

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.

Jared Margolis, Center for Biological Diversity, (971) 717-6404
Michael Lang, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, (503) 490-3979
In response to inadequate federal proposals for regulating transport of volatile crude oil by rail, the Center for Biological Diversity ("Center"), Adirondack Mountain Club ("ADK") and Friends of the Columbia Gorge ("Friends") filed comments today calling for an immediate ban on puncture-prone tank cars involved in several explosive accidents.
The legacy DOT-111 tank cars remain in widespread use despite the National Transportation Safety Board's acknowledgment that they're likely to breach in derailments. The new rules proposed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration allow for the dangerous tank cars to continue in service over a five-year phase-out period. The groups also filed a petition for an emergency order, asking the Department of Transportation to immediately require comprehensive oil-spill response plans for oil trains.
"Allowing these dangerously deficient tank cars to remain in service is playing Russian roulette with public safety," said Jared Margolis, an attorney at the Center who focuses on the impacts of energy development on endangered species. "These tank cars put our health and the environment at risk, so allowing their continued use is unacceptable."
The proposed regulations are intended to address the risks associated with the recent rapid increase in oil train traffic, which has grown from virtually nothing in 2008 to more than 400,000 rail cars of oil in 2013, moving billions of gallons of oil through towns and cities ill-equipped to respond to the kind of fiery explosions and spills that have occurred across the country in recent years.
"The proposed rules just don't go far enough to protect people from these bomb trains," says Margolis. "These regulations simply sanction business-as-usual, ensuring the ongoing transport of billions of gallons of crude oil through our cities and sensitive wildlife habitats at unsafe speeds, in unsafe tanks."
The groups' call for updated oil-spill response plans was spurred by grossly inadequate existing regulations that do not require oil shippers to ensure that sufficient equipment and personnel will be available to respond to a worst-case spill event. This puts the burden on state and local responders, rather than those profiting from shipping the toxic, flammable liquids.
"Increased traffic of dangerous oil trains puts our communities and the Columbia River Gorge at risks of accidents and oil spills," said Michael Lang, Friends' conservation director. "The new federal rules must ensure that our communities and the iconic resources of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area are protected from oil train accidents. Ultimately, oil trains don't belong in the Gorge, and we are calling for an analysis of the threats and specific means for avoiding impacts to public safety and fish and wildlife habitat."
Along with the comments, more than 18,000 members of the Center have submitted letters to the Department of Transportation calling for a ban on the DOT-111 bomb cars.
A U.S. Government Accountability Office report released last week echoes the groups' concerns. It states that "without timely action to address safety risks posed by increased transport of oil and gas by pipeline and rail, additional accidents that could have been prevented or mitigated may endanger the public and call into question the readiness of transportation networks in the new oil and gas environment."
Background
Oil transport, especially by rail, has dramatically increased in recent years. A series of fiery oil-train derailments has occurred in the United States and Canada, resulting in hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil being spilled into waterways. The worst was a derailment in Quebec that killed 47 people, forced the evacuation of 2,000 people, and incinerated portions of a popular tourist town. The most recent explosive derailment, occurred in April in downtown Lynchburg, Va., resulting in crude oil leaking out of punctured tank cars and setting the James River on fire.
Most of this oil is being transported in older DOT-111 tank cars, which have been known for decades to be puncture-prone.
"Given the unprecedented recent increase in rail transport of oil throughout North America, and new knowledge concerning the risks of transporting oil by rail, there is a far greater risk for impacts to people and the environment from a derailment and oil spill than was the case just a few years ago," the groups' comments state. "This new information serves to heighten the immediate need for a ban on the use of DOT-111 tank cars, and the promulgation of rules that ensure sufficient protections for people and the environment. More must be done to prevent fiery derailments and spills that will continue to endanger Americans in their homes and wild animals and ecosystem along busy rail corridors."
The unprecedented boom in oil-train traffic has caught responders unaware, and there is a lack of sufficient personnel and equipment to respond to a spill event. Since many oil trains travel through densely populated areas and along waterways where there are protected species and critical habitat, the lack of comprehensive plans for responding to oil spills puts people and species at risk. Requiring comprehensive plans would ensure that sufficient resources will be available for a worst-case spill event.
The groups contend the proposed rules must be accompanied by an analysis of the potential impacts to the environment and endangered species pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act. The government has failed to provide a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed rules, and has not even considered reasonable alternatives, such as an immediate ban on the use of the legacy DOT-111 tank cars. It has also failed to initiate consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, ignoring the continuing harm that oil trains pose to our most imperiled species.
"These spills continue to pose completely unacceptable threats to people and drinking water supplies as well as to wildlife, including endangered species," said Margolis. "Regulators have known for decades that these outdated tank cars are prone to puncture in derailments. Waiting another five years to get them off the tracks is nothing short of reckless."
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) 623-5252The 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."