

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.

Lori Ann Burd (847) 567-4052
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a moratorium on new bee- and bird- harming neonicotinoid pesticide products and uses. While supportive of the partial halt on new registrations, farm, beekeeper and environmental groups were disappointed that the action ignored the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market. EPA's announcement likely foreshadows broader recommendations from the White House Pollinator Health Task Force, according to the groups.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a moratorium on new bee- and bird- harming neonicotinoid pesticide products and uses. While supportive of the partial halt on new registrations, farm, beekeeper and environmental groups were disappointed that the action ignored the huge numbers of other bee-harming pesticides already on the market. EPA's announcement likely foreshadows broader recommendations from the White House Pollinator Health Task Force, according to the groups.
"We need EPA to protect bees and other pollinators from the neonicotinoids and other bee-harming insecticides that are already covering the corn and soybean acres in our area, not just keep new products off the market," said Joanna Voigt, program and communications coordinator at Kansas Rural Center. "Here at the Kansas Rural Center we work with farmers who rely on pollinators to cultivate crops like squash, blueberries, apples, cucumbers, peppers, sunflowers and more. These farmers deserve more from EPA."
More than 125 farmer, food safety, beekeeper, faith and environmental groups sent a letter to the president last month urging a moratorium on all neonicotinoids and their chemical cousins, other systemic pesticides. Additionally, more than 4 million Americans signed petitions urging the Obama administration to take immediate action on bee-toxic pesticides.
"EPA's announcement is disingenuous," said Jeff Anderson, a beekeeper and owner of California Minnesota Honey Farms. "In the last year, EPA has approved registration for two new neonics, and expanded uses of these pesticides to additional blooming crops -- also increasing residue tolerances to accommodate these new uses. Allowing increased toxic exposure to my bees and then announcing a moratorium? Very disingenuous."
Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides known to have both acute and chronic effects on honey bees, birds, butterflies and other pollinator species, and are considered a major factor in overall pollinator declines. A growing body of independent science links neonics to bee declines, both alone and in combination with other factors like disease and malnutrition. Twenty-nine independent scientists conducted a global review of more than 1,000 independent studies, and found overwhelming evidence linking neonicotinoid pesticides to declines of bees, birds, earthworms, butterflies and other wildlife.
Neonics are also slow to break down, causing them to build up in the environment and endanger a range of beneficial species that inhabit these ecosystems.
After neonics came under scrutiny, other long-lived, highly-toxic "systemic" insecticides came on the market. Systemic, or "whole plant," insecticides are drawn up into plants from the root, and can infuse both pollen and fruit. These new chemicals, including sulfoxaflor and flupyradifurone, are very closely related to neonicotinoids, and arguably could be included in the neonicotinoid grouping. Yet they were placed in a separate subgroup from neonicotinoids by CropLife's Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, a categorization that will allow EPA to continue registering new uses of systemic insecticides, even after today's announcement.
Numerous food safety and environmental groups are urging EPA to expand the moratorium to include products already on the market.
"It's welcome news that EPA is finally beginning to address the threat that neonics pose to the nation's bees and other pollinators, but given the threats to the nation's food and farming system, more is needed," said Kristin Schafer, policy director at Pesticide Action Network North America. "Numerous bee-harming neonics and their cousin products are already on the market, and seed coatings in particular have led to a dramatic surge in use over the last few years. EPA should go further to place a moratorium on existing products."
"EPA has finally admitted it lacks the basic data needed to determine whether bees, other pollinators, or the environment will be adversely affected by neonicotinoids," said Peter T. Jenkins, attorney for the Center for Food Safety. "If EPA is unable to assess the safety of new uses, the agency similarly is not able to assess the safety of the close to 100 outdoor uses already approved. In view of its admissions, EPA has no option under FIFRA other than to suspend the existing uses, as well as follow through with its moratorium on the proposed new uses."
"Although EPA acknowledges the harm neonicotinoids cause to pollinators, this action simply does not address the current neonicotinoid and other systemic insecticide products used in agriculture and by consumers that already pose unacceptable risks to pollinators," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. "We urge the agency to suspend neonicotinoid products and take meaningful action on pollinator health."
Today's move comes on the heels of a new study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology that highlights how use of pesticides that coat seeds, which EPA is not tracking, has sharply risen. According to the study, many farmers are prophylactically using these coatings as an insurance policy to protect crop yields, despite evidence of limited benefits.
According to an independent poll released last month, more than half of Americans consider the declining populations of honey bees and other pollinators to be a serious problem. And while today's announcement indicates that EPA is slowly responding to Americans' concerns, groups are concerned about the action's limitations.
"This action by EPA is an important step forward in protecting bees, butterflies and the entire web of life," said Lori Ann Burd, Environmental Health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "There is no question that these toxic chemicals are killing our pollinators, and we commend EPA for recognizing these impacts and taking this action -- but they need to go even further."
