

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.
Shelley Vinyard, Environment America (202) 461-2465
Liz Judge, Earthjustice, (202) 797-5237
Jan Goldman-Carter, National Wildlife Federation, (202) 797-6894
Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action, (202) 895-0420 x. 109
Suzanne Struglinski, Natural Resources Defense Council, (202) 289-2387
Trey Pollard, Sierra Club, (202) 495-3058
Amy Kober, American Rivers, (503) 708-1145
Lea Brumfield, League of Conservation Voters, (202) 454-4559
Jay Campbell, Hart Research Associates, (202) 234-5570
A new poll [PDF] commissioned by the nation's leading environmentalists and sportsmen organizations in key Great Lakes and Rocky Mountain states shows that the public overwhelmingly supports an Obama administration proposal to restore protections for America's rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
A new poll [PDF] commissioned by the nation's leading environmentalists and sportsmen organizations in key Great Lakes and Rocky Mountain states shows that the public overwhelmingly supports an Obama administration proposal to restore protections for America's rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
The poll confirms that - across party lines and in all age groups - voters demand clean water for safe drinking water and oppose the pollution of places where their families fish and swim. This poll comes at a time when the Obama administration is set to finalize its Clean Water Act guidance, yet the House majority is preparing to ignore the will of the public and instead continue dirty water politics.
Three-quarters (75%) of the likely voters surveyed in Ohio and nearly seven in ten
(67%) Colorado respondents support the President's proposal to restore clean water safeguards, with support strong across political affiliations.
The poll was released as the U.S. House of Representatives is poised to vote on the House Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 5325) next week. The bill includes a provision to block the President from restoring critical clean water protections. However, the poll's findings indicate that blocking those protections could be a political dead end for many in Congress. Two-thirds of Ohioans and Coloradoans (66%) say they would feel more favorable toward their Representative if he or she supported the restoration of clean water protections, including more than 60% of independents in both states.
"The voters' message is clear: we want our water to be clean and safe and we support restoring Clean Water Act protections to achieve this," said Jay Campbell, Vice President for Hart Research Associates. "Their support is extraordinary in both its depth and its breadth. Given the contentiousness we see on nearly every issue, when you have an idea that large majorities of Republicans, independents, and Democrats all agree on you know you have something that is both good policy and good politics."
The poll was conducted in urban, suburban, and rural areas in Colorado and Ohio. Major findings of the poll include:
(The full summary of the poll's findings can be found here [PDF].)
"From fishing in the Great Lakes to kayaking on the Colorado River, this poll is further proof that protecting our waterways is enormously popular and important," said Margie Alt, Executive Director of Environment America. "Unfortunately many of the waterways we love and cherish still are inadequately protected. It's time for President Obama to stand up for our waterways and finalize these critical protections."
"We have no time to waste if we hope to protect our valuable streams and wetlands and the billions of dollars in economic activity that hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation around our nation's waterways generate every year," said National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger.
"Rivers and streams supply most of our drinking water. Their protection is vital to the health of our families and communities," said Wm. Robert Irvin, President of American Rivers. "It is time for Congress and the administration to restore clean water protections that benefit our public health, economy, wildlife, and recreation. If we want healthy communities, we need healthy rivers."
"These findings make one thing clear: The American people expect our elected leaders to protect our rivers, streams, and drinking water - and they'll remember who took their side on this issue," said Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. "It's time Congress listened, stopped the obstructions, and acted quickly to restore these critical protections that keep our waterways and our families healthy."
"It is no surprise that Americans overwhelmingly support protecting our nation's waterways," said the League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski. "It is past time that our elected officials act to protect the network of rivers and streams that provide safe drinking water to millions and safe areas for fishing and swimming."
"The streams and wetlands at issue here are vital parts of our nation's water infrastructure because they filter pollution, prevent floods and affect the drinking water of over 117 million Americans. Clarifying protection for these vulnerable water bodies is an important step forward," said Clean Water Action President Robert Wendelgass.
"Preventing pollution of the nation's waters will better protect Americans' health," said Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC. "People want safe places to swim and fish. They want reliable drinking water supplies and natural barriers against flooding. This poll shows that they expect leaders in Washington to support policies that safeguard our waters. That's true in Colorado and Ohio, and it's true all across our country."
"Our waters are where our families swim, fish, and where we get our drinking water, so it's no surprise that this poll shows that Americans are overwhelmingly demanding strong clean water protections," said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel of Earthjustice. "For the American people, unlike our Congress, politics vanish when it comes to protecting their communities' waterways, because Americans want safe, swimmable, fishable, drinkable waters for themselves and their families."
The findings of this poll echo the immense public support these protections have consistently enjoyed across the country, from more than 200,000 concerned citizens, more than 450 elected officials, hundreds of sportsmen organizations, more than 140 local farmers, dozens of recreational businesses, and many more.
The poll was commissioned by American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Clean Water Network, Earthjustice, Environment America, the Izaak Walton League of America, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Waterkeeper Alliance.
American Rivers is the only national organization standing up for healthy rivers so our communities can thrive. Through national advocacy, innovative solutions and our growing network of strategic partners, we protect and promote our rivers as valuable assets that are vital to our health, safety and quality of life. Founded in 1973, American Rivers has more than 65,000 members and supporters nationwide, with offices in Washington, DC and the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, California and Northwest regions.
The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."