

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.

Jeff Miller, (510) 499-9185
The
Center for Biological Diversity today notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and EPA of its intent to sue the agencies for failing to study and act
on threats posed by more than 60 pesticides to the threatened California
red-legged frog.
A 2006
legal settlement secured by the Center required the EPA to assess the impacts of
pesticides on the frog, then consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service under
the Endangered Species Act to address those impacts, by 2009. The completed assessments
were submitted to the Wildlife
Service between March 2007 and October 2009. Although the EPA
determined that 64 registered pesticides are likely to harm the frogs, the
Service has not completed any consultations or adopted protective
measures.
"The EPA
acknowledges that scores of pesticides may be dangerous to California's rare
red-legged frogs, but nothing's been done about it," said Jeff Miller, a
conservation advocate with the Center. "This three-year delay violates the
Endangered Species Act and jeopardizes the future of the largest native frog in
California."
Once
abundant throughout California and immortalized in Mark Twain's
story "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County," red-legged frogs have
declined by more than 90 percent. They have disappeared from 70 percent of their
former range and were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in
1996.
Overall,
more than 200 million pounds of pesticides are applied each year in California; for most of
these chemicals, the EPA has failed to consult with the Service to determine
impacts on endangered species. The Endangered Species Act requires the EPA to
consult with endangered species experts to determine how pesticides affect
species and their critical habitats. The
Center and other groups
have filed a series of lawsuits forcing such consultations, primarily in
California,
and put in place interim restrictions on pesticide use in and near endangered
species habitats.
Amphibians
are declining at alarming rates around the globe, and scientists believe
industrial chemicals and pesticides may be partly to blame. Numerous studies
have definitively linked pesticide use with significant effects on amphibians:
Pesticides can cause deformities, abnormal immune-system functions, diseases,
injury and death in these frogs and other amphibians. Because amphibians breathe
through their permeable skin, they are especially vulnerable to chemical
contamination. Frog eggs float exposed on the water surface, where pesticides
tend to concentrate, and hatched larvae live solely in aquatic environments for
five to seven months before they metamorphose, so agricultural pesticides
introduced into wetlands, ponds and streams are particularly harmful. Many of
the pesticides that pose a threat to the frog are also known to be harmful to
human health.
"Because
they're so sensitive to chemical contaminants, frogs are an important barometer
for the health of our aquatic ecosystems," said Miller. "Ultimately, pesticides
found in the red-legged frog's critical habitat can also contaminate our
drinking water, food, homes and schools, posing a disturbing health risk."
Background
Formal
consultations between the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service are designed to
ensure that the agency avoids authorizing pesticide uses that jeopardize
endangered species. At the completion of consultation, the Service issues a
"biological opinion" that determines if the agency action, in this case
registration of a pesticide, is likely to jeopardize listed species. The opinion
may specify reasonable and prudent alternatives that will avoid jeopardy and may
also suggest use restrictions to avoid adverse effects.
In 2002,
the Center filed litigation challenging the EPA registration and reregistration
of scores of the most toxic and persistent pesticides authorized for use in
California,
based on the risk they pose to the red-legged frog. A federal court found in
2005 that the EPA had violated the Endangered Species Act, and a 2006 settlement
agreement prohibited the use of 66 harmful pesticides near core frog habitats
until the EPA completed the required consultations with the
Service.
The EPA
has since conducted "effects determinations" for all 66 pesticides. The
registrations of two chemicals, Fenamiphos and Molinate, were subsequently
cancelled. The EPA determined that 64 other pesticides are "likely to adversely
affect" or "may affect" the frog; and between 2007 and 2009 the agency began
requesting formal consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service
had 90 days to complete each review, but has failed to meet those
deadlines.
