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.

U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) will chair a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on Tuesday renewing the Republicans' extreme agenda to weaken the Endangered Species Act and limit the public's longstanding right to help protect species by enforcing the Act. This latest assault on the same citizen involvement that has won lifesaving protections for hundreds of the country's most imperiled plants and animals comes as the nation celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Act -- a world-famous law that has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the species entrusted to its care and put hundreds of them on the road to recovery.
"Representative Hastings and his Republican colleagues are disturbingly out of step with most Americans, who overwhelmingly support protecting endangered species from extinction," said Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director with the Center for Biological Diversity. "But Hastings can't change the facts. The Endangered Species Act has an almost perfect record of preventing extinctions, and it's working exceptionally well to recover hundreds of plants and animals across the country -- not only well-known species like bald eagles and gray whales, but many lesser-known species too, like island foxes and El Segundo blue butterflies."
One focus of Tuesday's hearing will likely be criticism of citizens who litigate or take other action to protect endangered species. In an attempt to pit local and state conservation efforts against the actions of nonprofit conservation groups such as the Center, Hastings and the Republican witnesses are expected to claim that litigation diverts conservation resources away from conserving endangered species. Yet the facts demonstrate exactly the opposite. Many of the Center's legal actions have provided the kick-start needed to get focused, on-the-ground conservation actions implemented to protect endangered plants and animals and put them on the road to recovery.
"The lesser prairie chicken and sage grouse have declined by at least 90 percent over the past 100 years, but it wasn't till citizens petitioned and sued to get protection for these animals that concrete state, local and private conservation efforts to save them from extinction began," said Hartl. "Without years of advocacy and litigation by the Center and other nonprofits to win Endangered Species Act protection for these two species, it's doubtful that any of these conservation activities would be occurring today."
Successful litigation brought by the Center and others has played a critical role in protecting hundreds of rare and endangered species. For example:
Tuesday's hearing is part of an ongoing effort by Hastings and other Republicans to undermine the Endangered Species Act. Since the Republicans retook the House of Representatives in 2011, dozens of bills and amendments have been filed to reduce funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service; prevent species from being protected under the Act; and prematurely remove species from the Act's protection.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
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"Attacking civilian infrastructure, and acutely desalination plants, is a war crime," said former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt. "Will American armed forces accept orders to do so?"
US President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to destroy every desalination plant in Iran along with the country's energy infrastructure, which human rights organizations and legal experts say would be a grave violation of international law and a war crime.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump warned that if Iran's government doesn't agree to a deal with his administration "shortly," the US military will "conclude our lovely 'stay' in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells, and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet 'touched.'"
Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt wrote in response that "attacking civilian infrastructure, and acutely desalination plants, is a war crime."
"Will American armed forces accept orders to do so?" he asked.
Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote that "the categorical and retributive framing of this threat to attack Iranian infrastructure makes clear that this is a threat to commit war crimes."
Trump's Monday post marked an escalation of his previous threat to target Iran's civilian infrastructure, specifically its power plants, if the Strait of Hormuz was not fully reopened. The US president initially gave Iran 48 hours to capitulate to his demand, but he later pushed his arbitrary deadline back to April 6, claiming progress in diplomatic talks with Iran.
Iranian officials have repeatedly denied that any direct talks with the US are taking place and rejected the administration's proposed 15-point ceasefire plan.
Erika Guevara-Rosas, senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns at Amnesty International, said last week that by threatening strikes on Iran's civilian infrastructure, the Trump administration is "effectively indicating its willingness to plunge an entire country into darkness, and to potentially deprive its people of their human rights to life, water, food, healthcare and adequate standard of living, and to subject them to severe pain and suffering."
"When power plants collapse, horrific consequences cascade instantly," said Guevara-Rosas. "Water pumping stations would stop functioning, clean water would become scarce, and preventable diseases would spread. Hospitals would lose electricity and fuel, forcing surgeries to be cancelled and life-support machines to shut down. Food production and distribution networks would collapse, deepening hunger and causing widespread food scarcity. Many businesses would also shut down with devastating economic consequences, including mass unemployment."
Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, told The New York Times that he sees "no difference between what Trump is threatening to do in Iran and what the International Criminal Court charged four Russian commanders for doing in Ukraine."
"Trump is openly threatening a war crime," said Roth.
In June 2024, ICC judges issued arrest warrants for top Russian commanders accused of "the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects." The judges cited "a large number of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations were carried out by the Russian armed forces in multiple locations in Ukraine."
According to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the US has already targeted Iran's water infrastructure, specifically "a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island."
"Water supply in 30 villages has been impacted," Abbas wrote in a March 7 social media post. "Attacking Iran's infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences. The US set this precedent, not Iran."
Iran is among the most water-stressed countries on the planet, and large-scale US strikes on the country's desalination and power plants would make conditions significantly worse.
While "only a small fraction of Iran’s water supply comes from desalination plants," Grist's Frida Garza wrote last week, "strikes on its power plants would indeed hamper the country’s water supply."
"Without electricity," Garza wrote, "water treatment operations could not run."
"The case for windfall taxes has never been clearer," said 350.org's chief executive.
An analysis released Monday estimates that oil and gas price spikes driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran have so far cost consumers and businesses around the world over $100 billion—money that has flowed into the coffers of some of the wealthiest, most powerful fossil fuel companies on the planet.
The new analysis by 350.org finds that, just over a month into the war, consumers and businesses have lost between $104.2 billion and $111.6 billion to rising oil and gas prices—an estimate that the environmental group acknowledges is likely conservative, given it doesn't account for "wider knock-on effects, such as rising fertiliser and food costs, declines in economic output and employment, or broader inflation driven by fossil fuel price volatility. "
The more than $100 billion, 350.org said, "has been siphoned from ordinary people to oil and gas companies."
“On top of the incalculable suffering of families and communities torn apart by the war, ordinary people around the world are paying an extraordinary price through fossil fuel-driven energy spikes," said Anne Jellema, 350.org's chief executive. "Over $100 billion has gone straight into the pockets of fossil fuel companies, while families struggle to afford energy and basic necessities."
"The case for windfall taxes," Jellema added, "has never been clearer.”

The analysis was published as global oil prices rose again following a weekend missile attack on Israel by Yemen's Houthis and Trump's threat to "take the oil in Iran," signaling another potential escalation in a war that has already killed thousands, sparked an appalling humanitarian crisis, and destabilized the global economy.
One key beneficiary of the chaos is the fossil fuel industry, which is set to reap billions in windfall profits thanks to rising oil and gas prices. Reuters reported late last week that analysts covering Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil have significantly raised earnings estimates for the fossil fuel giants in response to war-fueled price surges.
"US shale producers and other companies without major operations in the Middle East should gain the most, benefiting from higher prices without costs associated with shut-in production, stranded tankers, or expensive repairs to war-hit facilities," Reuters noted. "Still, executives said the big profits will probably not boost their planned capital spending on new production."
Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers in the US Congress introduced legislation that would impose a windfall profit tax on large American oil companies and return the money to consumers in the form of quarterly rebates. The bill stands no realistic chance of getting through the Republican-controlled Congress, which is awash in Big Oil campaign cash.
“American consumers are once again getting squeezed at the gas pump as President Trump’s war of choice in Iran sends gas prices soaring and money flowing to his Big Oil donors,” said US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate. “We should send any big windfall for Big Oil back to the hardworking people who paid for it at the gas pump."
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."