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) 623-5252This month, a GOP senator accused an immigration researcher of “hyperbole” for saying the Department of Homeland Security was advocating “ethnic cleansing” with its calls to expel 100 million people.
When the official social media account for the US Department of Homeland Security made a post glorifying the idea of “100 million deportations," it was dismissed by many as a joke, while those who said it amounted to a call for ”ethnic cleansing“ were accused of ”hyperbole.“
But the man who once led President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign says he was always dead serious about purging nearly a third of the country’s population.
On Tuesday, The New York Times published an interview with Gregory Bovino, the former “commander-at-large” of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, who was unceremoniously demoted back to his old post in El Centro, California this January, after immigration agents’ rampage across Minnesota—which included the public executions of two American citizens—ignited nationwide backlash.
Bovino, who is retiring this week at the age of 55, told the Times he had few regrets about his tenure leading the efforts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which were marked by rampant racial profiling, large indiscriminate roundups, violations of civil liberties, and violent attacks on peaceful protesters.
But he wishes he had gone much further. According to the Times:
Mr. Bovino said he had a master plan that was in motion before his exile back to El Centro. It would have neutralized protesters, he said, and made it possible to deport 100 million people.
That is a goal that the Department of Homeland Security has widely promoted. If it sounds extreme, that’s because it’s nearly 10 times the estimated number of undocumented people in the country. It is also more than a quarter of the entire US population.
As Common Dreams reported back in late December, when DHS posted a meme about "100 million deportations," that number bears striking significance, since it was close to the number of people living in the US who identified as non-white on the 2020 census—about 96 million.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, it's also approximately the number of foreign-born people and their children, which was about 97.2 million as of 2024.
There are about 47 million foreign-born people living in the US, meaning that such a policy would also entail the deportation of around 53 million US-born citizens.
While Bovino and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have lost their jobs, it's unclear whether the new head of DHS, Secretary Markwayne Mullin, will join the push to expel 100 million people from the US.
The Times provided little exposition about how precisely Bovino planned to carry out what would be by far the largest campaign of forced displacement in American, if not world, history.
However, the article demonstrates that the idea was not simply a troll post by a social media intern, but a sincere objective for a man who answered directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security and was elevated to the position of America’s most powerful immigration enforcer.
Bovino's admission of this goal was of particular note to David J. Bier, an immigration researcher at the Cato Institute and a prominent critic of Trump's immigration policy. He discussed the "100 million deportations" goal earlier this month during a Senate Budget Committee hearing.
DHS's post came up after Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) attempted to discredit Bier by reading off supposedly "hyperbolic" posts he'd made on social media, including one accusing Republicans of thinking "they can troll their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing."
Bier responded that his post was "in regard to a Department of Homeland Security post about 100 million deportations. That is what DHS has tweeted from their account."
As Kennedy attempted to shout over Bier, the researcher said: "100 million deportations would be ethnic cleansing. You would be removing one-third of the country."
"And you don't think this is hyperbolic?" Kennedy interrupted, smirking. The senator brought up another of Bier's posts in which he claimed Trump was carrying out a "population purge agenda," adding sarcastically, "No hyperbole there!"
“When I talk about ‘population purge,’ I’m talking about the fact that they’re trying to deport US-born citizens, people born here,” Bier responded. “They are trying to deport them as well. So it’s not a ‘mass deportation' agenda. It’s also an agenda intended to reduce the population of the United States, including US-born citizens. So these are not ‘hyperbolic’ statements.”
Kennedy ignored Bier's argument, instead derisively asking "what planet" he was from and saying he triggered his "gag reflex." It is not clear if Kennedy was aware of Trump's frequent calls to "denaturalize" American citizens or his administration's efforts to eliminate the constitutional provision of birthright citizenship.
The Houston-based immigration attorney Steven Brown said that Bovino’s apparent “master plan” was “exactly what Bier testified about, since 100 million deportations would expel ”one-third of the US population and would necessitate citizens being deported to accomplish.“
Jessica Riedl, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, called the idea "just dangerously insane," and something out of "white supremacist fan fiction."
"These are the armed fanatics who were given police power in our cities," she added.
Noting that many of the commenters who replied to his posts expressed support for the idea, Bier warned that "DHS's 100 million deportations ethnic cleansing agenda is spreading throughout the right-wing echo chamber as it is intended. It is only a matter of time before this extremism becomes standard rhetoric for GOP candidates."
As the latest poll results were released, the Maine governor launched her second ad against her Senate primary opponent, again attacking him for comments he made online 13 years ago.
Days after Maine Gov. Janet Mills released her first attack ad against her rival in the Democratic Senate primary, Graham Platner, focusing on comments he made about sexual assault victims online 13 years ago, Emerson College Polling conducted the latest survey of likely primary voters regarding their support for the two candidates.
