

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.

Rebecca Noblin, (907) 274-1110
The Center for Biological Diversity formally notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today of its intent to sue the agency for failing to protect the Pacific walrus under the Endangered Species Act, despite finding that the walrus is threatened with extinction because of climate change. On Feb. 8, the Service designated the Pacific walrus as a "candidate" species under the Endangered Species Act, which means the walrus could wait indefinitely for protection.
"The Obama administration has acknowledged that climate change threatens the survival of the Pacific walrus but it's chosen not to step in to stop their extinction," said the Center's Alaska director Rebecca Noblin. "It's like the captain of the Titanic saying he knows the ship is about to hit an iceberg, but he's too busy filling out the paperwork to turn the wheel."
The gregarious Pacific walrus lives in the Arctic waters off Alaska and is dependent on sea ice for giving birth, nursing young and resting. Female walruses and calves follow the sea ice year-round. While the female dives to the bottom of the shallow continental shelf to feed on clams, the calf rests on the sea ice, safe from predators. In recent years, summer sea ice has disappeared from the walrus's shallow foraging grounds, leaving females and calves with no ice floes for resting and forcing them to come ashore. Walruses have congregated by the thousands on Alaskan and Russian shores during three of the past four summers. Once on land, calves are vulnerable to being killed by predators or trampled to death in stampedes. Several thousand young walruses were killed in stampedes in Russia in 2007, and 133 young walruses perished in an Alaska stampede in 2009.
The Pacific walrus also faces threats from offshore oil drilling in its Arctic home. The Obama administration recently proposed regulations that would allow the oil industry to harm and harass Pacific walrus in the course of exploration and drilling activities in Alaska's Beaufort Sea over the next five years. Shell Oil is proposing to drill multiple exploratory wells in walrus habitat off of Alaska in 2012 and 2013. The everyday operations of the oil industry hurt walrus by creating excessive noise and other disturbance. Worse, an oil spill in the Arctic could have dire consequences for walrus, and there exists no technology for cleaning oil in icy Arctic waters.
"The time to act to save Pacific walrus is now," said Noblin. "The greenhouse gases we emit today will stay in the atmosphere for centuries. If we're to have any hope of saving the Pacific walrus, we must rapidly reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to below 350 ppm. Not only the Pacific walrus, but an entire Arctic ecosystem hangs in the balance."
The Service's "warranted but precluded" decision places the walrus on a waiting list for protection -- a list that has been described as a "black hole" for imperiled species. There are currently more than 250 species on that list, including many that have been languishing for two decades or more. At least 24 species have gone extinct while they were on the "candidate" list. The Act allows the Service to make a "warranted but precluded" finding only in a specific circumstance: if a lack of resources prevents it from assembling the information needed to support a listing proposal and if it is also making "expeditious progress" in listing more imperiled species. Neither condition is met here.
The Center submitted a scientific petition to list the Pacific walrus under the Endangered Species Act in February 2008 and sued to obtain the court deadline for a listing decision after the Service illegally delayed responding to the petition. Listing the walrus would not affect subsistence harvest by Alaska natives, which is generally exempted from the law's prohibitions.
The federal government has acknowledged that several other Arctic species are threatened with extinction due to climate change. As a result of Center petitions, the polar bear was protected as a threatened species in 2008, and two Arctic ice seals -- the ringed and bearded seals -- were proposed as threatened species in 2010.
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"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
The killing of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis this week came as Republicans in Congress were planning to bring a homeland security spending bill to the House floor, deciding on whether the agency that's surged thousands of armed agents into communities across the country should have increased funding—and progressive lawmakers are demanding that the Democrats use the upcoming government funding deadline to hopefully reduce the department's ability to wreak further havoc.
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told CNN Thursday. "I know we can’t fix everything in the appropriations bill but we should be looking at ways we can put some commonsense limitations on their ability to bring violence to our cities."
But the top Democratic leaders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) both appeared to have little interest in discussing how their party can use the appropriations process as leverage to rein in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that have taken part in President Donald Trump's mass deportation operation.
Both Schumer and Jeffries sharply criticized Wednesday's shooting and the Trump administration's insistence that, contrary to mounting video evidence, the ICE agent who shot Good was acting in self-defense.
