

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.

Sarah Uhlemann, (206) 327-2344, suhlemann@biologicaldiversity.org
Todd Steiner, (415) 488-7652, Tsteiner@TIRN.net
Jenny Powers, (212) 727-4566, jpowers@nrdc.org
Each year, nearly half of the more than 5 billion pounds of seafood consumed by Americans -- including tuna, swordfish, shrimp, cod and other fish -- comes from foreign fisheries that have not been shown as meeting U.S. whale and dolphin protection standards. The United States is required to insist on such proof before foreign seafood may lawfully be imported into the United States. A lawsuit filed today by conservation groups seeks to protect marine mammals by requiring the government to ensure that all imported, wild-caught fish meet U.S. standards.
"Americans would be appalled if they knew their Friday-night fish dinner might be killing imperiled whales and dolphins around the world," said Sarah Uhlemann, senior attorney and international program director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "It's time to make all seafood 'dolphin-safe.'"
Across the globe, more than 650,000 whales, dolphins and other marine mammals are killed each year in fishing gear. Ensnared in nets, wrapped in fishing lines or snagged on fishing hooks, they become unintentional bycatch of commercial fisheries and either drown or are tossed overboard to die.
The United States is the second largest importer of seafood in the world, behind Japan, importing approximately 90 percent of its seafood, about half of which is wild-caught.
Under U.S. fishery regulations, U.S. fishers have been required to modify their fishing gear, avoid marine mammal hot-spots or take other measures to limit the risk of entanglement. Yet many foreign commercial fishing fleets continue to offer few if any safeguards for marine mammals or even document how many endangered animals are caught.
Since 1972 the United States has been required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act to only allow the importation of fish or fish products caught in a manner that meets U.S. standards for protecting marine mammals. Although the United States has enforced the provision for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, it has ignored the law for all other fish, allowing imports without proof that U.S. standards have been met. Today's lawsuit seeks to compel the U.S. to issue much-delayed regulations implementing this critical provision of law.
"The U.S. can -- and by law, must -- wield its tremendous purchasing power to save dolphins and whales from foreign nets," said Todd Steiner, biologist and executive director of Turtle Island Restoration Network. "We have the right to ensure that the seafood sold in the US is caught in ways that minimize the death and injury of marine mammals."
Fishing gear poses a significant risk to marine mammals worldwide and threatens the very existence of some of the planet's most charismatic species. These animals include the Gulf of California's critically imperiled vaquita, the endangered North Atlantic right whale, spinner dolphins in the Indian Ocean, sperm whales in the Mediterranean, and false killer whales off Hawaii.
"It's time for the government to act," said Zak Smith with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "When this important provision of law is implemented it will help save thousands of whales and dolphins around the world."
Today's lawsuit was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network and the Natural Resources Defense Council in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York.
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"Our client... is freed of these outrageous, vindictive charges," said an attorney representing Ábrego García. "It’s a good day."
A federal judge on Friday dismissed criminal charges against Kilmar Ábrego García, the man whom the Trump administration unlawfully deported to El Salvador last year.
Judge Waverly Crenshaw of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) case against Ábrego García should be thrown out on grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution.
In his ruling, Crenshaw likened the President Donald Trump's DOJ to a prosecutor who picked "the person first and the crime second" when it indicted Ábrego García on human smuggling charges last year.
Crenshaw, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, zeroed in on the fact that the DOJ reopened a three-year-old investigation into a Ábrego García mere days after the US Supreme Court unanimously ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return to the US, arguing that the timing and other evidence established "likeliness of vindictiveness" of the government's case.
While the government provided arguments attempting to rebut claims of vindictive prosecution, Crenshaw ultimately found them unpersuasive and argued that the "new evidence" the government used to justify reopening the case was something that prosecutors should have discovered before with due diligence.