The 64
pesticides that may pose risks to the frog are: 2,4-D, Acephate, Alachlor,
Aldicarb, Atrazine, Azinphos methyl, Bensulide, Bromacil, Captan, Carbaryl,
Chloropicrin, Chlorothalonil, Chlorpyrifos, DCPA, Diazinon, Dicofol,
Diflubenzuron, Dimethoate,
Disulfoton, Diuron, Endosulfan, EPTC, Esfenvalerate, Glyphosate, Hexazinone,
Imazapyr, Iprodione, Linuron, Malathion, Mancozeb, Maneb, Metam sodium,
Methamidiphos, Methidathion, Methomyl, Methoprene, Methyl
parathion, Metolachlor, Myclobutanil, Naled, Norflurazon, Oryzalin, Oxamyl,
Oxydemeton methyl, Oxyfluorfen, Paraquat, Pendimethalin, Permethrin, Phorate,
Phosmet, Prometryn, Propanil, Propargite, Propyzamide, Rotenone, Simazine,
Strychnine, Telone Thiobencarb, Tribufos, Triclopyr, Trifluralin, Vinclozolin
and Ziram.
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) 623-5252As some Democrats suggest compromising in order to reform the agency, Rep. Rashida Tlaib said that “ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change.”
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a bill to end a brief government shutdown after the US House of Representatives narrowly passed the $1.2 trillion funding package.
While the bill keeps most of the federal government funded until the end of September, lawmakers sidestepped the question of funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which Democrats have vowed to block absent reforms to rein in its lawless behavior after the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and a rash of other attacks on civil rights.
The bill, which passed on Tuesday by a vote of 217-214, extends funding for ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for just two weeks, setting up a battle in the coming weeks on which the party remains split.
While most Democrats voted against Tuesday's measure, 21 joined the bulk of Republicans to drag it just over the line, despite calls from progressive activists and groups, such as MoveOn, which Axios said peppered lawmakers with letters urging them to use every bit of "leverage" they can to force drastic changes at the agency.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who voted for the bill, acknowledged that it was "a leverage tool that people are giving up," but said funding for the rest of the government took precedence.
The real fight is expected to take place over the next 10 days, with DHS funding set to run out on February 14.
ICE will be funded regardless of whether a new round of DHS funding passes, since Republicans already passed $170 billion in DHS funding in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Democrats in both the House and Senate have laid out lists of reforms they say Republicans must acquiesce to if they want any additional funding for ICE, including requirements that agents nationwide wear body cameras, get judicial warrants for arrests, and adhere to a code of conduct similar to those for state and local law enforcement.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted against Tuesday's bill reiterated that in order to pass longterm DHS funding, "there must be due process, a requirement for judicial warrants and bond hearings; every agent must not only have a bodycam but also be required to use it, take off their masks, and, in cases of misconduct, undergo immediate, independent investigations."
Some critics have pointed out that ICE agents already routinely violate court orders and constitutional requirements, raising questions about whether new laws would even be enforceable.
A memo issued last week, telling agents they do not need to obtain judicial warrants to enter homes, has been described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite this, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Tuesday that Republicans will not even consider negotiating the warrant requirement, calling it "unworkable."
"We cannot trust this DHS, which has already received an unprecedented funding spike for ICE, to operate within the bounds of our Constitution or our laws," Jayapal said. "And for that reason, we cannot continue to fund them without significant and enforceable guardrails."
According to recent polls, the vast majority of Democratic voters want to go beyond reforms and push to abolish ICE outright. In the wake of ICE's reign of terror in Minneapolis, it's a position that nearly half the country now holds, with more people saying they want the agency to be done away with than saying they want it preserved.
"The American people are begging us to stop sending their tax dollars to execute people in the streets, abduct 5-year-olds, and separate families," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who gathered with other progressive lawmakers in the cold outside DHS headquarters on Tuesday. "ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change... No one should vote to send another cent to DHS."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who comes from the Minnesota Somali community targeted by Trump's operation there, agreed: "This rogue agency should not receive a single penny. It should be abolished and prosecuted."
"Feel like this isn't gonna work out well," one legal expert said in response to the leaked DOJ plan.
The US Department of Justice is reportedly setting up a new program that would create a team of prosecutors who can parachute into different areas throughout the country to bring charges against protesters who have allegedly assaulted or obstructed law enforcement officers.
As reported by Bloomberg on Tuesday, a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo mandates that US attorney's offices designate some of their staff members to serve on "emergency jump teams" that can surge into areas on short notice to prosecute cases.
