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.

Michael Robinson, Center for Biological Diversity, (575) 534-0360
James Navarro, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-0247
Geoff Hickcox, Western Environmental Law Center, (970) 382-5902
The Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife --
represented by the Western Environmental Law Center -- today intervened
in a lawsuit that seeks the trapping and shooting of endangered Mexican gray wolves, the third since reintroduction began in 1998.
Catron and Otero counties in New Mexico, two livestock
industry associations and three ranching outfits with grazing permits
in the Gila National Forest are suing the U.S.
The Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife --
represented by the Western Environmental Law Center -- today intervened
in a lawsuit that seeks the trapping and shooting of endangered Mexican gray wolves, the third since reintroduction began in 1998.
Catron and Otero counties in New Mexico, two livestock
industry associations and three ranching outfits with grazing permits
in the Gila National Forest are suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish to overturn
decisions made by the Service not to trap or shoot wolves from the San
Mateo and Middle Fork packs. The plaintiffs allege a violation of the
National Environmental Policy Act and seek legal fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act.
"We are intervening in part to prevent any settlement
agreement that would rid our public lands of the Mexican gray wolf. In
order for wolf recovery to be successful, it's vital that we keep
political forces from influencing what should be a science-based
process," said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity.
The lawsuit appears aimed at undermining a 2009
settlement agreement between the conservation groups and the Fish and
Wildlife Service in which the agency agreed to reassume the lead role
in Mexican wolf recovery and to end the controversial "wolf-control"
rule, Standard Operating Procedure 13 (SOP 13), which required
permanently removing a wolf from the wild -- either lethally or through
capture -- if the animal were suspected to have killed three cattle in a
single year.
The Fish and Wildlife Service stopped trapping and
shooting Mexican wolves for "control" purposes in 2008. Prior to that,
the agency authorized the shooting of 11 wolves and trapped, but never
released, another 46. Eighteen others died as a result of captures.
(The agency still captures wolves on occasion for veterinary purposes.)
"The Fish and Wildlife Service made the right call when
it stopped wolf removals," said Eva Sargent, Defenders of Wildlife's
Southwest program director. "We are intervening on the side of the Fish
and Wildlife Service to defend that decision, so the service can move
forward with developing a science-based plan with clear goals for wolf
recovery. With the Mexican wolf on the edge of extinction, every effort
must be made to keep wolves in the wild and bolster the population."
"We are intervening to help defend the agency's actions
against plaintiffs' unsubstantiated claims, as well as to continue our
steadfast efforts to ensure that the Mexican wolf reintroduction and
recovery program is carried forward in the most beneficial manner for
the species," said Geoff Hickcox, attorney for the Western
Environmental Law Center, which represents the interveners.
"This lawsuit, like the previous anti-wolf suits that
were dismissed, is without merit," said Robinson. "But that doesn't
mean that the threat isn't real. The Mexican wolf can ill afford
further delay in management reforms and development of a science-based
recovery plan, and we are concerned that the Fish and Wildlife Service
will seize on this mischief as a new excuse for longstanding,
inexcusable lethargy and inaction."
Background on the Mexican Gray Wolf
Since the 1990s, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
repeatedly stated that it will prepare a new Mexican wolf recovery plan
to bring modern science and clear goals to the recovery program and
replace a 1982 Mexican wolf recovery plan that contained no discussion
of genetics and no recovery criteria to guide eventual delisting. In
1995, the agency completed a draft new recovery plan but never approved
it. In January 2005, the agency suspended meetings of its recovery
team, which was close to developing a new draft, and in July 2010
formally disbanded that team. It has not yet convened a new recovery
team despite repeated proclamations that it will do so.
At the last count in January 2010, biologists could find
just 42 Mexican gray wolves and only two breeding pairs in Arizona
and New Mexico -- a dangerously low number that scientists say contributes to ongoing genetic inbreeding
that is causing low birth and pup survival rates, creating a downward
demographic spiral. The population dropped by 19 percent between 2009
and 2010. A new count will be conducted in January 2011.
In May this year, the Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged that the Mexican wolf reintroduction program was "at risk of failure."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252"In just four weeks, thousands have lost their lives, including first responders and humanitarian workers," said the world-renowned aid group. "Hundreds of thousands have been uprooted."
