

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.
Jenny Harbine, Earthjustice, (406) 586-9699, jharbine@earthjustice.org
A coalition of conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, served notice today that it will file a court challenge to the federal government's removal of Endangered Species Act protections for Wyoming wolves. Today's 60-day notice comes on the heels of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to turn over wolf management in Wyoming to state officials -- despite the fact that the state's wolf-management policies open the door to unlimited wolf killing throughout most of the state and provide inadequate protection for wolves even where killing is regulated.
"Wyoming's wolf-management plan is poor policy, weak in its protection of wolves, and is based on flimsy science," said Franz Camenzind, a retired Ph.D. wildlife biologist who lives in the Jackson Hole area. "Wyoming's plan sets a very disturbing precedent for other states by abdicating management responsibility of a native wildlife species over nearly 90 percent of the state."
The conservation groups that plan to challenge the federal government's abandonment of wolf protection in Wyoming offered the following statements on today's action:
"Wyoming's anti-wolf policies take the state backward, to the days when wolf massacres nearly wiped out wolves in the lower 48 states. Our nation rejected such predator-extermination efforts when we adopted the Endangered Species Act," said Earthjustice attorney Jenny Harbine. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has turned its back on Wyoming wolves, but we intend to ask the federal courts to make sure that wolves on the border of Yellowstone -- our nation's first national park -- have the protections they need to thrive."
"We will not stand by while the Obama administration allows Wyoming to eradicate wolves through an extreme shoot-on-sight predator policy across most of the state," said Mike Senatore, vice president of conservation law for Defenders of Wildlife. "It's extremely disheartening to watch the Obama administration unravel one of our country's great Endangered Species Act success stories by turning over the conservation of wolves to states such as Wyoming and Idaho that treat these animals like unwanted vermin."
"Removal of Endangered Species Act protections for Wyoming's wolves is a disaster for the state's wolf population and for recovery of wolves to Colorado and other parts of the West," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Like past versions of Wyoming's wolf plan that were rejected by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the current plan fails to ensure the long-term survival and recovery of the state's gray wolves. Today's decision to remove protections for Wyoming's wolves fails to rely on best science and represents the worst kind of political intrusion by Secretary Salazar into management of an endangered species."
"This plan allows Wyoming to manage wolves at the razor's edge of an already low number of wolves," said Sylvia Fallon, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It fails to adequately regulate the kill-on-sight practices that drove wolves to endangerment in the first place. And it stands as yet another lost opportunity on the part of Fish and Wildlife Service to provide the leadership necessary to secure a legally and scientifically defensible delisting plan for wolves."
"Wyoming's plan is a wolf-killing plan, not a management plan. It is essentially the same plan that has been rejected before because of the devastating impacts it would have on wolves in Wyoming and throughout the northern Rockies. Allowing it to move forward now for political reasons could reverse one of the greatest endangered species recovery success stories of all time," said Bonnie Rice of the Sierra Club's Greater Yellowstone Resilient Habitats Campaign. "We need a return to the sound, science-based management practices that have for decades brought iconic animals back from the brink of extinction."
Background
Last year Congress gave hunters and trappers in Montana and Idaho the right to kill wolves that had been protected under the Endangered Species Act, nullifying a court victory won by Earthjustice that would have prevented the hunts. Since then, management of wolves in the two states has grown increasingly hostile as the states have expanded their wolf quotas and hunting seasons. In the 2011-2012 hunting season, hunters and trappers killed 545 wolves in Idaho and Montana. The two states have designed wolf-hunting regulations for the 2012-2013 season that will result in even greater wolf killing.
Even while approving state management in Montana and Idaho, the Fish and Wildlife Service in the past denied this authority to Wyoming due to its extreme anti-wolf laws. Since then, Wyoming's wolf-management laws have only slightly changed, reducing the area where year-long, unregulated wolf killing is permitted from 90 percent of the state to about 85 percent. Wyoming retains unrestricted wolf killing even in that 5 percent of the state for much of the year; thus conservation groups contend that Wyoming law remains inadequate to protect wolves.