After an examination of the government's claims, Crenshaw found that its case against Ábrego García was reverse engineered to justify his unlawful removal to El Salvador—where he was imprisoned at the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
"The objective evidence here shows that, absent Ábrego's successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the government would not have brought this prosecution," Crenshaw wrote in his conclusion. "The executive branch closed its investigation on the November 2022 traffic stop. Only after Ábrego succeeded in vindicating his rights did the executive branch reopen that investigation."
Sean Hecker, an attorney representing Ábrego García, celebrated the judge's ruling shortly after it was issued.
"We are going to savor this one," Hecker wrote in a social media post. "Our client, Kilmar Ábrego García, is freed of these outrageous, vindictive charges. It’s a good day."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, warned that Ábrego García is not yet out of the woods given that the Trump administration is still trying to deport him to Uganda even though he has said he would accept being deported to Costa Rica.
Reichlin-Melnick nevertheless said that this was a major victory against the Trump administration.
"It is extremely hard to win a vindictive prosecution motion," he wrote, "but here the evidence was so strong that the judge had almost no choice but to grant it."
New York University law professor Ryan Goodman described Crenshaw's ruling as an "extraordinary rebuke" of the Trump DOJ, and noted that it highlighted the role played by acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche in the vindictive prosecution "nearly 30 times."
Journalist Nathan Newman said that Ábrego García deserved praise for standing firm in the face of relentless pressure by the federal government and fighting back.
"When history is written," wrote Newman, "the bravery and tenacity of Kilmar Ábrego García in defiance of the Trump administration will deserve a hefty credit for building the resistance to Trump's evil. A good day."
“A Palestinian vice presidency at the General Assembly would not change power realities on the ground, but it would normalize Palestinian statehood claims... That is precisely what the United States is attempting to block.”
The Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations withdrew his bid to become a vice president of the UN General Assembly on Thursday following threats from the Trump administration to strip the visas of the entire Palestinian delegation, according to NPR.
The Palestinian envoy, Riyad Mansour, has been an outspoken critic of Israel's actions toward Palestinians, particularly since the beginning of the genocidal war in Gaza, which he said has entailed "the collective punishment of over two million Palestinians."
He has been Palestine’s permanent UN observer for more than two decades and had earlier this year planned to run for president of the General Assembly, though he bowed out following US pressure.
The Guardian reported that on Tuesday, the US State Department sent a diplomatic cable to the US embassy in Jerusalem instructing it to pressure the Palestinian Authority (PA)—the governing body of the occupied West Bank—to withdraw its bid for one of the 21 vice presidencies of the General Assembly as well.
General Assembly vice presidents have a role in setting the body’s agenda and filling in when the president is absent. The UN is scheduled to hold elections amongst Assembly members on June 2.
The US cable said Mansour “has a history of accusing Israel of genocide"—as leading human rights groups and experts have—and that his presence would “undermine” the objectives of President Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” in Gaza, which a recent Human Rights Watch report said has fallen fall short of its promises to provide aid to Palestinians and has allowed Israeli forces to continue killing them with little pushback despite a ceasefire.
The cable said, “We will hold the PA responsible if the Palestinian delegation does not withdraw its [vice presidential] candidacy” by Friday, “and consequences will follow.”
The cable threatened to revoke the US visas of all Palestinian officials. The US already revoked most of them back in August, but rolled back the ban on those who were visiting as part of the annual UN summit. “It would be unfortunate to have to revisit any available options,” the cable said.
It also threatened that Israel would continue to withhold tax revenue that it owes to the Palestinian Authority, which was blocked by Israel's far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, at the beginning of the war in October 2023. The money being withheld by Israel accounts for 60% of the PA's revenue.
A person familiar with the matter told NPR that Mansour specifically would refrain from running for the position for the next two years, which was interpreted as a reference to the end of Trump's term as president.
The US is prohibited from blocking UN officials from visiting the body's New York headquarters under a 1947 agreement. However, the US has blocked visas for officials from enemy countries, including Russia and Iran, as well as the former leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat.
Hady Amr, who served as a senior State Department official on Palestinian affairs under the Obama and Biden administrations, told NPR that expelling diplomats is extremely rare outside of "extreme situations like Russian espionage or election interference."
