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.

Arizona's Havasupai Tribe and conservation groups filed legal papers on Monday to defend the U.S. Department of the Interior's 20-year ban on new uranium mining claims across 1 million acres of public lands adjacent to the Grand Canyon.
The Havasupai Tribe, Grand Canyon Trust, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club and National Parks Conservation Association filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit filed last November in U.S. district court in Arizona by uranium prospector Gregory Yount. The motion seeks to defend Interior's decision to protect the Grand Canyon's springs and creeks, wildlife and vistas from new uranium-mining pollution; the interveners are represented by public-interest law firms Earthjustice and Western Mining Action Project.
"The Havasupai Tribal Council and the Havasupai people strongly support the Department of the Interior's January 2012 decision to withdraw 1 million acres of public lands from new mining claims," said Matthew Putesoy, Sr., Havasupai tribal vice chairman. "The Havasupai Tribe has long opposed mining on our aboriginal lands because of the threat uranium mining poses to our traditional uses, practices, sacred places, and to the plants, wildlife, air and water."
Ted Zukoski, Earthjustice staff attorney who is representing the groups in the lawsuit, said: "The lands surrounding the Grand Canyon are full of natural beauty. The life-giving waters and deer, elk, condors, and other wildlife found there deserve protection from the toxic pollution and industrialization threatened by large-scale uranium mining. We intend to defend these lands from this ill-considered attack by the uranium industry."
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued the 20-year ban in January; it prohibits new mining claims and mine development on existing claims without valid permits. Mr. Yount's lawsuit alleges that the Interior Department's exhaustive, 700-page evaluation of environmental impacts was inadequate.
In the past month, two similar suits were filed by mining and uranium-industry trade associations. The groups filing Monday plan to intervene in those cases also.
"The Grand Canyon is an icon across the globe, a biodiversity hotspot and the economic engine for a whole region," said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Interior's decision to protect it from toxic uranium-mining pollution was undeniably the right one, and we'll vigorously defend it."
Uranium pollution already plagues the Grand Canyon and surrounding area. Proposals for new mining have prompted protests, litigation and proposed legislation. Because dozens of new mines threaten to industrialize iconic and sacred natural areas, destroy wildlife habitat and pollute or deplete aquifers, scientists, tribal and local governments and businesses have all voiced support for the new protections enacted by Interior.
"We are pleased the Obama administration took the action necessary to protect Grand Canyon National Park, as are the many visitors, businesses and organizations, local governments and Native American tribes who care about the park and the surrounding public lands," said Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter director. "The Sierra Club is proud of its 100-plus year history of acting to protect the Grand Canyon, and we will continue this work by doing all we can to ensure that uranium mines are not allowed to contaminate the groundwater and threaten streams and drinking water."
One of the great symbols of the American West, the Grand Canyon was first protected as a national monument by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908, and is surrounded by millions of additional acres of public lands that include wilderness areas, two national monuments, lands designated to protect endangered species and cultural resources, and ponderosa pine forests. The canyon area is also home to the Havasupai, Kaibab Band of Paiutes, Hualapai and Navajo tribes. The greater Grand Canyon region attracts about 5 million tourists and recreationists per year. The Grand Canyon has been designated a "World Heritage" site.
"Tourism, not mining, is the mainstay of the region's economy," said David Nimkin, Southwest regional director of National Parks and Conservation Association. "Millions enjoy the Grand Canyon each year and power the economic engine for much of the Southwest's tourist industry. The last thing visitors want to find when visiting the Grand Canyon is industrial development and uranium mines."
Interior's study of the mining timeout was released in October 2011. It showed that without a withdrawal in place, 26 new uranium mines and 700 uranium exploration projects would be developed, resulting in more than 1,300 acres of surface disturbance and the consumption of 316 million gallons of water. Under the ban, existing mining continues, but present mine operations are projected to have about one-tenth of the surface impacts and one-third the water usage of a no-withdrawal alternative over a 20-year period. With new uranium mining, the increased potential for depletion and contamination of aquifers could pollute springs and seeps, resulting in uranium levels twice as high as EPA drinking standards, endangering public health and wildlife, and compromising the values of the tribes who consider the springs sacred.
