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.
Ted Zukoski, Earthjustice, (303) 641-3149, tzukoski@earthjustice.org
Rex Tilousi, Havasupai Chairman, (928) 448-2731, htchair@havasupai-nsn.gov
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Chapter, (602) 999-5790, sandy.bahr@sierraclub.org
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 890-7515, rclark@grandcanyontrust.org
Katherine Davis, Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 345-5708, kdavis@biologicaldiversity.org
Kevin Dahl, National Parks Conservation Association, (520) 603-6430, kdahl@npca.org
The Havasupai tribe and conservation groups will fight appeals filed yesterday by two mining lobbying groups challenging a ruling by Arizona U.S. District Court Judge David G. Campbell that upheld a ban on new uranium mining claims on about one million acres adjacent to Grand Canyon.
In January 2012 then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued the 20-year ban that prohibits new mining claims and limits mine development on existing claims. A mining industry lawsuit asserted that the Interior Department's exhaustive two-year study, culminating in a 700-page evaluation of environmental impacts, was inadequate.
The ban was originally called for in 2008 by Arizona's governor, local governments, American Indian tribes, recreationists and conservation groups concerned about the impact of a uranium-mining boom on pure groundwater, cultural resources and the iconic landscapes surrounding Grand Canyon.
The Havasupai tribe, Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity and National Parks Conservation Association, all represented by not-for-profit law firm Earthjustice, intervened in the lawsuit filed by mining and uranium-industry trade associations and uranium prospector Gregory Yount.
In October Judge Campbell upheld the ban, validating the environmental impact statement and the thoughtful approach taken by the federal agencies involved in producing the statement. Campbell wrote that the secretary of the interior had the authority to "err on the side of caution in protecting a national treasure -- Grand Canyon national park."
The two lobbying groups appealing the decision are the National Mining Association and the American Exploration & Mining Association.
Havasupai Chairman Rex Tilousi provided the following statement emphasizing the importance of Judge Campbell's decision upholding the ban: "The Havasupai support the withdrawal of the lands from mining for the protection of our homes and our water. The ruling by Judge Campbell recognizes the unique and important resources on the lands south of Grand Canyon that are our aboriginal homelands and within the watershed that feeds our springs and flows into our canyon home."
Earthjustice attorney Ted Zukoski, who is representing the groups, said: "The communities like Supai that depend on the life-giving waters of the Grand Canyon region deserve protection from the toxic pollution and industrialization threatened by large-scale uranium mining. So do the deer, elk, condors, and other wildlife found in the Canyon. That's why we will keep fighting to defend these lands from this self-serving attack by the uranium industry."
"The court's ruling affirms conclusions by five federal agencies, including scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey," said Grand Canyon Trust's Roger Clark. "Uranium mining poses unacceptable risks to Grand Canyon's water, wildlife, and people. It should be permanently banned from our region."
"Secretary Salazar's decision to ban new mining claims was great news for Grand Canyon National Park and the greater Grand Canyon region, as well as the many visitors, businesses and organizations, local governments and Native American tribes who care about the park and the surrounding public lands," said Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter director. "We will contest this appeal to ensure that uranium mines are not allowed to contaminate the groundwater and threaten streams and drinking water."
"This appeal is yet another attempt by the mining industry to protect the profits of a few at the expense of the public good and welfare of local and tribal communities," said Katherine Davis, a public lands campaigner with the Center for Biological Diversity. "We'll continue to defend this ban on uranium mining that protects this critical watershed and the wildlife and communities that depend on it."
"After an extensive review process and substantial public participation, Secretary Salazar made a strong, affirmative decision to protect one of the world's most enduring landscapes and the sustained health of indigenous communities that live within the watershed of Grand Canyon," said Kevin Dahl of the National Parks Conservation Association. "We'll work to defeat industry's appeal because it puts important and necessary protections at risk."
One of the great symbols of the American West, Grand Canyon was first protected as a national monument by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908, and is surrounded by millions of additional acres of public lands that include wilderness areas, two national monuments, lands designated to protect endangered species and cultural resources, and old-growth ponderosa pine forests. The canyon area is also home to the Havasupai, Kaibab Band of Paiutes, Hualapai and Navajo tribes and has been designated a "World Heritage" site. The greater Grand Canyon region attracts about 5 million tourists and recreationists per year.
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"The so-called 'alliance' with Israel does not benefit the American people, and it is time for a new chapter," said the head of the IMEU Policy Project.
As US President Donald Trump confirmed he will be requesting $200 billion to wage his war of choice on Iran, a Thursday poll shows that a majority of Americans believe the war is benefiting Israel more than the United States.