Today's legal notice from the conservation groups -- Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club -- follows years of legal work by conservationists to protect wolves in the northern Rockies until their population could sufficiently recover from near extinction and state laws were in place to safeguard their recovery.
After being exterminated from the western United States, including Wyoming, in the last century, wolves have made a comeback in the northern Rockies, which has helped reestablish ecological balance and boost the regional economy. Yet Wyoming's wolf population, estimated at 328, is small relative to its neighbors in Idaho and Montana.
Wyoming law allows unlimited wolf killing in the vast majority of the state, including aerial gunning of wolves and even killing wolf pups in their dens. Even in the limited areas of the state where wolf killing is supposed to be regulated under Wyoming law, some people have discussed baiting wolves into conflict with domestic animals to justify reducing wolf numbers.
The Endangered Species Act exists to protect America's wildlife, including wolves. Handing management authority for wolves over to a state with policies that are openly hostile to wolves and fail to ensure the wolf's survival violates the Act.
"Amazon knows that we know now that they are facilitating and profiting from the rise of a supercharged surveillance state that does not respect human rights or the rule of law, and it must end,” one participant said.
As backlash against Big Tech’s complicity with President Donald Trump’s authoritarian agenda grows, 200 to 250 people gathered on a rainy Seattle afternoon outside Amazon’s headquarters on Friday to demand that the company “dump” its support for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, which they illustrated by dumping ice onto the grass.
The protest came one day after Amazon-owned Ring announced it would cut ties with law-enforcement tech company Flock Safety, a move that followed public backlash after a Super Bowl ad showcased a “Search Party” feature that activates a network of Ring cameras and uses artificial intelligence for neighborhood surveillance. Ending the partnership with Flock had originally been one of the Seattle protesters’ three demands.
“Our third demand has already been met—which shows that these companies are waking up to how appalled regular people are about the dystopia they're creating for us," organizer Emily Johnston said in a statement.
Johnston said the backlash, as well as nationwide protests against Target’s complicity with ICE and an open letter from Google employees calling on that company to disclose and divest from its dealings with ICE and CBP, meant “it’s clear that we have momentum.”
“We want them to see that partnering with Palantir was a mistake and hosting ICE and CBP on Amazon Web Services was a mistake."
“No one wants surveillance and state violence except those who are profiting from it—and Amazon's thriving depends on both its workers and customers,” Johnston continued. “We have leverage, and we're going to use it."
The protesters on Friday called on Amazon to go further by stopping to host ICE and CBP on Amazon Web Services and ending its partnership with Palantir that also facilitates deportations and surveillance.
“Corporations for years have not only been complicit, but active beneficiaries of the tax money needlessly spent to tear apart immigrant families and communities,” Guadalupe of participating group La Resistencia said in a statement. “Tech plays a bigger role today more than ever in empowering ICE surveillance and its apparatuses of control.”
Eliza Pan, the co-founder of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (AECJ), told the crowd that Ring dropping the Flock contract was “a big victory for every single person here.”
“We’re adding to that pressure by being here together,” she said. “Amazon knew about this rally, and knows that this is the first of many if they do not end these other partnerships. Amazon knows that we know now that they are facilitating and profiting from the rise of a supercharged surveillance state that does not respect human rights or the rule of law, and it must end.”
The Ring ad featured at the Super Bowl did not mention Flock and showed the Search Party feature being used to find lost dogs, yet viewers and advocates could easily imagine the technology being used in more invasive ways.
“The addition of AI-driven biometric identification is the latest entry in the company’s history of profiting off of public safety worries and disregard for individual privacy, one that turbocharges the extreme dangers of allowing this to carry on,” Beryl Lipton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in response to the ad. “People need to reject this kind of disingenuous framing and recognize the potential end result: a scary overreach of the surveillance state designed to catch us all in its net.”
The widely negative response told Amazon that partnering with Flock “was a mistake,” protest organizer Evan Sutton told Common Dreams.
“We want them to see that partnering with Palantir was a mistake and hosting ICE and CBP on Amazon Web Services was a mistake,” he said.
