization and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, preparing to annex the dwindling Palestinian territories, and planning to occupy—perhaps permanently—parts of Syria and Lebanon.
For nearly two centuries, claims of divine favor have also underpinned US expansionism, most famously expressed in Manifest Destiny and mid-19th century plans to annex lands "from the Arctic to the Tropic." This notion drove the US conquest of half of Mexico, as well as later takeovers of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. The US also took control over the Panama Canal, which it built at the cost of thousands of laborers' lives, most of them from Barbados and other West Indies isles.
"It is part of the great law of progress that the weak should give way to the strong, and that the superior should displace the inferior races," one New Orleans newspaper opined in 1848.
Nearly 178 years later, Hegseth echoed this supremacist ideology, telling Latin American leaders that the region must remain "Christian nations under God" and stand united in the face of "radical narco-communism."
Like the 19th century US imperialists, Trump has also repeatedly expressed his goal of "taking Cuba"—an objective that goes back over 200 years, when Thomas Jefferson, then a former president, called the island “the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of states."