

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.

Conservation groups filed suit today challenging the federal government's elimination of Endangered Species Act protections for Wyoming wolves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service turned wolf management in Wyoming over to state officials this fall even though the state's wolf-management policies promote unlimited wolf killing in a "predator" zone that extends throughout most of the state and provides inadequate protection for wolves even where killing is regulated. The state policies will result in wolf deaths that undermine the recovery of the species. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
"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 Tim Preso. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has turned its back on Wyoming wolves, and so today we are asking the court to make sure that wolves on the border of Yellowstone -- our nation's first national park -- have the protections they need to thrive."
"Wyoming's wolf-management plan is poor policy, weak in its protection of wolves, and based on flimsy science," added 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 approximately 85 percent of the state."
Since Wyoming took over wolf management Oct. 1, 2012, at least 49 wolves have been killed through state-sanctioned hunting and unregulated killing in Wyoming's "predator" zone; the actual number is likely higher because of delayed or neglected reporting of kills. Before Wyoming took over wolf management, the state's wolf population numbered only 328 wolves at last count.
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. In the 2011-2012 hunting season, hunters and trappers killed 545 wolves in Montana and Idaho. Both states eliminated their statewide quotas for wolf killing in the 2012-2013 hunting season, opening the door to even higher wolf mortality. After just over one month of hunting and trapping in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, 177 wolves have been killed. Fish and Wildlife in the past denied Wyoming the authority to manage wolves due to the state's extreme anti-wolf laws. Despite what today's lawsuit calls only "cosmetic" changes to those wolfmanagement laws, the Service has now reversed its position.
"The administration needs to be held accountable for its decision to allow the senseless and unnecessary killing of wolves in Wyoming," said Mike Senatore, vice president of conservation law for Defenders of Wildlife. "The American people didn't invest their hard-earned tax dollars into wolf recovery just so these important animals could be treated like vermin and killed on sight. We can't allow states like Wyoming to continue to undermine one of our nation's greatest Endangered Species Act success stories."
"Wyoming's plan is a wolf-killing plan, not a management plan. Allowing it to move forward 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."
Now that Fish and Wildlife has eliminated federal protections, wolves in Wyoming's expansive "predator" zone may be shot, snared or trapped; killed from helicopters and airplanes; and pursued on four-wheelers and snowmobiles. Wolf pups may be killed in their dens. The Service has stated that no wolves are expected to survive in these areas.
"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 the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide the leadership necessary to secure a legally and scientifically defensible delisting plan for wolves."
The return of the gray wolf to the northern Rockies is one of America's greatest conservation success stories. After being exterminated from the western United States in the last century, wolves have begun a significant comeback in the region. According to independent studies, their reintroduction has helped reestablish ecological balance and boosted the regional economy.
"Taking Endangered Species Act protections away from Wyoming's wolves is a disaster not only for the state's wolves but for the possible return of wolves to Colorado and other parts of the West," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Like past versions of Wyoming's wolf plan -- which were rejected by the Fish and Wildlife Service -- the new plan fails to ensure the long-term survival and recovery of these unique animals. The decision to remove protections for Wyoming's wolves failed to rely on best science. It's a tragic political intrusion into what should be the scientifically guided management of an important endangered species."
Earthjustice represents Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club in this action.
Defenders of Wildlife is the premier U.S.-based national conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled species and their habitats in North America.
(917) 363-4149"They call us all bandits and thugs," said protesters, who have been met with a police crackdown. "We are democracy."
Bolivian President Rodrigo Paz, who is facing calls for his resignation as Indigenous and labor organizers lead protests across the country, could declare a "state of exception"—described by local reporters as "essentially martial law"—as soon as Monday night after the country's Senate overwhelmingly voted to overturn a law regulating the government's ability to crack down on protests.
According to Bolivian reports, the Chamber of Senators on Sunday overturned Law 1341, which since 2020 had imposed strict time limits on emergency measures, ensured certain violable rights could not be suspended under a state of exception, required legislative oversight, and made the president criminally liable for exceeding the law's perimeters.