The protest was organized by local tech worker, immigrant justice, and other activist groups including AECJ, No Tech for Apartheid, Defend Immigrants Alliance, La Resistencia, Troublemakers, Washington for All, Seattle Indivisible, Seattle DSA, 350 Seattle, and Southend Indivisible.
The protesters gathered for about an hour to listen to six speakers, including progressive Seattle City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck. They distributed a flyer to Amazon employees and other passersby with a QR-code link for employees to connect with AECJ.
The demonstration reflects a growing frustration with the Trump-Tech alliance, both nationally and locally.
“We are seeing the American technocrats just full body hug the Trump administration right now, and in the case of Amazon, it’s a company that was born in Seattle, that has made Seattle home, that benefits from all the wonderful things about Seattle and is completely betraying Seattle values by profiting off of the industrial deportation complex and cuddling up to the Trump administration,” Sutton told Common Dreams.
He pointed out that on the night of the day that a CBP agent murdered Alex Pretti, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy attended a private White House premiere for the Melenia movie.
“We have a duty to let these companies know that we won’t stand for it,” he said.
“This historic strike built an unbreakable solidarity across our city, among families, students, educators, and community," said San Francisco's teachers union.
San Francisco public school teachers and their union celebrated Friday after negotiating a tentative agreement for a new contract with higher pay and fully funded family healthcare, ending a four-day walkout that was the city's first educator strike in nearly half a century.
United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) said its bargaining team reached a two-year tentative deal with the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) at around 5:30 am local time Friday. The 120 public schools that were closed due to the walkout by around 6,000 teachers are set to reopen for classes next Wednesday.
"This historic strike built an unbreakable solidarity across our city, among families, students, educators, and community," UESF said in a statement. "This strike has made it clear what is possible when we join together and fight for the stability in our schools that many have said was out of our reach."
The tentative agreement, which follows 11 months of bargaining, includes the union's main demand for fully funded health coverage for dependents; raises of between 5-8.5%; caseload reductions for special educators; sanctuary protections for students and staff; limits on the use of artificial intelligence; preservation and expansion of the Stay Over program for unhoused students and their families; and better working conditions for librarians, substitute teachers, counselors, and other staff.
“By forcing SFUSD to invest in fully funded family healthcare, special education workloads, improved wages, sanctuary and housing protections for San Francisco families, we’ve made important progress towards the schools our students deserve,” said UESF president Cassondra Curiel “This contract is a strong foundation for us to continue to build the safe and stable learning environments our students deserve.”
SFUSD Superintendent Maria Su said in a statement: "I recognize that this past week has been challenging. Thank you to the SFUSD staff, community-based partners, and faith and city leaders who partnered with us to continue centering our students in our work every day."
"I am so proud of the resilience and strength of our community," Su added. "This is a new beginning, and I want to celebrate our diverse community of educators, administrators, parents, and students as we come together and heal."
However, Su also warned that “we do not have enough funds to pay for this year and the next two years," citing SFUSD's over $100 million budget deficit.
The striking teachers enjoyed widespread support and solidarity across the city, including at a massive rally outside City Hall on Monday.
San Francisco’s first public school teachers strike in 47 years started today with picket lines across the city and a rally at Civic Center. Schools will remain closed on Tuesday. Read live updates: https://t.co/5iRAt8eWdu
📝: Ezra Wallach, @low___impact, @allaboutgeorge pic.twitter.com/KMylN2L3fU
— The San Francisco Standard (@sfstandard) February 10, 2026
San Francisco teachers cheered the tentative agreement—especially its coverage of 100% of premiums on family health plans, which run about $1,500 per month, beginning next January.
“That amount of money is life-changing to us,” Balboa High School English teacher Ryan Alias said during a Thursday press conference.
“If we had that in our pocket, we would be able to save for retirement,” added Alias, who has two children in SFUSD schools. "We would be able to save for college funds. We’d be able to save for student loans. We’d be able to pay for art classes for our kids. This is the thing that is going to keep educators in the city.”
"Chairman Thompson appears poised to check off industry's cruel wish list," one critic warned.
Advocates for animal welfare, environmental protection, public health, and small family farms fiercely condemned various "industry-backed poison pills" in the long-awaited Farm Bill draft unveiled Friday by a key Republican in the US House of Representatives.