The polling, conducted by Data for Progress for the groups Demand Progress and the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, shows that 56% of likely US voters across the ideological spectrum believe that launching a war against Iran generally benefits Israel more than the United States. Just 29% said it benefits the US more, while 15% said they didn't know.
"The American public does not want another war in the Middle East," said Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian in a statement. "People see billions of taxpayer dollars being poured into a war while prices at home keep rising, and the risks of escalation continue to grow."
"US service members are being killed and injured, and civilian harm is mounting, including strikes that have hit an Iranian school and killed scores of children," Kharrazian continued, pointing to the apparent US attack on a girls' school in Minab. "There is no justification for this open-ended war of choice."

Those surveyed were divided over whether the Israeli government has too much or too little influence over US foreign policy, and whether the United States is providing too much or too little support to Israel. However, a majority of respondents, 53%, said that they disapprove of recent military strikes against Iran, which Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began on February 28.
That share dropped only slightly, to 51%, when people were asked their opinion of the strikes once informed that "Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the US had to launch the war against Iran now because Israel was going to attack Iran anyway, which would cause Iran to respond by attacking US forces in the region."

Shortly after Rubio made those remarks to reporters on Capitol Hill, he and the White House attempted to walk them back. Trump himself publicly pushed back against the suggestion that Israeli officials convinced him to launch a new war in the Middle East with no end in sight, even claiming that "I might have forced their hand."
The new polling also suggests that continuing the war could have an impact at the ballot box in November, when Trump's Republican Party will try to retain its narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress. The survey shows respondents are less likely to vote for pro-war candidates or those prioritizing support for Israel.

According to Kharrazian: "The main issue before us now isn't whether the administration has explained its strategy clearly enough. Calls for more hearings or a clearer 'plan' miss the bigger picture; the war must end, full stop."
"The strategy we can all plainly see is bombing Iran into submission despite little indication that such a goal is achievable, while destroying infrastructure and killing more civilians across the country on an indefinite timeline," he said. "Members of Congress should listen to the public, clearly demand an end to this war now, assert their constitutional authority, and ensure not one penny more is spent on this disaster."
In early March, a short list of Democrats voted with nearly all Republicans in the US Senate and House of Representatives to reject war powers resolutions intended to halt Trump's assault on Iran. The upper chamber blocked another measure Wednesday evening.
Lawmakers have done so despite polling that has repeatedly made clear the US public is not thrilled with the war on Iran, whatever ultimately motivated it. Another Data for Progress survey published Thursday shows that 68% of Americans oppose deploying US ground troops to Iran. Additionally, 52% of those surveyed agreed that “going to war with Iran is not worth the risk because it will cost billions of dollars and result in the deaths of civilians and more American service members."
The war has already killed 13 US service members plus thousands of people across the Middle East, mostly in Iran and Lebanon—the latter of which Israel has returned to bombing, allegedly targeting Hezbollah, despite a November 2024 ceasefire related to the genocidal Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who previously tried to cut off some US weapons to Israel over its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, on Thursday introduced joint resolutions of disapproval for arms sales to Netanyahu's government following its recent escalation of attacks against Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine.
Objections to US contributions to bloodshed in the region have been met with hostility from the Trump administration. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued Thursday that "the world, the Middle East, our ungrateful allies in Europe, even segments of our own press, should be saying one thing to President Trump: 'Thank you.'"
Meanwhile, even a significant majority of Americans who voted for Trump in 2024—79%—want a swift end to the US-Israeli war in Iran, according to a Wednesday poll commissioned by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative.
"The American people have paid tens of billions to fund Israel's ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and now they are paying tens of billions more for a war that Netanyahu has lobbied for going back decades. The blank checks for Israel were a significant reason why Democrats lost the election in 2024, and Republicans are on the path to suffer the same fate," said Margaret DeReus, executive director of IMEU Policy Project.
"The so-called 'alliance' with Israel does not benefit the American people," DeReus added, "and it is time for a new chapter where our nation's leaders hold Israel accountable for its genocidal expansionism and endless aggression."
New revelations show an IG report about wait times for people seeking help or services was altered after it was submitted to the administration.
A Social Security advocacy organization on Thursday blasted the Trump administration for covering up damaging information contained in an inspector general report released in December.
According to The Washington Post, a report from the Social Security Administration's (SSA) inspector general (IG) about call wait times for beneficiaries was altered to make it seem as though wait times to speak to representatives had been reduced to under 10 minutes per call.
"An unpublished draft of the report... showed that the inspector general had planned to report another metric—called the 'total wait time'—to measure the overall time it takes for callers to be connected with an SSA employee," the Post explained. "According to that draft report, in 2025 total wait time averaged 46 minutes to over two hours."