Amr said, "Generally, it's counterproductive because you need diplomats to work out problems between countries, and by expelling diplomats, you're undermining not only their ability to solve problems, but the abilities of the United States as well."
Tawfiq Al-Ghussein, a London-based researcher who specializes in modern Middle Eastern history and the displacement of Palestinians, said on social media that "the significance of this is not merely procedural."
"Washington is effectively trying to prevent even symbolic Palestinian institutional visibility within the UN system because it understands that international legitimacy matters politically, legally, and diplomatically," Al-Ghussein said. "A Palestinian vice presidency at the General Assembly would not change power realities on the ground, but it would normalize Palestinian statehood claims within the architecture of international governance itself. That is precisely what the United States is attempting to block."
“The irony is extraordinary: The same power that lectures the world endlessly about democracy and international order is reportedly threatening visas and diplomatic consequences to stop Palestinians from holding a largely ceremonial UN role,” he continued. "It reveals once again that the issue was never 'peace negotiations' as such, but control over who is permitted institutional legitimacy in the international system."
The goal of these political action committees, explained one journalist, is to make sure voters “never find out who is funding ads before a campaign happens.”
Corporate interests are meddling in Democratic primaries by setting up what are being described as "pop-up super PACs" aimed at taking down candidates who are critical of Big Tech.
During a Friday episode of The Intercept Briefing podcast, political reporter Matt Sledge outlined how US campaign finance law allows for moneyed interests to swoop into political campaigns at the last minute and flood the airwaves with misleading ads about progressive candidates.
Specifically, Sledge said that Big Tech-affiliated groups have figured out how to "game campaign finance deadlines and create super PACs, or political action committees, to funnel money to other super PACs so that reporting deadlines are missed."
As a result, said Sledge, these “pop-up super PACs" can bombard voters with last-minute propaganda in the closing days of campaigns—and voters will "never find out who is funding ads before a campaign happens."
"Some of these newer industries that are getting in on the campaign spending game, like crypto and artificial intelligence, are also setting up entire networks of super PACs," Sledge added, "sometimes a mama or a papa super PAC, and then a Democratic-affiliated super PAC and a Republican-affiliated super PAC so that both donors can channel their money to one party affiliate and to make it a little harder for voters to track where all the money is coming from."
A Thursday report from Politico documented how a mysterious super PAC called Lead Left has been been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit Maureen Galindo, a Democratic candidate for US Congress in Texas who has been broadly condemned for comments about transforming a local immigration detention facility into a "prison for American Zionists."
Democrats have accused GOP-backed interests of funding Lead Left, which they say is misleadingly posing as a progressive organization, to boost the prospects of fringe candidates such as Galindo.
In a video posted to social media on Friday, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) noted that members of his caucus from across the ideological spectrum had condemned Galindo, and said that "Republicans must immediately stop boosting her candidacy."
"This candidate is being propped up by a Republican shadowy super PAC to elevate her in the primary," Jeffries said, "because they know she'll be an incredibly weak general election candidate."
People of goodwill have forcefully rejected the antisemitic and anti-American candidate in the TX-35 run-off.
Republicans must immediately stop boosting her candidacy. pic.twitter.com/CUFhqvEdLQ
— Hakeem Jeffries (@hakeemjeffries) May 22, 2026
According to Politico, such operations have been occurring throughout the country.
"Shady PACs have become a staple of the cycle, and modern campaigns generally," Politico reported. "In two House special elections last year in Virginia and Arizona, pop-up PACs spent on ads and avoided having to disclose who was behind them until after primary contests were complete. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has used shell PACs to shield its involvement in some races this year. Another group, Real Change PAC, started spending in New Jersey’s 7th District on Wednesday."
Last week, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, accusing Lead Left of both "strategically gaming federal reporting deadlines to avoid disclosing the sources of its election spending," while also violating "federal campaign finance laws requiring full transparency about the recipients of that spending" in a scheme to conceal "crucial information about how it is spending its money."