

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.

A coalition of conservation organizations filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today, challenging a rule that permits oil companies, like Shell Oil, to harm Pacific walruses during Arctic Ocean oil drilling beginning as early as next year in key walrus feeding areas.
The Arctic Ocean's sea ice is rapidly melting due to climate change, creating dire consequences for Chukchi Sea walruses which depend on the ice for resting, raising their young, feeding, and avoiding predators. As a result of this melting, the walruses have been forced ashore in recent years. This year it happened again as 35,000 walruses crowded together on the Alaskan Arctic coast just a few weeks ago. Walruses must swim distances up to 100 miles from these coastal haulout areas to reach Chukchi feeding grounds to find the clams and other bottom species they need to survive. They are vulnerable to stampedes and trampling when forced to use coastal resting areas.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule puts these already at risk mammals directly in harm's way by allowing risky oil company operations in key walrus foraging areas in the Chukchi Sea. This rule is being challenged by Earthjustice on behalf of Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands, Sierra Club and by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Fish and Wildlife Service adopted this regulation, which allows for "the incidental take of walruses in connection with oil and gas activities," even though the agency acknowledged that walruses could be affected adversely in large numbers in crucial habitat areas like the Hanna Shoal. Shell Oil intends to drill under this government rule as early as 2015. The company was investigated and fined after multiple missteps and close calls during its efforts to drill in the Arctic Ocean in 2012, only to call its work in the region a success.
Oil operations have the potential to chase walruses away from food-rich foraging areas, trigger stampedes, and harm the animals with deafeningly loud seismic blasts. Drilling risks catastrophic oil spills that could not be cleaned up in Arctic conditions.
The September minimum sea-ice extent reached a new record low in 2012, encompassing only about half the area it covered on average from 1981-2010. In 2014, the sea ice shrank to 5.02 million square kilometers (1.94 million square miles), the sixth-lowest extent of the satellite record.
"The Fish and Wildlife Service needs to do a much better job of protecting walrus mothers and calves struggling to survive in the dramatically changing Chukchi Sea," said Earthjustice Attorney Erik Grafe. "Today's challenge seeks to protect walruses from suffering potential serious harm and harassment at the hands of companies like Shell Oil, which crashed and burned during its Arctic Ocean drilling efforts in 2012. Walruses are already under tremendous stress from climate change -- their sea ice home is literally melting away. Without adequate analysis, the challenged rules would add to walruses' woes by allowing drilling and risking oil spills in the areas most important for food and resting. What's more, drilling would accelerate the climate change already causing so much trouble for walruses."
"Walruses are the Arctic's canary in a coal mine," said Cindy Shogan, executive director for Alaska Wilderness League. "We can't ignore the signs and impacts of climate change in the Arctic. The Interior Department must better protect walruses and the fragile Arctic Ocean with its disappearing shoreline from harm by big oil companies, like Shell. Adding drilling into this already dangerous mix is reckless and irresponsible."
"The last thing Arctic walruses need is dirty drilling in the middle of their most important habitat. It's time for oil companies to stop sticking their drills where they don't belong, and it's up to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to lay down the law," said Rebecca Noblin of the Center for Biological Diversity.
"Shell is putting the Arctic walrus in double jeopardy. Their world is melting because of oil companies' greedy thirst for more fossil fuels, and now their home will could be under imminent threat from a Shell spill. The Obama administration needs to put sane regulations in place that protect this sensitive species," said Greenpeace Arctic Campaign Specialist John Deans.
"The Fish and Wildlife Service wants to decide first, think later," said Michael Jasny, director of Marine Mammal Protection at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Before it has all the facts, the agency is casting its lot with a few big oil corporations - instead of the tens of thousands of mother walruses who must swim massive distances before hauling up to rest and feed their young."
"Walruses already are under great stress from climate change. This rule would allow oil drillers to risk further harm to the species without proper analysis and mitigation. The risks are too great - if drilling resulted in an oil spill, there would be no way to clean or contain it, and the consequences could be catastrophic," said Robert Thompson of REDOIL.
"The danger to walrus is one more in a long list of serious risks posed by drilling in the Arctic Ocean," said Dan Ritzman, Alaska program director for the Sierra Club's Our Wild America campaign. "We should not sacrifice the Arctic's amazing wildlife, the subsistence culture that depends on it, or our climate to dirty drilling. The effects on walrus and other wildlife will only worsen if we don't begin keeping dirty fuels in the ground."
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"In its eagerness to short-circuit reactor safeguards, the Trump administration is once again doing what it does best—demonstrating a complete disregard for the law," said the head of Beyond Nuclear.
