

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"This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless," said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.
President Donald Trump's Agriculture Department on Saturday threatened to penalize states that don't "immediately undo" steps taken to pay out full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November following a Supreme Court order that temporarily allowed the administration to withhold billions of dollars of aid.
In a memo, the US Department of Agriculture warned that "failure to comply" with the administration's directive "may result in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the federal share of state administrative costs and holding states liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that it appears the Trump administration is "demanding that food assistance be taken away from the households that have already received it."
"They would rather go door to door, taking away people's food, than do the right thing and fully fund SNAP for November so that struggling veterans, seniors, and children can keep food on the table," said Craig.
The USDA memo came after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that had required the Trump administration to distribute SNAP funds in full amid the ongoing government shutdown. SNAP is funded by the federal government and administered by states.
The administration took steps to comply with the district court order while also appealing it, sparking widespread confusion. Some states, including Massachusetts and California, moved quickly to distribute full benefits late last week. Some reported waking up Friday with full benefits in their accounts.
"In the dead of night, the Trump administration ordered states to stop issuing SNAP benefits," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in response to the Saturday USDA memo. "This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless."
Under the Trump administration's plan to only partially fund SNAP benefits for November, the average recipient will see a 61% cut to aid and millions will see their benefits reduced to zero, according to one analysis.
Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, stressed in a statement that "the Trump administration all along has had both the power and the authority to ensure that SNAP benefits continued uninterrupted, but chose not to act and to actively fight against providing this essential support."
"Meanwhile, millions of Americans already struggling to make ends meet have been left scrambling to feed their families," said FitzSimons. "Families and states are experiencing undue stress and anxiety with confusing messages coming from the administration. The Trump administration’s decision to continue to fight against providing SNAP benefits furthers the unprecedented humanitarian crisis driven by the loss of the nation’s most important and effective anti-hunger program."
"Trump said he’d leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.
Congressional Republicans are reportedly trying to insert anti-abortion language into government funding legislation as the shutdown continues, with the GOP and President Donald Trump digging in against a clean extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as insurance premiums surge.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, sounded the alarm on Saturday about what he characterized as the latest Republican sneak attack on reproductive rights.
"Republicans said they might vote to lower Americans’ healthcare costs, but only if we agree to include a backdoor national abortion ban," Wyden said in remarks on the Senate floor.
The senator was referring to a reported GOP demand that any extension of ACA subsidies must include language that bars the tax credits from being used to purchase plans that cover abortion care.
But as the health policy organization KFF has noted, the ACA already has "specific language that applies Hyde Amendment restrictions to the use of premium tax credits, limiting them to using federal funds to pay for abortions only in cases that endanger the life of the woman or that are a result of rape or incest."
"The ACA also explicitly allows states to bar all plans participating in the state marketplace from covering abortions, which 25 states have done since the ACA was signed into law in 2010," according to KFF.
Wyden said Saturday—which marked day 39 of the shutdown—that "Republicans are spinning a tale that the government is funding abortion."
"It's not," Wyden continued. "What Republicans are talking about putting on the table amounts to nothing short of a backdoor national abortion ban. Under this plan, Republicans could weaponize federal funding for any organization that does anything related to women’s reproductive healthcare. They could also weaponize the tax code by revoking non-profit status for these organizations."
"The possibilities are endless, but the results are the same: a complete and total restriction on abortion, courtesy of Republicans," the senator added. "Trump said he'd leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along."
The GOP effort to attach anti-abortion provisions to government funding legislation adds yet another hurdle in negotiations to end the shutdown, which the Trump administration has used to throttle federal nutrition assistance and accelerate its purge of the federal workforce.
Trump is also pushing a proposal that would differently distribute federal funds that would have otherwise gone toward the enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
"It sounds like it could be a plan for health accounts that could be used for insurance that doesn’t cover preexisting conditions, which could create a death spiral in ACA plans that do," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy.
US Sen. Chris Murphy said Saturday that the GOP's rejection of Democrats' compromise proposal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits for a year in exchange for reopening the federal government shows that the Republican Party is "absolutely committed to raising your costs."
" Republicans are refusing to negotiate," Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a video posted to social media, arguing that President Donald Trump and the GOP's continued stonewalling is "further confirmation" that Republicans are uninterested in preventing disastrous premium increases.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," the senator added.
An update on the shutdown.
Senate Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate. House Republicans refuse to even show up to DC.
Democrats just made a new reasonable compromise offer. And if Republicans reject it, it's proof of how determined they are to raise health premiums. pic.twitter.com/JUBPMMXKC7
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 8, 2025
More than 20 million Americans who purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplace receive enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't act. So far, the Republican leadership in the Senate has only offered to hold a vote on the ACA subsidies, with no guarantee of the outcome, in exchange for Democratic votes to reopen the government.
People across the country are already seeing their premiums surge, and if the subsidies are allowed to lapse, costs are expected to rise further and millions will likely go uninsured.
“Clearly, the GOP didn’t learn their lesson after the shellacking they got in Tuesday’s elections,” said Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse. “They would rather keep the government shut down, depriving Americans of their paychecks and food assistance, than let working families keep the healthcare tax credits they need to afford lifesaving coverage. Good luck explaining that to the American people."
In a post to his social media platform on Saturday, Trump made clear that he remains opposed to extending the ACA tax credits, calling on Republicans to instead send money that would have been used for the subsidies "directly to the people so that they can purchase their own, much better healthcare."
Trump provided no details on how such a plan would work. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who was at the center of the largest healthcare fraud case in US history, declared that he is "writing the bill now," suggesting that the funds would go to "HSA-style accounts."
Democrats immediately panned the idea.
"This is, unsurprisingly, nonsensical," said Murphy. "Is he suggesting eliminating health insurance and giving people a few thousand dollars instead? And then when they get a cancer diagnosis they just go bankrupt? He is so unserious. That's why we are shut down and Americans know it."
Polling data released Thursday by the health policy group KFF showed that nearly three-quarters of the US public wants Congress to extend the ACA subsidies
"More than half (55%) of those who purchase their own health insurance say Democrats should refuse to approve a budget that does not include an extension for ACA subsidies," KFF found. "Notably, past KFF polls have shown that nearly half of adults enrolled in ACA marketplace plans identify as Republican or lean Republican."