"A new Farm Bill is long overdue, and the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 is an important step forward in providing certainty to our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities," said House Committee on Agriculture Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.) in a statement.
While Thompson has scheduled a markup of the 802-page proposal for February 23, critics aren't waiting to pick apart the bill, which aligns with a 2024 GOP proposal that was also sharply rebuked. The panel's ranking member, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), said that from what she has seen so far, the new legislation "fails to meet the moment facing farmers and working people."
"Farmers need Congress to act swiftly to end inflationary tariffs, stabilize trade relationships, expand domestic market opportunities like year-round E15, and help lower input costs," Craig stressed. "The Republican majority instead chose to ignore Democratic priorities and focus on pushing a shell of a farm bill with poison pills that complicates if not derails chances of getting anything done. I strongly urge my Republican colleagues to drop the political charade and work with House Democrats on a truly bipartisan bill to address the very real problems farm country is experiencing right now—before it's too late."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, similarly blasted the GOP legislation on Friday, declaring that "this Republican Farm Bill proposal is a grotesque, record-breaking giveaway to the pesticide industry that will free Big Ag to accelerate the flow of dangerous poisons into our nation's food supply and waterways."
"This bill would block people suffering from pesticide-linked cancers from suing pesticide makers, eviscerate the EPA's ability to protect rivers and streams from direct pesticide pollution, and give the pesticide industry an unprecedented veto over extinction-preventing safeguards for our nation's most endangered wildlife," he said, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency.
"If Congress passes this monstrosity, it will speed our march toward the dawn of a very real silent spring, a day without fluttering butterflies, chirping frogs, or the chorus of birds at sunrise," Hartl warned. "No one voted for Republicans to allow foreign-owned pesticide conglomerates to dominate the policies that impact the safety of the food every American eats. But this bill leaves no doubt that's exactly who is calling all the shots."
Food & Water Watch (FWW) managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones also sounded the alarm about industry-friendly poison pills, arguing that any draft containing the "Cancer Gag Act" that would shield pesticide companies from liability or the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act—which would block state and local policies designed to protect animal welfare, farm workers, and food safety—"must be dead on arrival."
Sara Amundson, president of Humane World Action Fund—formerly called Humane Society Legislative Fund—also made a case against targeting state restrictions for animals like Proposition 12 in California, which the US Supreme Court let stand in 2023, in response to a challenge by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
"Once again, the House Agriculture Committee Republican majority is bending to the will of a backwards-facing segment of the pork industry by trying to force through a measure to override the preferences of voters in more than a dozen states, upend the decisions of courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, and trample states' rights all at the same time," Amundson said Friday.
The National Family Farm Coalition highlighted that "instead of addressing the widespread concerns of family-scale farmers—ensuring fair prices for farmers, improving credit access, addressing corporate land consolidation, and creating a trade environment that benefits producers—this draft perpetuates the status quo that enriches and empowers corporate agribusiness. The result is an accelerating farm crisis that continues to hollow out rural communities across the US."
Thompson also faced outrage over other policies left out of the GOP legislation—particularly from those calling for the restoration of $187 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump forced through last year with their so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 1).
"HR 1 shifts unprecedented costs to already cash-strapped states, expands time limits, and strips food benefits away from caregivers, veterans, older workers, people experiencing homelessness, and humanitarian-based noncitizens," noted Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center.
"HR 1 is an unforgiving assault on America's hungry, deliberately dismantling our nation's first line of defense against hunger," she continued. "Yet, when given the opportunity to correct this harm in the latest Farm Bill proposal, Chairman Thompson unveiled a package that will only deepen hunger instead of fixing it. Hunger is not something Congress can afford to ignore."
Jones of FWW said that "families and farmers are hungry for federal policy that supports small- and mid-sized producers and keeps food affordable. Instead, Chairman Thompson appears poised to check off industry's cruel wish list."
"America needs a fair Farm Bill," he emphasized. "It is imperative that this Farm Bill repeal all Trump SNAP cuts and restore full funding to this critical nutrition program; stop the proliferation of factory farms; and support the transition to sustainable, affordable food."