

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, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185
Heather Pilatic, Pesticide Action Network, (415) 694-8596
The Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide
Action Network North America today filed the most comprehensive legal
action ever brought under the Endangered Species Act to protect imperiled
species from pesticides, suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its
failure to consult with federal wildlife agencies regarding the impacts of
hundreds of pesticides known to be harmful to more than 200 endangered and
threatened species.
"For decades, the EPA has turned a blind eye to the disastrous effects
pesticides can have on some of America's rarest species," said Jeff Miller, a
conservation advocate with the Center. "This lawsuit is intended to force the
EPA to follow the law and ensure that harmful chemicals are not sprayed in
endangered species habitats."
"Endangered species and biological diversity are strong indicators for the
health of the natural-resource base on which we all depend. To the extent that
we fail to protect that base we erode the possibility of prosperity for future
generations," said Dr. Heather Pilatic, codirector of PAN. "This suit thus
presents a real opportunity for American agriculture: By enforcing the law and
counting the real costs of pesticide use, we strengthen the case for supporting
a transition toward more sustainable pest-control practices like crop rotations
and beneficial insect release."
The lawsuit seeks protection for 214 endangered and threatened species
throughout the United States, including the Florida panther, California condor,
piping plover, black-footed ferret, arroyo toad, Indiana bat, bonytail chub and
Alabama sturgeon. Documents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, as
well as peer-reviewed scientific studies, indicate these species are harmed by
the pesticides at issue. More than a billion pounds of pesticides are used
annually in the United States, and the EPA has registered more than 18,000
different pesticides for use. Extensive scientific studies show widespread and
pervasive pesticide contamination in groundwater, drinking water and wildlife
habitats throughout the country.
Many EPA-approved pesticides are also linked to cancer and other severe
health effects in humans. Some pesticides can act as endocrine disruptors,
interfering with natural hormones, damaging reproductive function and offspring,
and causing developmental, neurological and immune problems in wildlife and
humans. Endocrine-disrupting pesticides cause sexual deformities such as
intersex fish (with male and female parts) that cannot reproduce. Scientists
believe that pesticides may also play a role in the recent colony collapse
disorder, the disappearance of bees that are agriculturally important
pollinators.
"The EPA authorizes pesticide uses that result in millions of pounds of
toxins, including carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, entering our waterways
each year, polluting our soil and poisoning our drinking water," said Miller.
"Common-sense restrictions on pesticide use that protect endangered species can
also safeguard human health."
View an interactive map of the species involved in the lawsuit, find out more about the Center's Pesticides Reduction campaign, and read Pesticide Action
Network information on the environmental impacts of persistent poisons.
Background Pesticides are a significant threat to
endangered species and biological diversity. We are now experiencing the worst
wave of extinction of plants and animals since the loss of the dinosaurs 65
millions years ago, with species going extinct at 1,000 to 10,000 times the
natural rate. The diversity of life that sustains ecological systems and human
cultures around the world is collapsing. Beyond its intrinsic value,
biodiversity, or ecosystem diversity and integrity, is necessary to human
survival: It provides life support, including a livable climate, breathable air
and drinkable water. Plant and animal diversity are building blocks for medicine
and food-crop diversity, and pollinating insects and bats allow agriculture to
support our populations and prevent food collapse from crop diseases.
Through pesticide drift and runoff, pesticides can travel far from the areas
where they are applied and into sensitive wildlife habitats. Some contaminated
waterways are regularly subjected to toxic pulses of combinations of pesticides
deadly to fish and other life. Some of the pesticides in the lawsuit contribute
to the loss of native fish populations, are a leading cause of the decline in
native amphibians, and can result in significant bird kills. The Fish and
Wildlife Service estimates that 72 million birds are killed by pesticides in the
United States each year.
The EPA is required by the Endangered Species Act to consult with the Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service regarding pesticides
that may jeopardize listed species or harm their critical habitat. Formal
consultations are intended to ensure that the EPA avoids pesticide uses that
harm endangered species. After consultation, the federal wildlife agency issues
a biological opinion that may specify reasonable and prudent restrictions and
alternatives to avoid harm to species. Yet for decades the EPA has consistently
failed to engage in required consultations to properly evaluate whether
pesticides it registers are harmful to imperiled species. In 2004 the Center
published Silent Spring Revisited: Pesticide Use and Endangered
Species, detailing the EPA's dismal record in protecting endangered
species from pesticides.