Nearly a full month into US President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice in Iran, the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a statement Thursday expressing horror at the humanitarian catastrophe the deadly conflict has unleashed across the Middle East, with millions of civilians trapped in the crossfire.
"One month of hostilities has upended the lives of millions and sent shockwaves far beyond the region at a scale and speed that threatens to overwhelm the humanitarian response," said the world-renowned organization, a three-time winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. "In just four weeks, thousands have lost their lives, including first responders and humanitarian workers. Hundreds of thousands have been uprooted. Essential infrastructure critical for the supply of energy, water, and health care has been damaged or destroyed. The use of heavy explosive weapons with wide area impact in urban settings has caused suffering and fear."
The war, said the organization, is "eroding the foundations of civilian life in the Middle East."
Without naming any countries in particular, the ICRC condemned "the way hostilities have been waged" with no "respect for the rules of war" that the humanitarian group helped establish and works to uphold.
"At a time of escalating needs and tightening humanitarian budgets, the ICRC and other organizations are being forced to adapt to disrupted supply chains that are undermining their operations," the group said Thursday. "Meanwhile, several countries already burdened by humanitarian crises must now also contend with rising fuel prices and increasing operational costs.
"Respect for the rules of war reduces the consequences for civilians, especially during military operations," the organization added. "All parties, regardless of the side they are on, are bound by international humanitarian law (IHL), and all states have an obligation to respect and ensure respect for IHL, even if their adversary does not."
"Those who survive the bombardment are waking up to a dire humanitarian reality. We are seeing families fleeing with only the clothes on their backs."
The Red Cross statement came as aid groups and human rights organizations assessed the state of the US-Israeli war on Iran—and the Iranian government's retaliatory attacks on Gulf nations—one month after Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the joint military assault, and as fears of an imminent US ground invasion of Iran mount.
Human Rights Watch said in a statement delivered to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Friday that it is "alarmed by attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure across the conflict, including schools and hospitals, and other harms to children including as a result of mass displacement."
Save the Children estimated that one in every five kids in Lebanon has been forced to flee their home since Israel intensified its aerial and ground assault on southern Lebanon in conjunction with the war on Iran.
“No child should have to run for their life in the middle of the night. Yet in Lebanon today, it’s happening to family after family - children fleeing, terrified,” Inger Ashing, the group's chief executive officer, said Friday. "Lebanon’s children are being pushed past their limits. They are exhausted, traumatized, and losing the very foundations of childhood. The world cannot look away—we need action, and we need it now."
Marcoluigi Corsi, the UN Children's Fund representative in Lebanon, said Friday that "the human cost of this escalation is shocking."
"Those who survive the bombardment are waking up to a dire humanitarian reality. We are seeing families fleeing with only the clothes on their backs, forced to move multiple times within days as repeated displacement orders are issued," said Corsi. “Meanwhile, essential civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, schools, bridges, and water and sanitation systems—upon which children depend to carry on with their lives have been consistently attacked, damaged, or destroyed."
In Iran, more than 1,900 people—including women and children—have been killed by US-Israeli attacks, and at least 20,000 have been injured, according to the latest estimate from the Iranian Red Crescent Society.
"The humanitarian situation is rapidly deteriorating," Maria Martinez, head of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, warned on Friday.
"First Trump ordered 2,500 more American ground troops to the Middle East. Then it was doubled to 5,000," wrote one analyst. "Now Trump may literally double down again."
The Trump administration is reportedly considering sending 10,000 additional US troops to the Middle East amid mounting fears of an invasion of Iran, which is mobilizing its forces ahead of a possible ground assault.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the new US troop deployment "would likely include infantry and armored vehicles" and "would be added to the roughly 5,000 Marines and the thousands of paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division who have already been ordered to the region." The US Central Command has said roughly 50,000 American troops are currently stationed in the Middle East.
Lawmakers in the US have not authorized any attack on Iran, but legislative efforts to withdraw American forces from the war have thus far failed to pass either chamber of Congress. House Democratic leaders opted to punt a vote on a new Iran war powers resolution until mid-April despite apparently having enough support for passage, and the Senate isn't planning to hold its first public hearing on the war until after lawmakers return from spring recess.