Water utilities in Arizona, California and Nevada have expressed serious concerns about possible contamination of the Colorado River if uranium mining is permitted around the Grand Canyon and the potential devastating effect it could have on the 25 million people in their states that rely on water from the Colorado River for drinking and agriculture.
"Uranium mining imposes well-documented and unacceptable risks to the people and natural resources of our region," said Grand Canyon Trust program director Roger Clark. "The lawsuit demonstrates how little industry cares -- in the face of thorough impact studies, and massive local, tribal, economic and public sentiment against new mining -- about the many negative consequences associated with rampant industrialization of Grand Canyon's watersheds."
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"Trump doesn't need Israel's permission to end this war," said one observer. "The longer he waits, the more Americans pay."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that "there has to be a ground component" to the war on Iran as a new survey of US voters showed just 7% support for a large-scale invasion involving American forces.
"It is often said that you can't win, you can't do revolutions from the air. That is true," Netanyahu told reporters during a press conference in Jerusalem. "You can do a lot of things from the air... but there has to be a ground component, as well. There are many possibilities for this ground component. And I take the liberty of not sharing with you all of those possibilities."
Netanyahu's insistence on the necessity of ground operations in Iran came as US President Donald Trump declared to reporters in the White House on Thursday, "I'm not putting troops anywhere."
"If I were," he added, "I certainly wouldn't tell you."
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday found that just 7% of US voters support the idea of a large-scale ground invasion of Iran—but 65% of Americans believe that Trump will order such an operation anyway.
Just 34% of US voters would support "deploying a small number of special forces troops" to Iran, the survey found, while 55% said they would oppose the use of any ground troops.
The survey came days after Reuters reported that the Trump administration is "considering deploying thousands of US troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the US military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran."
The Pentagon's push for $200 billion in supplemental funding from the US Congress, which did not authorize the Iran war, amplified concerns that the Trump administration is gearing up for a prolonged conflict that could involve American troops on the ground, despite Trump's repeated public insistence that the war will be over "very soon."
Both US and Israeli intelligence agencies have reportedly assessed that Iran's regime is not on the verge of collapse after nearly three weeks of relentless bombing.
"Western officials and analysts who study Iran said they see little near-term prospect of a 'regime change' end to the 47-year-old Islamic republic or the rise of a more democratic government," The Washington Post reported earlier this week. "The latter is a goal cited by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and sometimes by President Donald Trump, who has said he’ll know the war is over 'when I feel it in my bones.'"
Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at the pro-democracy group DAWN, said Thursday that "the United States and Israel are not fighting the same war," pointing to recent Israeli strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure. The strikes drew a public rebuke from Trump, who is facing soaring gas prices at home due to the illegal war he launched in partnership with Netanyahu.
"Trump wants a quick exit. Netanyahu wants to permanently destroy Iran as a regional power," said Shakir. "There is an exit. Trump doesn't need Israel's permission to end this war. He's done it before in Yemen. The longer he waits, the more Americans pay."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned Thursday that Trump may be running out of time to "convincingly declare victory and provide himself a face-saving exit."
"Israel will do all it can to sabotage any such off-ramp, including killing Iranian's negotiators," Parsi wrote. "But it will become increasingly clear—if it hasn't already—to Trump that all his escalatory options only deepen the lose-lose situation he has put himself in."
"That's why Trump should never have listened to Netanyahu in the first place," he added.
"People can't afford childcare," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that it is absurd for the Trump administration to demand another $200 billion from Congress for an illegal war on Iran after lawmakers already approved $1 trillion in military spending for the year—and while millions of people across the nation are struggling to afford basic necessities.
"You got people all over this country, 20% of households, spending 50% of their income on housing," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an appearance on MS NOW. "People can't afford healthcare. People can't afford childcare. And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
The senator's remarks came as President Donald Trump, who has not yet formally requested the funds from Congress, suggested another $200 billion would be a "small price to pay" as the US-Israeli war on Iran heads toward its fourth week with no end in sight.