An example of the EPA failure to protect people and the environment is the
re-registration of the dangerous herbicide atrazine, a widespread pollutant of groundwater and drinking
water in this country. Atrazine, which causes reproductive problems and
chemically castrates male frogs at extremely low concentrations, has been banned
in the European Union. Recent research links atrazine to
cancer, birth defects and endocrine disruption in humans, as well as significant
harm to wildlife.
A series of lawsuits by the Center and other conservation groups have forced
the EPA to consult on the impacts of scores of pesticides on some endangered
species, primarily in California, and resulted in temporary restrictions on
pesticide use in sensitive habitats. In 2006 the EPA agreed to restrictions on
66 pesticides throughout California and began analyzing their effects on the
threatened California red-legged frog. A 2010 settlement agreement requires
evaluation of the effects of 75 pesticides on 11 San Francisco Bay Area
endangered species. For all of these court-ordered evaluations, the EPA has
concurred that nearly every pesticide at issue is "likely to adversely affect"
the at-risk species identified by the Center. Today's litigation is the first on
this scale, as it seeks nationwide compliance for hundreds of pesticides on
hundreds of species.
Pesticide Action Network campaigns and action network linking local and
international consumer, labor, health, environmental and agriculture groups have
resulted in bans on some of the most deadly pesticides and protections from
toxic exposure for communities and farmworkers.
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"We have a solemn duty to play our defined role under the 25th Amendment by setting up this body to act alongside the vice president and the Cabinet."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Tuesday unveiled legislation that would establish a congressional commission tasked with determining whether the president is able to continue executing the duties of the office.
The bill, titled the Commission on Presidential Capacity Act, would also set up "expedited" emergency procedures under which Congress could activate the newly created commission and fast-track its consideration of presidential fitness.
As envisioned by Raskin, this commission would act as a legislative counterpart to the US vice president and the president's Cabinet, which the text of the 25th Amendment grants the power to declare the president incapacitated. The 25th Amendment also gives that power to a majority "of such other body as Congress may by law provide."
"The Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to create a body that will guarantee the successful continuity of government by responding to presidential incapacity to discharge the powers and duties of office," said Raskin. "We have a solemn duty to play our defined role under the 25th Amendment by setting up this body to act alongside the vice president and the Cabinet."
Raskin pointed to Trump's recent erratic behavior to argue that Congress needed to take a more assertive role in determining whether he has the mental capacity to serve in the most powerful office in the federal government.
"Public trust in Donald Trump’s ability to meet the duties of his office has dropped to unprecedented lows," the Maryland Democrat said, "as he threatens to destroy entire civilizations, unleashes chaos in the Middle East while violating Congressional war powers, aggressively insults the pope of the Catholic Church, and sends out artistic renderings online likening himself to Jesus Christ."
Raskin went on to warn that "we are at a dangerous precipice, and it is now a matter of national security for Congress to fulfill its responsibilities under the 25th Amendment to protect the American people from an increasingly volatile and unstable situation."
Fifty House Democrats signed on as original co-sponsors of Raskin's bill, which is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives.
Calls for invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office grew louder last week after Trump declared that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," unless Iran agreed to meet his demands.
In a letter sent to congressional leaders on Monday, four psychiatrists warned that Trump's "behavior and rhetoric... have crossed a threshold that demands the immediate and bipartisan attention of Congress."
The psychiatrists added that Trump "exhibits what forensic mental health experts have, across dozens of independent assessments, identified as the 'Dark Triad' of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy."
One expert called the new IMF forecast "extremely concerning for the global economy," noting that "the most dire impacts of our economic situation will be felt by the poor and the vulnerable."
The International Monetary Fund warned Tuesday that the US-Israeli war on Iran could slow global economic growth, stoke inflation, and increase the possibility of a worldwide recession and energy crisis.
The illegal war of choice on Iran being waged by US President Donald Trump and the government of fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already had wide-ranging negative impacts on the global economy, from soaring fuel prices caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to supply chain disruptions and financial market volatility.
However, a major global economic crisis has thus far been averted. That could soon change.