The Post added that this "information was deleted from the draft after the agency reviewed it before publication."
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, responded to the report by saying that "now we know why [President Donald] Trump fired the inspector general at Social Security," noting that the SSA IG was one of several fired across multiple agencies at the start of Trump's second term.
Altman then argued that the attack on inspectors general was part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to dismantle government transparency all together.
"Inspectors general are the American peoples’ eyes and ears in these agencies," said Altman. "The Trump administration is undermining that oversight at every turn. Under this administration, the IG has no ability to conduct independent oversight. There is no meaningful check on the Trump administration’s Social Security sabotage."
Democratic communications consultant Jesse Lee linked the damage to the SSA documented in the draft IG report to efforts by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which went on a firing spree of federal workers last year.
"So DOGE did a smash and grab at the Social Security Administration, breaking into the most sensitive data, firing phone and in-person case workers," Lee wrote. "Trump appointee waved around an IG report claiming wait times were fine—after burying the real report saying they were up to two hours."
Royer Perez-Jimenez had been stopped by law enforcement agents for a traffic violation in January.
A teenager who was arrested in January after being stopped for a traffic violation in Florida is now believed to be the youngest person to have died in immigration detention under the second Trump administration, after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement notified Congress of the 19-year-old's death this week.
Royer Perez-Jimenez was found unresponsive by a detention officer at Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida at around 2:30 am Eastern on Monday. The center operates as an immigration detention facility under a contract with ICE.
Local emergency workers arrived and attempted lifesaving interventions, according to ICE's statement, but Perez-Jimenez was pronounced dead soon after.
The agency said Perez-Jimenez "died of a presumed suicide," but did not detail how that was determined and noted that the cause of death is still under investigation.
According to a tracker by The American Prospect, which has been monitoring deaths in ICE detention as well as deaths and injuries of people who have encountered federal immigration agents conducting enforcement operations, Perez-Jimenez is at least the 49th person who has died in detention since President Donald Trump took office for his second term in January 2025.
Perez-Jimenez was stopped on January 22 by the Volusia County Sheriff's Office for allegedly "crossing traffic lanes without using a crosswalk" while riding a scooter, according to the Miami New Times. He allegedly refused to stop and gave the officers "multiple fake names," which are both misdemeanors, according to an arrest report viewed by the New Times, but ICE's statement alleges that Perez-Jimenez had been charged with "felony fraud for impersonation."
The ICE report stated that Perez-Jimenez eventually told the officers that he had "overstayed his visa and is currently in the United States illegally" after coming into the country from his native Mexico.
ICE said Perez-Jimenez initially entered the US in 2022 and was granted a "voluntary return" to Mexico after he encountered US Border Patrol agents. He then reentered the US.
While alleging Perez-Jimenez had died of a presumed suicide, ICE acknowledged that he had been evaluated by medical staff during his intake, did not report any behavioral health concerns, and answered "no" to all suicide screening questions.
A spokesperson for the agency did not respond to a question from News Times regarding whether the 19-year-old was in suicide watch.
In 2022, 17 members of Congress called for the closure of Glades County Detention Center over escalating reports of abuse. They said immigrants there were subjected to "racist abuse, often resulting in verbal abuse and violence; sexual abuse, including sexual voyeurism by guards who have watched women shower; life-endangering Covid-19 and medical neglect, including a near-fatal carbon monoxide leak last November; and regular exposure to highly dangerous levels of a toxic disinfectant chemical spray linked to severe medical harms and long-term damage to reproductive health.”
Black immigrants in particular also faced death threats, the use of pepper spray, solitary confinement, and "extreme forms of physical violence like using the restraint chair," according to the lawmakers.
ICE ended its deal with the center in 2022, only for Trump to reopen the facility for immigration detention in 2025.
Austin Kocher, a professor at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, warned that despite the accelerating rate of deaths in ICE detention, "Congress has not launched a single investigation."
"This is not complicated or controversial. I am simply asking Congress to take seriously the death of people in ICE’s care and custody," wrote Kocher. "ICE is an agency for which Congress is obligated to provide accountability and oversight, particularly when that agency is unable or unwilling to police itself—such as now."
Kocher urged Americans to call on US Rep. Scott Franklin (R-Fla.), who represents the district where the facility is located, to demand an investigation.
"Light up his inboxes, phone lines, and social media until he does his job and looks into the conditions at this facility," said Kocher. "If you’ve been waiting for the time to take direction action, wait no longer: Act now. Demand accountability. Do not stop until you get real answers."
The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline—which offers 24/7, free, and confidential support—can be reached by calling or texting 988, or through chat at 988lifeline.org.