Between March 21-23, the polling group surveyed 1,075 Maine Democrats and found that 55% expressed support for Platner, while just 28% supported Mills—giving the first-time political candidate, oyster farmer, and combat veteran nearly a 2-to-1 advantage.
When asked about a hypothetical general election matchup with Republican Sen. Susan Collins, respondents gave both Democratic candidates an edge over her, but Platner had a more comfortable lead.
Forty-eight percent supported him over Collins, while 41% backed Collins and 12% said they were undecided or supported another candidate. Mills had the backing of 46% of voters compared to Collins' 43%, and 11% were undecided.
The poll was consistent with numerous other surveys that have been taken since Mills entered the race last October, at which point it came to light that Platner had written offensive messages on Reddit in the past and had gotten a tattoo while in the Marines that resembled a skull-and-crossbones that appeared on the uniforms of Nazi guards during World War II.
Platner said his views had evolved since he wrote the posts and said he had not been aware that the symbol was associated with Nazis; he then got the tattoo covered up and continued holding rallies in cities and towns across the state—often addressing overflow crowds—where he has been speaking out against oligarchy, pushing for Medicare for All, demanding a billionaire's minimum tax, and condemning the Trump administration's "authoritarian overreach" with its mass deportations agenda.
Polls taken in the weeks after the controversies broke suggested the negative stories about Platner's past weren't sticking. The University of New Hampshire (UNH) found in late October that 58% of voters backed Platner compared to 24% who supported the governor.
He was 20 points ahead of Mills in a poll by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee weeks later, and in February UNH found Platner had widened his already significant lead, with 64% of Maine Democrats supporting him and 26% backing Mills. He also had an 11-point lead over Collins compared to Mills 1-point lead.
Despite the evidence that the attacks on Platner's Reddit history were doing little to damage his chances of winning, Mills made his comments the focus of her first attack ad earlier this month—a move that was panned at a local Democrats meeting days later in Hancock County, with attendees telling the governor directly that the ad was "odious" and "underhanded" and demanding to know: “Do you believe in a Maine and a country where a person can be redeemed? Where they can change and become a better version of themself?”
At the meeting, several voters also expressed disapproval of Mills' record of vetoing drug pricing and labor rights legislation and her opposition to a red flag gun control law.
On Thursday, as the latest Emerson College poll results were released, Mills released a second ad that, like the first one, focused on Platner's 2013 comments about sexual assault.
"Since her last attack ad, he has only climbed in the polls against both Mills and Collins," said journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News. "All these ads do is tell voters that the Democratic establishment is still a closed-off world where you are not welcome if you previously held different views or said something offensive on the internet. Nobody wants that world."
"Every single one of this administration's policies is doing what it can to raise prices," said one critic.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Thursday released a report projecting that President Donald Trump's unconstitutional war with Iran will sharply increase inflation in the US this year.
According to OECD, the disruption in energy markets caused by the war means that "inflation pressures will persist for longer," with inflation in G20 nations "now expected to be higher in 2026 than previously projected."
OECD projects that inflation in the US, which was previously seen coming in at 2.6% in 2026, will instead rise to 4.2% this year thanks in large part to the war, which has spiked prices for oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and fertilizer.
The report also warns that these numbers could get even worse if the Iran conflict drags on and the Strait of Hormuz remains shut for a prolonged period.
"Further disruptions to trade in the Persian Gulf could also have negative effects on a broader range of products in global supply chains," OECD writes. "For example, ongoing constraints to fertilizer supply could increase global food prices, with potentially serious impacts on household finances and inflation expectations. Furthermore, reduced supply of sulphur, helium or aluminium could impede production in a range of industries."
More ominously, the report finds that "prolonged disruptions to energy supply and growth, or lower-than-expected returns from net AI investment, or rising losses in private capital markets, could all trigger more widespread risk repricing in financial markets," with the result being a higher risk of default across "multiple credit products" and an evaporation of economic liquidity.
Asa Johansson, director of policy studies at OECD, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that the organization's forecast is "highly uncertain" at this point because "we don’t know the breadth and the duration of this energy shock" caused by the war.
Tahra Hoops, director of economic analysis at Chamber of Progress, expressed astonishment at the Trump administration's economic mismanagement in launching the Iran war, which came at a time when polling has consistently shown that affordability is the top concern for US voters.
"Every single one of this administration's policies is doing what it can to raise prices," wrote Hoops, "for a political goal that they have yet to coherently articulate, let alone have any chance at achieving."
Phillips O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews, argued that the OECD's inflation forecast was yet another nail in the Republican Party's chances of retaining control of Congress this year.
"It’s going to be so much fun watching the GOP run on 'affordability' in 2026," O'Brien wrote.