"Despite major trade disruptions and policy uncertainty, last year ended on an upbeat note," International Monetary Fund director of research Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas wrote in an analysis of the IMF's latest World Economic Outlook report. "The private sector adapted to a changing business environment, while powerful offsets came from lower US tariffs than originally announced, some fiscal support, and favorable financial conditions coupled with strong productivity gains and a tech boom."
"Despite some downside risks, the momentum was expected to carry over into 2026, lifting the pre-conflict global growth forecast to 3.4%," Gourinchas continued. "War in the Middle East has halted this momentum. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz and serious damage to critical facilities in a region central to global hydrocarbon supply raise the prospect of a major energy crisis should hostilities continue."
The IMF said that even if the war ends quickly, lasting damage to the world's economy will still happen.
According to the IMF report:
Under the assumption of a limited conflict, global growth is projected at 3.1% in 2026 and 3.2% in 2027, below recent outcomes and well under pre-pandemic averages. Global inflation is expected to tick up in 2026 and resume its decline in 2027. Pressures are concentrated in emerging market and developing economies, especially commodity importers with preexisting vulnerabilities. Risks are decisively on the downside. A prolonged conflict, deeper geopolitical fragmentation, disappointment over [artificial intelligence]-driven productivity, or renewed trade tensions could weaken growth and unsettle markets. High public debt and eroded policy buffers add vulnerability. Policies should foster adaptability, enhance credibility, and reinforce international cooperation.
The IMF said that "the shock’s ultimate magnitude will depend on the conflict’s duration and scale—and how quickly energy production and shipment normalize once hostilities end," and that effects will vary by location.
"Countries will feel the impact differently," Gourinchas wrote. "As in past commodity-price surges, importers are highly exposed. Low-income and developing economies—especially those with vulnerabilities and limited buffers—are likely to be hit hardest. Gulf energy exporters will face economic fallout from damaged infrastructure, production disruptions, export constraints, and weaker tourism and business activity. Remittances will fall in countries that supply migrant workers to the region."
Eric LeCompte, executive director of the religious development group Jubilee USA Network and a United Nations finance expert, called the new IMF forecast "extremely concerning for the global economy," lamenting that "the most dire impacts of our economic situation will be felt by the poor and the vulnerable."
The new report comes as the IMF's annual Spring Meetings are underway in Washington, DC.
“World leaders coming to Washington are receiving a very dark picture of the global economy,” said LeCompte. “The war is causing greater poverty and increases in our fuel and food costs."
Other groups have also warned of the adverse economic effects of the US-Israeli war on Iran.
Ben May, Bridget Payne, and Paul Moroz of Oxford Economics recently published a report warning that a longer war in Iran "could tip the global economy into recession."
In such a situation, "the Gulf states suffer most acutely—GDP down over 8% in 2026—before rebounding sharply as production recovers," they wrote. "Advanced Asian economies, which are especially reliant on Gulf oil, take a heavy blow from energy import cost surges and supply chain disruption."
"Europe faces a painful squeeze on gas and electricity," the trio added. "The US fares somewhat better given its domestic energy production, but an equity market decline of nearly 20% weighs heavily on consumer spending."
Some US-based organizations have focused on the war's domestic economic impacts.
Dean Baker, a senior fellow at the Center for Economic Policy Research, published an analysis earlier this month asserting that "making enemies makes us poorer."
"Secretary of Defense (or War) Pete Hegseth seems to be having a really great time killing people in Iran, but his live action video games come at a big cost—not just in lives, but in budget dollars," Baker wrote. "To be clear, the main reason to oppose this pointless war is its impact on the people of Iran and elsewhere in the region. But it also has a huge economic cost that is seriously underappreciated."
"In addition to reducing our security and jeopardizing the well-being of people around the world, Donald Trump’s belligerence will cost us a huge amount of money," he said. Focusing on US military spending, Baker noted that "Trump wants the country to spend 5% of GDP, or $1.5 trillion a year, on the military. This comes to $12,000 per household."
Trump and his Republican Party are seeking to offset some of their record military spending with devastating cuts to social programs upon which tens of millions of Americans rely. Already reeling from the biggest cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program spending in those programs' histories, Trump’s budget request for fiscal year 2027 contains $73 billion in total reductions in nondefense spending.