A coalition of advocacy groups on Monday took aim at President Donald Trump's nuclear power plans, including a recently proposed rule that would allow developers using federally approved reactor designs to bypass required safety reviews, which the organizations called "ill-advised and contrary to law."
"In its eagerness to short-circuit reactor safeguards, the Trump administration is once again doing what it does best—demonstrating a complete disregard for the law," said Linda Pentz Gunter, executive director of Beyond Nuclear, in a statement.
"But nuclear technology is too inherently dangerous to operate as an outlaw," she stressed. "Ignoring those dangers will put millions of Americans at risk of another catastrophic nuclear accident."
Beyond Nuclear and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) have submitted multiple formal comments to the administration, on behalf of overlapping coalitions, blasting its ongoing nuclear policymaking, which has been guided by a series of executive orders signed by the president last May.
The first coalition comments focus on the US Department of Energy allowing firms that build experimental nuclear reactors to seek exemptions from legally required environmental reviews. That filing was submitted in early March, a month after DOE announced the "categorical exclusion for authorization, siting, construction, operation, reauthorization, and decommissioning of advanced nuclear reactors for inclusion in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures."
Then, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last month unveiled a proposed rule to expedite NRC reviews of commercial nuclear power plant applications involving reactor designs already approved by DOE or the Department of Defense (DOD)—which Trump has dubbed the Department of War. That prompted more comments from Beyond Nuclear, NIRS, and allied groups last week.
"Along with the DOE's environmental 'free pass' policy, the whole 'expedited licensing' regime the administration is attempting to set up appears to be illegal," NIRS executive director Tim Judson, who co-authored the recent comments to the NRC, said Monday.
"The White House is trying to create a 'regulatory tunnel' around NRC's safety regulations," he warned. "That would mean DOE's biases and obviously false assumptions about the safety of nuclear power plants become the new normal, exposing the public to unacceptable dangers to our health and safety."
"And while the law allows the DOD to build its own nuclear reactors," Judson added, "it does not allow the NRC to skip safety reviews for civilian nuclear plants just because they use the same designs. The military routinely exposes its personnel to dangers that civilians are supposed to be protected from."
The coalition's latest filing details how the administration's actions are "inconsistent" with the Administrative Procedure Act, Atomic Energy Act, Energy Reorganization Act, and NEPA, "as well as the constitutional requirement for due process in a democratic society." It also emphasizes that nothing in Trump's orders "can excuse" the alleged legal violations.
"Fifty years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished because they became too much of a promoter and lost the confidence of Congress and the public over safety," Paul Gunter, director of the reactor oversight project at Beyond Nuclear, explained Monday.
"The NRC was established to provide a regulator that prioritizes safety and is obligated not to take shortcuts for a production agenda," he continued. "Instead, half a century later, we are on the same dangerous collision course, casting aside the NRC in favor of the DOE, which doesn't have the experience or the staff to get the industry in line with safety and security. This capitulation to the Trump agenda could lead to the NRC being abolished altogether, because nobody will have confidence in them."
"This week, Republicans will spend their time trying to get taxpayers to fund Trump’s parties," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
Even as US consumer sentiment hits record lows, gas prices remain stuck above $4.50 per gallon, and millions of Americans face cuts to basic assistance, Republicans in the US Senate are going to try to pass a massive spending bill that includes $1 billion for President Donald Trump's proposed luxury ballroom.
As Punchbowl News reported on Monday, Senate Democrats are planning to put the ballroom project in the spotlight and make supporting it as uncomfortable as possible for their Republican colleagues.
In a letter sent to fellow Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) slammed the GOP for giving priority to the president's vanity project amid economic suffering caused by his policies.
"At a time when Americans can't make ends meet, Republicans say 'Let them eat cake,'" Schumer wrote, "and then hand Trump a billion dollars to build a ballroom to serve it in. Americans do not need a ballroom. They need relief."
Schumer went on to blast his GOP colleagues as "Ballroom Republicans" who are "asking working families to pay the price while Donald Trump pockets the perks."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) similarly drew a contrast between the economic pain being felt by Americans with Trump's desire for a luxury ballroom to be constructed at taxpayers' expense.
"Gas is over $6 a gallon in many places," Murphy wrote in a social media post. "Farms are going bankrupt. Billions are being wasted on a war that’s making us weaker. And this week, Republicans will spend their time trying to get taxpayers to fund Trump’s parties."
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said that the proposed ballroom "perfectly sums up what Trump really cares about," noting that "while Americans are paying more for gas and millions are losing their healthcare, Trump can only think of his vanity ballroom."