But Jeffries said Thursday that he was focused on passing other appropriations bills that were ultimately approved by the House.
“We’ll figure out the accountability mechanisms at the appropriate time," Jeffries told reporters.
With Congress facing a January 30 deadline for approving government spending packages—and with public disapproval of ICE at an all-time high—several lawmakers have said this week that right now is the "appropriate time" to rein in the agency in any way the Democrats can.
"Statements and letters are not enough, and the appropriations process and the [continuing resolution] expiring January 31 is our opportunity," Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios.
Schumer also refused to say whether the Democrats would use the appropriations process as leverage to cut funding to ICE, whose budget is set to balloon to $170 billion following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year. Republicans will need Democratic support to pass a spending bill in the Senate, where 60 votes are required.
The Senate leader said only that he has "lots of problems with ICE" when asked whether he would support abolishing the agency—a proposal whose support has gone by 20 percentage points among voters in just one year, according to a recent survey. Both leaders also would not commit to slashing the homeland security budget should the Democrats win back majorities in Congress this year.
"It’s hard to be an opposition party when you refuse to oppose the blatantly illegal and immoral things being done by the opposition," said Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health.
Sharing a clip of Jeffries' remarks to reporters about the agency's funding, historian Moshik Temkin said that "people need to understand that at its core ICE is a bipartisan project, increasingly funded and normalized over multiple Democratic administrations and congressional majorities, and a few of them (not this guy) are starting to realize how foolish, weak, and misguided they were."
Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are among the progressive lawmakers calling on the Democrats to demand reduced funding for ICE—even if it means another government shutdown months after the longest one in US history late last year, which began when the Democrats refused to join the GOP in passing a spending bill that would have allowed Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire. Ultimately, some Senate Democrats caved, and the subsidies lapsed.
"We can't just keep authorizing money for these illegal killers," Jayapal told Axios. "That's what they are, this rogue force."
Ocasio-Cortez told the Independent that Democrats should "absolutely" push to cut funding.
“This Congress, this Republican Congress, while they cut a trillion dollars to Americans’ healthcare, and they exploded the ICE budget to $170 billion making it one of the largest paramilitary forces in the United States with zero accountability as they shoot US citizens in the head—absolutely,” she said.
On the podcast The Majority Report, Emma Vigeland and Sam Seder called on progressive Democrats to demand Schumer's ouster in light of his refusal to take action to rein in ICE as its violence in American communities escalates.
It's time for Democrats to oust Chuck Schumer from leadership pic.twitter.com/ByWMJ495zb
— Majority Report (@majorityfm) January 9, 2026
"Change the news cycle and show that you'll be an opposition party," said Vigeland. "Call for his ouster."
Seder added that Schumer "has the ability to wage a fight to prevent the funding of DHS. He has the ability to do that and he doesn't want it. He's running away from any leverage he has, deliberately."
One expert asserted that the House vote to subpoena Seth Harp "is clearly designed to chill and intimidate" journalists from reporting on government policies and practices.
Free press defenders voiced alarm and outrage following Wednesday's vote by a congressional committee to subpoena a journalist wrongly accused of "leaking classified intel" and "doxing" a US special forces commander involved in President Donald Trump's invasion of Venezuela and abduction of the South American nation's president and his wife.
Seth Harp is an investigative journalist, New York Times bestselling author, and Iraq war veteran whose work focuses on links between the US military and organized crime. On January 4—the day after the US bombed and invaded Venezuela and kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—Harp posted on X the name and photo of a commander in Delta Force, which played a key role in the attack.
Experts noted that Harp did not break any laws, with Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern pointing out that "reporters have a constitutional right to publish even classified leaks as long as they don’t commit crimes to obtain them."
“Harp merely published information that was publicly available about someone at the center of the world’s biggest news story," he added.
However, the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday approved in a voice vote a motion introduced the previous day by Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) to subpoena Harper. Democrats on the committee backed the measure after Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) added an amendment to also subpoena co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, according to the Washington Post.