"Sure am glad the US Congress thoroughly debated the merits of this war and the American public had a chance to weigh in regarding this expenditure of blood and treasure before the legislative branch ultimately decided it was worthwhile and voted to authorize it," Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote sardonically in response to reports of the new troop deployment plans.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, warned that the rapidly expanding troop deployments are "like a mathematically simplified escalation trap hypothetical come to life."
"First Trump ordered 2,500 more American ground troops to the Middle East. Then it was doubled to 5,000," wrote Williams. "Now Trump may literally double down again by deploying an additional 10,000 ground troops."
The Times of Israel reported Thursday that an unnamed official "from one of the countries mediating between the US and Iran" believes President Donald Trump "appears to be leaning toward ordering a US ground operation against Iran." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said publicly that a "ground component" is necessary in Iran, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly pushed Trump behind the scenes to launch a ground assault.
According to The Times of Israel, "the official intimately familiar with the mediation efforts says the US privately recognizes that Iran is not likely to agree to the concessions presented in Washington’s 15-point plan and has dispatched thousands of troops to the region in order to capture Tehran’s Kharg Island on Trump’s orders."
Kharg Island is Iran’s primary oil export hub. Among those urging Trump to seize the island is former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who wrote Thursday that "on the strategic chessboard of this war, Kharg Island is the next piece."
"Yes, there are risks," wrote Gallant, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. "Any operation to seize Kharg would require thousands of troops, sustained air and naval support, and detailed intelligence, and it would carry a real and expected cost in human life."
"President Trump has set up the US for this option. By signaling willingness to explore a diplomatic agreement with Iran, he has shown both the American people and the international community that he is prepared to compromise if Iran meets core demands," Gallant added. "In giving Iran days, not months, to meet these conditions, he buys time for US forces and their allies to prepare and finalize operational plans."
"The president has actively harmed the well-being of seniors and broken his promises... to stop inflation, not touch Social Security, and leave Medicaid alone."
US Sen. Kirsten Gillbrand on Wednesday unveiled a report detailing how President Donald Trump's attacks on Social Security, Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other programs are harming the very senior citizens whose strong support was so instrumental in his reelection.
The report—which was authored by the minority staff of the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging at the direction of Gillibrand (D-NY), its ranking member—states that Trump "was tasked with leading a nation that is rapidly aging and facing critical decisions about the policies and resources needed to support a sizable demographic change."
"The United States must decide how to ensure the independence of its seniors, how to support caregivers, and how to assist entire aging communities," the publication continues. "After one year in office, President Trump has failed at his obligations to America’s seniors. In fact, the president has actively harmed the well-being of seniors and broken his promises to them—such as his promises to stop inflation, not touch Social Security, and leave Medicaid alone."
Trump has FAILED at his obligations to America’s #seniors. The president has actively broken his promises to stop inflation, not to touch #SocialSecurity, and to "leave #Medicaid alone." READ the minority report of the Senate Committee on Aging HERE::: www.gillibrand.senate.gov/wp-content/u...
[image or embed]
— NCPSSM (@ncpssm.bsky.social) March 26, 2026 at 9:56 AM
Gillibrand said in a statement introducing the report that it "shows that instead of fighting for seniors, the president has attacked the very programs that help them stay afloat."
Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law last July, ushered in the biggest cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in US history.
Gillibrand's report "focuses on eight harms that represent the Trump administration’s failure to support seniors during his first year in office."
According to the publication, Trump:
Other Democratic members of Congress including Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.) and Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) and Reps. Melanie Stansbury (NM) and John Larson (NJ) pointed out how Trump administration policies—including those mentioned in this piece and others like the billion-dollar-per-day war on Iran—are harming seniors by spending money that could have been allocated for their benefit or, in the case of Stansbury, by noting GOP attacks on mail-in voting, upon which many seniors rely.
"Seniors today are having a very hard time getting their benefits.Why?Social Security has pushed out 7,700 workers since Trump took office."
[image or embed]
— Social Security Works (@socialsecurityworks.org) March 26, 2026 at 9:03 AM
"'America first' was bullshit," Duckworth said on Bluesky. "With the $200 billion Trump wants for Iran, we could fund a decade of free, universal preschool; provide seniors with Medicare dental, vision, and hearing coverage for three years; build 2 million+ affordable homes. He promised to end wars."