During a Monday appearance on MS NOW, Boyle said "there is no way in hell I am going to vote for $1 billion of taxpayer money to a stupid, unnecessary ballroom," and vowed to reverse the cuts to Medicaid that Republicans made last year with their budget law. The cuts are projected to result in 10 million Americans losing their insurance.
"There is no way in hell I am going to vote for $1 billion of taxpayer money to a stupid, unnecessary ballroom that is nothing but a vanity project for Donald Trump." @CongBoyle pic.twitter.com/jgRUpuN7h8
— Progressive Caucus (@USProgressives) May 11, 2026
\According to Punchbowl News, congressional Republicans behind the scenes have been quietly pleading with leadership to remove funding for the ballroom from the budget bill, as they think voting to fund the president's project would be politically toxic for them this fall.
"The ballroom security money is the biggest problem for the reconciliation bill, and it caught lots of GOP lawmakers off guard," Punchbowl News explained. "Moderate Republicans in both chambers are privately raising objections, bristling at the political downside of blessing Trump’s controversial ballroom project."
The Trump administration is apparently aware of Republicans' objections, and Punchbowl News' Laura Weiss reported on Monday that the White House is dispatching Secret Service Director Sean Curran to address lawmakers' concerns during a Tuesday luncheon.
Weiss noted that Republicans in swing districts "are privately balking at the reconciliation money for securing" the ballroom, but added that the Trump administration "really wants it."
“I left behind me thousands of Palestinian prisoners—children, women, and men," said Saif Abu Keshek after he and Thiago Ávila were released by Israel without charges.
As the final two Global Sumud Flotilla members violently abducted at sea by Israeli forces last month made their way home following their release without charge, one of the activists said Sunday that the world must remember the thousands of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.
Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Ávila—whom Israel accused of having links to Hamas, without providing evidence—were seized in international waters off the coast of Greece during the night of April 29-30. They were among the roughly 175 people aboard the flotilla, which was attempting to break the decadeslong Israeli blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid to its people amid an ongoing genocide.
After suffering abuse that allegedly included broken ribs, noses, and other injuries, all of the flotilla members except Abu Keshek and Ávila were released. The pair was taken to Israel for further interrogation. Israel twice extended their detention for further interrogation, which, according to their legal representatives, included physical and psychological abuse amounting to torture. The men reportedly went on a hunger strike to protest their detention.
United Nations officials, Brazil, and Spain all called for the pair's release. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva condemned their detention as "a serious affront to international law."
As Abu Keshek—a Spanish-Swedish national of Palestinian origin—arrived in Greece on Sunday following his deportation from Israel, he implored the world to remember the suffering of Palestinians imprisoned for their physical and intellectual resistance to Israeli oppression.
"I left behind me thousands of Palestinian prisoners—children, women, and men," he said in Athens. "I am sure that the treatment I faced does not compare to the suffering they are going through, the testimonies we hear of their torture, of their violation on a daily basis. We have to continue mobilizing. We cannot forget the Palestinian prisoners.”
Ávila, meanwhile, transited through Egypt en route to his native Brazil after his deportation. He is expected to arrive in São Paulo on Monday afternoon. Ávila's mother, Teresa Regina de Ávila e Silva, died while he was held in Israel.
Global Sumud Flotilla issued a statement following the activists' release, which it called "a victory over Israel’s attempts to criminalize the flotilla movement and smear international solidarity with Palestine as 'terrorism.'"
"If Israel had any evidence to support its outrageous accusations that the flotilla was affiliated with Hamas or engaged in unlawful activity, Thiago and Saif would not be released without charges," the statement says. "Their release further exposes these claims for what they are: politically motivated propaganda aimed at justifying violence against civilian flotilla participants and suppressing growing global resistance to Israel’s genocide and settler-colonial violence."
"However, their release underscores a painful reality: Thiago and Saif had governments, diplomatic channels, and international visibility advocating for them," Global Sumud Flotilla stressed. "Millions of Palestinians living under brutal Israeli occupation have no such political protection. More than 10,000 Palestinians remain imprisoned in Israeli dungeons and torture camps, subjected to starvation, abuse, isolation, medical neglect, sexual assault, and other cruel and degrading treatment, without international intervention or accountability."
Other Palestine defenders also used the activists' release to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.
"We insist that the global mobilization for the release of Saif and Thiago must not stop but must instead grow for the liberation of all Palestinian prisoners jailed by the Zionist regime," said Samidoun, also known as the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, "as well as Lebanese and Arab prisoners detained in its prisons, as well as the Palestinian prisoners and the prisoners for Palestine held in imperialist prisons around the world."