"Abrogating Law 1341 does not remove the state of exception from Bolivia’s legal architecture," according to The Rio Times. "It removes the apparatus that prevented that constitutional clause from being exercised at the executive’s sole discretion."
Joseph Bouchard, who has reported for Drop Site News and The Intercept from Latin America, said far-right groups linked to the 2019 coup in Bolivia have demanded "a return to martial law, to use lethal force against opposition with impunity, and crack down on opposition as much as possible."
"Many of these groups are openly fascist and white supremacist," said Bouchard.
The law was overturned about three weeks into nationwide protests against Paz, who took office about six months ago. Protesters allied with former President Evo Morales have expressed anger over the administration's decision to end a fuel subsidy that was essential for working people amid an economic crisis. The demonstrators—comprised of a broad coalition which includes Indigenous groups, labor unions, and farmworkers—have demanded higher wages and an end to privatization and the broader neoliberal project under Paz.
The protests have been met with a crackdown by police, in La Paz and at the sites of dozens of road blockades around the country.
Last week, the country's public prosecutor issued arrest warrants for at least two organizers, including Mario Argollo, executive secretary of the top Bolivian labor union, Central Obrera Boliviana (COB).
On Monday, TeleSUR reported that COB refused to engage in talks with Paz's government until the charges against Argollo are dropped.
Bouchard reported that if Paz's government implements a state of exception, "the measures would mean security forces could arrest anyone, for any reason, and use extraordinary measures against all opposition."
The overturning of Law 1341 struck down limits on "the use of lethal force by the security forces," he said.
Only three senators aligned with Vice President Edmand Lara voted against repealing the law.
According to The Rio Times, Lara "has been politically distancing himself from Paz almost since inauguration."
"No measure can stand above human life," said Lara, expressing "profound concern and indignation" over the Senate vote.
"It is outrageous that the US government would target people for bringing humanitarian aid... But even more disturbing is the cruel and deeply immoral policy the United States continues to impose on Cuba."
The antiwar group CodePink it has yet to be served with any subpoenas after it was reported over the weekend that the Trump administration has opened an investigation into a recent humanitarian trip it helped organize to Cuba, but vehemently denied wrongdoing and said any government probe, if there is one, would only show that "this administration is beyond grotesque."
"Taking medical supplies to pediatric hospitals in Cuba is now a crime?" asked co-founder Medea Benjamin on social media on Saturday after Fox News reported that organizers had been served subpoenas. "Saving the lives of babies is a crime?"
Fox reported that Benjamin and left-wing commentator Hasan Piker had been subpoenaed by federal investigators two months after they were among 40 Americans who sailed to Havana on the Nuestra America Convoy, which carried 20 tons of humanitarian aid to the island nation.
The Fox reporting claimed the subpoenas issued to Benjamin and Piker seek to obtain financial, logistical, and communications information related to the trip, which was organized in response to the Trump administration's decision in late January to threaten to impose tariffs on any country that provided Cuba with oil.
The administration cut off Cuba's main source of fuel at the beginning of the year when it sent US troops into Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro and took control of the country's vast oil supply.
White House officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, have long desired regime change in the communist country, and rights advocates have warned the administration appears to be moving toward just that as it strangles the island's oil supply—causing frequent blackouts and impacting the healthcare and food systems—and claims the Cuban government poses a threat to the US.
In organizing the Nuestra America Convoy, said Benjamin on Sunday, the advocates were acting "as moral US citizens trying to bring some relief to a population being deliberately starved by the cruel policies of our own government."
"This policy has contributed to catastrophic shortages of medicine and electricity, massive blackouts, transportation collapse, and a public health crisis that has hurt the most vulnerable, especially children and the elderly," said Benjamin. "It is a policy that is, literally, killing babies, as we have seen in the recent tragic doubling of the infant mortality rate. This is why we focused our donations on medical supplies for pediatric hospitals."
The blockade is compounding the suffering caused by the trade embargo the US has imposed for decades, said Benjamin.
The Cuban Assets Control Regulations law prohibits US citizens from conducting unlicensed travel-related transations with Cuba, but the law makes exceptions for humanitarian endeavors and other activities aimed at supporting the Cuban people.