"I think the Trump people are in a bit of panic," Sanders said Thursday. "They're losing ground. Gas prices are soaring. There is massive discontent against this war. It's got to end, and we've got to make sure that Trump is neutered in 2026."
With the Trump administration considering a plan to deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East amid widespread fears of a ground invasion of Iran—which would explode the price tag of an already costly war—the National Priorities Project (NPP) released an analysis highlighting where the $200 billion requested by the Pentagon could be better spent.
The group estimated that $200 billion would be enough for all of the following this year:
"Pete Hegseth would rather the US bomb Iranian families than feed American families," wrote NPP's Lindsay Koshgarian, referring to the Pentagon secretary. "We should remember the lies that led us into war in Iraq a generation ago. That war ultimately cost nearly $3 trillion. We must not go down that path again. Our tax dollars should be helping struggling Americans, not feeding new forever wars."
One advocacy group leader highlighted that "$200 billion is enough to materially change the lives of Americans," from establishing universal pre-K education to building over 100,000 housing units.
As US President Donald Trump on Thursday confirmed reporting that he's seeking $200 billion more from Congress to continue waging his unpopular war of choice on Iran, Rep. Ilhan Omar was among those forcefully pushing back.
"We're told there's no money for universal healthcare or to end hunger in this country. But somehow $200 billion more for war will likely move through Congress without question," said the progressive Minnesota Democrat, who fled civil war in Somalia as a child. "Not another penny for another endless war."
Since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started bombing Iran late last month—creating a spiraling crisis that has now killed and injured thousands of people across the Middle East, plus damaged civilian infrastructure in multiple countries—anti-war lawmakers and organizations have delivered similar messages.
"While they kick 17 million Americans off their healthcare, Republicans want to spend billions on Trump's reckless war of choice," Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in early March. "Hell no."
Last week, shortly after Pentagon officials told Congress that just the first six days cost Americans more than $11.3 billion, over 250 groups collectively told lawmakers on Capitol Hill to "vote against any additional funding for Trump's unconstitutional war."
At the time, the reported figure was a quarter of what it is now: $50 billion. The coalition noted that the funding "would be enough to restore food assistance for 4 million Americans that was taken away in the tax and budget reconciliation bill, establish universal pre-K education, and pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing, among other possible priorities."
After Trump confirmed that he wants four times more than expected, one coalition member, the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, took to social media to highlight other ways the money could be spent to improve the lives of working Americans, from school meals and paid leave to funding all levels of education.
Another coalition member, Public Citizen, released a Thursday statement in which co-president Robert Weissman ripped Trump's spending request as "grotesque beyond words."
According to Weissman:
It should properly be understood not just as a request to replenish supplies, but to expand, escalate, and perpetuate the illegal, unconstitutional, unpopular and devastating war on Iran. Congress should understand that approving any portion of this funding opens the gates for one, two, and potentially many more war funding requests in the future.
How dare the administration propose this gargantuan sum to expand an illegal war of choice at the same time it has rammed through deep cuts in healthcare and food assistance, refuses to spend foreign assistance at a cost of millions of lives, and has cut spending on protecting clean air, maintaining our national parks, investing in health research, protecting consumers from fraud, and so much more.
$200 billion is enough to materially change the lives of Americans and truly make our country stronger. It would be enough to restore food assistance to the 4 million Americans and Medicaid to the 15 million Americans who will lose those crucial supports under the Republican reconciliation bill; establish universal pre-K education; pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing; double the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency; and expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing.
Weissman argued that "every member of Congress should announce, right now, that they will reject this monstrous war funding proposal, before it is formalized."
Despite rising casualties across the Middle East and polls showing that the US assault on Iran is unpopular, even with Trump voters, a few Democrats voted with nearly all Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives earlier this month to reject war powers resolutions intended to end Trump's Operation Epic Fury. The upper chamber blocked a similar effort late Wednesday.