"A senior official instructed leaders of the nation's 93 US attorney’s offices... that they have until February 6 to designate one or two assistant US attorneys," reported Bloomberg, "who’d be available for short-term surges in unspecified areas needing 'urgent assistance due to emergent or critical situations.'"
The effort to create "jump teams" of lawyers comes as the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota has been hit with a wave of resignations in the wake of the federal government's surge of federal immigration enforcement agents into the state.
According to a Monday report from the Minnesota Star Tribune, 14 lawyers at the Minnesota US Attorney's Office have either already resigned or announced their intention to resign in just the last month, an unprecedented number of departures in such a short period of time.
Bloomberg writes that the "jump team" plan "signals the Trump administration’s attempt to offset career prosecutor attrition... with a nationwide pool of reinforcements on standby."
The plan was potentially telegraphed by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Saturday, when he put out a call on social media for more attorneys to come work for the Trump administration.
"If you want to combat fraud, crime and illegal immigration, reach out," Miller wrote. "Patriots needed."
Attorney Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, speculated on Sunday that Miller's call reflected "real internal problems" at the DOJ, and he predicted that one solution the administration could try would be to create a mobile legal strike force much like the one outlined in the leaked DOJ memo.
However, White argued that this approach would be far from a magic bullet to solve the administration's staffing woes.
"The impediments will be these: They will get dregs who will do a bad job," White wrote. "Federal prosecution is not rocket science but federal judges do have notably higher standards than state judges and if you MAGA your way around federal court you will get your ass handed to you."
Jonathan Booth, a law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, also predicted that the administration's strike force plan would run into some major speed bumps.
"Imagine, you're a federal prosecutor in San Diego," he wrote in a social media post. "It's sunny, warm, you have a whole set of important cases. Then suddenly 'we need you to go to Buffalo and prosecute extremely weak misdemeanor cases.' Feel like this isn't gonna work out well."
"Trump gets paid. Taxpayers get screwed," said one congressman.
The $40 million film Melania, a biography of the first lady that was purchased by Amazon, has been panned as a "bribe disguised as a documentary," an "expensive propaganda doc," and a "journey into the void."
But despite the reviews, the tech firm has poured an unprecedented $35 million into a marketing campaign for the documentary, and one government watchdog group suggested Monday that the investment by the third-richest person in the world, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is already paying off.
Bezos welcomed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to his Blue Origin facilities in Florida on Monday as part of Hegseth's "Arsenal of Freedom" speaking tour, which is aimed at overhauling the Pentagon's relationship with defense tech companies.
"Blue Origin is committed to supporting national security to, through, and from space," said Bezos at the event.
Speaking during Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s “Arsenal of Freedom” tour at Cape Canaveral, Jeff Bezos says U.S. national security now hinges on industrial speed, scale, and space-based capability.
READ MORE: https://t.co/cOUQii31TJ#amazon #jeffbezos #nationalnews #florida pic.twitter.com/uaFGaoMhnI
— KRCR News Channel 7 (@KRCR7) February 3, 2026
Blue Origin, Bezos' space exploration firm, has received billions of dollars in defense contracts to build technology that uses space lasers, nuclear-powered spacecraft, and a processing facility for satellites.
Hegseth said during his tour that Blue Origin is likely to do "plenty of winning" as the Pentagon hands out additional contracts.
Late last month, Amazon Web Services was also awarded a $581 million contract to support the US Air Force's Cloud One program.
Greg Williams, director of the Project on Government Oversight's Center for Defense Information, told USA Today that on its face, Hegseth's visits to Blue Origin as well as SpaceX, the space technology firm owned by Trump administration associate and Republican megadonor Elon Musk, were not "particularly novel."
But considering Bezos' purchase and promotion of the documentary spotlighting President Donald Trump's wife, said Williams, Hegseth's hobnobbing with the tech mogul raises new questions about Bezos' desire to curry favor with the White House.
"By spending a tiny amount of money to buy the rights," said Williams, Bezos "potentially gets a much larger return."
As such, Hegseth's visit to Blue Origin called attention to a situation of "unprecedented conflict of interest," Williams added.
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) summarized the apparent transaction involving the documentary rights and the government contracts: "Trump gets paid. Taxpayers get screwed."