"We traveled to Cuba under the US government-authorized category of providing humanitarian aid to the Cuban people. We brought desperately needed medicines and medical supplies at a time when Cuba is suffering catastrophic shortages caused by the crippling US blockade," said Benjamin.
Benjamin, Piker, and Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim emphasized that the group stayed in Spanish-owned hotels that are "explicitly permitted under" the US law—while right-wing influencer Nick Shirley allegedly stayed in a sanctioned hotel on a recent trip to Cuba.
"It is outrageous that the US government would target people for bringing humanitarian aid to suffering Cuban children," Benjamin said. "But even more disturbing is the cruel and deeply immoral policy the United States continues to impose on Cuba—a policy designed to strangle the island economically, deprive people of food, fuel, medicine, and basic necessities, and make daily life unbearable."
Piker said the reports of the investigation indicate that "the American government would rather try to criminalize delivering aid to a country we’ve starved, than punish the Epstein class."
Benjamin emphasized that the reports of the probe come as the administration intensified its threats against Cuba, having indicted former President Raúl Castro last week on charges related to the shooting down of a plane operated by Cuban-American exiles in the 1990s. Trump and his allies have repeatedly mused about invading the country following his military attacks on Venezuela and Iran.
"President Trump already has his hands full trying to disentangle himself from the disastrous US war with Iran," said Benjamin. "He should not start another one in Cuba. The American people are tired of endless wars, interventions, sanctions, and suffering imposed in our name."
"The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means."
Pope Leo XIV on Monday released a 42,000-word encyclical calling for government regulation of artificial intelligence and implored world leaders to ensure the burgeoning technology is used for the benefit of all humankind—not concentrated in the hands of a powerful, profit-seeking few.
Leo warned in the first major theological document of his papacy that unrestrained AI and its potentially far-reaching impacts—including mass job loss, environmental degradation, and increasingly catastrophic warfare—heightens the "risk of dehumanization," subjugating much of humanity in the name of "greater efficiency" and technological advancement.
"As with every major technological shift, AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise, and access to data," Leo wrote in the document, titled Magnifica Humanitas. "In light of the common good and the universal destination of goods, this raises serious concerns, since small but highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes, and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage, undermining social justice and solidarity among peoples."
Leo warned that eliminating jobs en masse by replacing human beings with robots—an aim of some of the most powerful companies in the world, including the e-commerce behemoth Amazon—without adequate protections and compensation for impacted workers would be morally obscene and calamitous to social order.
"A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction of the population, despite having a high level of technical development, risks exposing many to forced inactivity, a lack of responsibility, and the absence of daily tasks and stimuli, resulting in human and cultural impoverishment," the pope wrote. "This creates a paradox of material progress and anthropological regression that undermines the foundations of a just and stable social peace."
In the era of #ArtificialIntelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human. We must lovingly safeguard the grandeur of humanity bestowed upon us and revealed in its fullness in Christ, the splendor…
— Pope Leo XIV (@Pontifex) May 25, 2026
Leo cautioned against the growing use of AI in military conflict, a warning delivered alongside the CEO of the artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, which was embroiled in a tense and public dispute with the Trump administration earlier this year over the use of the company's technology for military purposes and mass surveillance. The pontiff has also clashed with the Trump administration, which has attacked Leo for publicly criticizing the US-Israeli war on Iran.
"No algorithm can make war morally acceptable," reads the pope's encyclical. "AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence, transforming defense into threat prediction and thus reducing victims to data. In this way, it will accustom us to the idea that violence is inevitable and needs only to be optimized."
Leo, whose warnings about the implications of rapid advancements in AI technology echoed concerns expressed by progressive lawmakers in the US and around the world, made clear that he doesn't view new technology, including AI, as inherently "antagonistic to humanity," noting that "technological development has significantly improved the living conditions of humanity."
"At the same time, each phase of progress has also revealed the ambiguity of tools that can cause harm when not oriented toward the good," Leo wrote. "It is necessary to establish adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power."
"Crucial questions impose themselves on our conscience," he added, "and can no longer be avoided: Where are we going? Toward what goal do we wish to orient ourselves? What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community?"