"It is striking to see that Congress might be willing to quickly cough up this money," said Baker, referring to military funding, "when it has refused far smaller sums that could have made a huge difference in the lives of tens of millions of people."
As the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was advised not to investigate the bombings, Pentagon officials expressed support for strikes on land, ostensibly against drug traffickers.
The former president of a top international human rights watchdog views the United States' monthslong campaign of bombing boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean as a clear-cut case of "murder," he told The Intercept Monday, but he warned that pressure from the Trump administration may stop the body from investigating the Pentagon's actions.
Juan Méndez, a former president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, noted that a month after the IACHR held a hearing on the boat bombing campaign, officials "may well feel that this is a very delicate situation, and if they take the initiative, they’re going to incur the wrath of the United States."
The hearing last month was the first of its kind and included testimonies from the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, International Crisis Group, and Ben Saul, the United Nations special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights. The groups presented evidence that the US has been violating both domestic and international law by bombing vessels that it has claimed—without making any evidence publicly available—are involved in drug trafficking. Nearly 170 people have been killed in dozens of strikes, and legal experts worldwide have asserted the US is violating international law and has committed extrajudicial killings—potentially making those involved in the strikes liable for murder.
The hearing was followed by a statement from Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesperson, who said the IACHR had "strayed far outside its mandate” by looking into the boat attacks—as the family of one man killed in a bombing requested it to—and accused the ACLU of trying to manipulate the body.
"The United States calls on the commission to adhere to its statute and rules of procedure in the future and avoid inserting itself into matters that are in active domestic litigation and fall outside the human rights sphere," said Pigott. "Convening hearings under these circumstances risks undermining—not strengthening—the credibility of the inter-American human rights system."
Pigott also called on the commission to "redirect its focus toward the individual petitions languishing on its docket, sometimes for decades." He did not mention specific petitions or issues the IACHR should focus on.
Carl Anderson, a legal adviser at the State Department, also rebuked the commission for holding the proceedings.
"If the United States cuts the funding, they probably would have to shut down—at least for a while.”
A person with close ties to the IACHR told The Intercept that Pigott's demand that the commission focus on other topics pointed to a pressure campaign aimed at stoking fear that the IACHR could lose its funding.
President Donald Trump's zeroed out US contributions to the commission during his first term in 2018, and withdrew some funding the following year due to its support for abortion rights. The administration terminated funding last year for at least 22 programs under the IACHR's parent body, the Organization of American States, of which the US is the largest international funder.
“They are stretched for funding," Méndez told The Intercept. "And if the United States cuts the funding, they probably would have to shut down—at least for a while.”
Stuardo Ralón, the IACHR's current president, denied that there is "pressure from the United States on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights," but suggested it may not conduct a comprehensive investigation into the Trump administration's boat bombings—saying the body "does not conduct investigations."
The Intercept noted that the IACHR has conducted numerous investigations that it has publicly acknowledged and described as such, including into US immigration detention centers and the kidnapping and apparent killing of 43 students in Mexico in 2014.
Ralón told the outlet that it has not yet taken any steps to launch an investigation into the strikes following the hearing, and said it "will continue to monitor the situation in accordance with its mandate."
Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s human rights program, emphasized that "the commission is within its competency and its bounds to fully investigate the egregious violations of international law happening in its own backyard.”
“We have asked the commission to fulfill its responsibilities as the premier regional human rights body to conduct a fact-finding investigation of these heinous killings," Dakwar told The Intercept, "and to ensure that no country can act in this fashion because that will have severe implications on human rights in the region and beyond."
As the State Department has pushed the IACHR away from probing the legality of the boat bombings, administration officials like Joseph Humire, acting assistant secretary of war for homeland defense and Americas security affairs, have warned that the attacks at sea are "just the beginning" of what officials claim is an effort to defeat drug cartels—against which Congress has not authorized any military action.
US Southern Command announced a joint ground operation with Ecuador last month to defeat "narco-terrorists."
Humire said the Pentagon supports "joint land strikes," while Gen. Francis Donovan, the head of US Southern Command who has been directing the boat attacks, told the Senate Armed Service Committee that the Pentagon is moving toward "a counter-cartel campaign process that puts total systemic friction across this network."
"I believe," he said, "these kinetic [boat] strikes are just one small part of that.”