Responding to the committee vote, Harp told the Post:
The idea of a reporter "leaking classified intel" is a contradiction in terms. The First Amendment and ironclad Supreme Court precedent permit journalists to publish classified documents. We don’t work for the government and it’s our job to expose secrets, not protect them for the convenience of high-ranking officials. It’s not “doxing" to point out which high-ranking military officials are involved in breaking news events. That’s information that the public has a right to know.
Harp also took to social media to underscore that he's not the only journalist being targeted with dubious "doxing" claims.
The House lawmakers' vote drew widespread condemnation from press freedom advocates.
“Luna’s subpoena of investigative reporter Seth Harp is clearly designed to chill and intimidate a journalist doing some of the most significant investigative reporting on US special forces," Defending Rights & Dissent policy director Chip Gibbons said in a statement.
"Harp did not share classified information about the US regime change operation in Venezuela. And even if he had, his actions would firmly be protected by the First Amendment," Gibbons added. "This is a dangerous assault on the press freedom, as well as the US people’s right to know. It is shameful it passed the committee.”
PEN America Journalism and Disinformation program director Tim Richardson said Thursday that “any attempt to haul an investigative reporter before Congress for doing their job reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a free press."
"Seth Harp is an independent journalist, not a government official, and therefore cannot be accused of ‘leaking’ classified information in the way those entrusted with such material can," Richardson added. "The information at issue was publicly available, not secret or unlawfully obtained."
In a bid to protect reporters and their sources, House lawmakers in 2024 unanimously passed the PRESS Act, legislation prohibiting the federal government from compelling journalists and telecommunications companies to disclose certain information, with exceptions for imminent violence or terrorism. However, under pressure from Trump, the Senate declined to vote on the proposal.
"The bill died after Trump ordered the Senate to kill it on Truth Social," said Stern. "Apparently, so did the principles of Reps. Luna, Garcia, and their colleagues.”
The US has purloined over $300 million of oil in a month while enforcing a blockade, which UN experts say has "seriously undermined the human rights of the Venezuelan people."
As President Donald Trump geared up for a meeting with fossil fuel executives about plans for them to tap into the "tremendous wealth" of Venezuela's vast oil supply, the US military seized another oil tanker in the Caribbean off the coast of Trinidad on Friday morning.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted unclassified footage from US Southern Command of explosives being deployed and soldiers boarding the vessel Olina on social media.
"As another 'ghost fleet' tanker ship suspected of carrying embargoed oil, this vessel had departed Venezuela attempting to evade US forces," she said. "This is owning the sea."
Olina, which was reportedly carrying around 700,000 barrels of crude, is at least the fifth tanker seized by the military in recent weeks and the third in the last three days after the Trump administration imposed a blockade on sanctioned oil tankers leaving Venezuela in December, a move that has been credited with hastening the country's economic collapse.
Earlier this week, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the US plans to manage Venezuela's oil sales and revenues indefinitely following its illegal operation last weekend to topple and abduct President Nicolás Maduro.
According to the ship-tracking database TankerTrackers.com, the US has “seized five tankers and 6.15 million barrels in the span of a month, with the oil valued at over $300 million."
The US has described Olina and other ships it has seized as part of a "shadow fleet" that uses deceptive tactics—including flying false flags—to secretively transport oil for sanctioned countries, including Venezuela, Russia, and Iran.
The US has justified its blockade of Venezuela's oil, as well as the overthrow of Maduro generally, based on the claim that its government is part of an alleged foreign terrorist organization known as the "Cartel de los Soles."
In late December, a group of United Nations experts condemned the blockade and denounced this justification, stating that the alleged cartel does not exist. The US Department of Justice later acknowledged that the cartel was not an actual organization in its indictment of Maduro this week. Maduro has pleaded not guilty to US narco-terrorism charges.
The group of international experts, which included Ben Saul, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, and Gina Romero, the special rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly, described the blockade as "violating fundamental rules of international law."
“There is no right to enforce unilateral sanctions through an armed blockade,” the experts said, citing the United Nations Charter, which describes blockades without UN Security Council approval as illegal acts of aggression.
They added that “there are serious concerns that the sanctions are unlawful, disproportionate, and punitive under international law, and that they have seriously undermined the human rights of the Venezuelan people."