

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.

Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands, 314-482-3746, nick@cascwild.org
Timothy Coleman, Kettle Range Conservation Group, 509-675-3556, tcoleman@kettlerange.org
Bethany Cotton, WildEarth Guardians, 406-414-7227, bcotton@wildearthguardians.org
John Mellgren, Western Environmental Law Center, 541-525-5087, mellgren@westernlaw.org
In response to a challenge brought by a coalition of conservation organizations, a federal court rejected plans to escalate cruel wolf killing in Washington state by the secretive federal program dubbed "Wildlife Services." Federal District Judge Robert Bryan held that Wildlife Services should have prepared a more in-depth environmental analysis of the impacts of its proposed wolf killing activities, finding the program's cursory environmental assessment faulty because the proposed actions would have significant cumulative impacts that are highly controversial and highly uncertain.
Wildlife Services is a controversial program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service responsible for killing millions of wild animals every year, including wolves, grizzly bears, otters, foxes, coyotes and birds, with almost no oversight or accountability.
Judge Bryan vacated the program's analysis, stating "Wildlife Services shall not take any further wolf management actions in Washington under the proposed action alternative, but shall observe the status quo in place prior to the environmental assessment and [finding of no significant impact]."
"Wildlife Services has long asserted that it need not comply with our nations' federal environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, but this decision rejects those arguments and requires Wildlife Services to comply with all federal laws, not just those it finds convenient to comply with," said Western Environmental Law Center Attorney John Mellgren.
A 2013 internal audit revealed that Wildlife Services' accounting practices lacked transparency and violated state and federal laws. The program employs incredibly cruel tools to kill wildlife including aerial gunning, leghold traps, snares and poisons.
"It is long past time that we base wildlife management decisions on the best available science, not on antiquated anti-wolf rhetoric and myth," said Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. "Wildlife Services needs to come out of the shadows, update its analyses and adopt practices in keeping with modern science and values about the ethical treatment of animals."
The environmental assessment prepared by Wildlife Services failed to provide data to support several of its core assertions. For example, Wildlife Services claimed that killing wolves reduced wolf-caused losses of livestock, yet recent peer-reviewed research from Washington State University directly contradicts this conclusion, finding that killing wolves actually leads to an increase in wolf-livestock conflicts. The environmental assessment also fails to address the ecological effects of killing wolves in Washington, including impacts on wolf populations in neighboring states and on non-target animals, including federally protected grizzly bears and Canada lynx.
"This decision is so incredibly encouraging," said Nick Cady, legal director of Cascadia Wildlands. "We have been working for over a decade to hold Wildlife Services accountable for its blind, reckless lethal control programs. This decision paves the way for meaningful analysis of the program's impacts and hopefully a meaningful look at whether or not this wolf killing is worth it."
Washington has experienced Wildlife Services' wolf killing program firsthand. In August 2014, Wildlife Services snipers shot and killed the Huckleberry wolf pack's alpha female during a helicopter gunning operation. The death of the Huckleberry pack's breeding female threatens the future of the entire pack.
Wildlife Services also "advised" the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the contentious 2012 killing of Washington's Wedge wolf pack. In that instance, WDFW killed seven wolves after predation of livestock on public lands, despite the rancher's failure to take sufficient action to protect his cattle.
"The Court made a wise and prudent decision that safeguards the legal right of citizens to know what their government is doing in their name," said Timothy Coleman, executive director of Kettle Range Conservation Group. "The so-called Wildlife Services cannot just grant itself authority to execute an endangered species absent the public interest or best available science."
Wolves were driven to extinction in Washington in the early 1900s by a government-sponsored eradication program on behalf of the livestock industry. The species began to return to Washington from neighboring Idaho and British Columbia in the early 2000s and the wolf population in the state has grown to 13 confirmed packs. Despite this growth, wolves in the state are far from recovered and face ongoing threats. According to WDFW, Washington currently has at least 68 wolves in 16 packs.
The organizations, Cascadia Wildlands, WildEarth Guardians, Kettle Range Conservation Group, Predator Defense and the Lands Council were represented by the Western Environmental Law Center.
A copy of the decision is available here.
A copy of the original complaint is available here.
Read more about WELC's work to rein in Wildlife Services and protect wolves here.
The Western Environmental Law Center uses the power of the law to safeguard the public lands, wildlife, and communities of the American West in the face of a changing climate. We envision a thriving, resilient West, abundant with protected public lands and wildlife, powered by clean energy, and defended by communities rooted in an ethic of conservation.
(541) 485-2471"We are seeing the Iran war become a quagmire in real time," said one analyst.
The Pentagon reportedly wants Congress to approve more than $200 billion in supplemental funding for US President Donald Trump's unauthorized and deeply unpopular war on Iran as the administration weighs deploying thousands of additional troops to the Middle East, signaling a drawn-out conflict and a possible ground invasion.
The Washington Post reported late Wednesday that the Pentagon has asked the White House to sign off on the supplemental funding request as the financial and human costs of the Iran war balloon. The $200 billion figure, which drew immediate backlash and vows of opposition from several Democratic lawmakers, is quadruple the number widely floated in recent days as the department's likely supplemental request.
"This should be an absolute nonstarter," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in response to the Post's reporting. "The best way to end this war, protect our troops, save civilian lives, and rein in a lawless administration is to cut off funding. I’m a hell no."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that "at the height of combat the Iraq War cost around $140 billion per year."
"If the Pentagon is asking for $200 billion they are asking for a long war," Gallego added. "The answer is a simple no."
Any funding package would need 60 votes to get through the US Senate, requiring some Democratic support. As of this writing, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has responded to reports of the Pentagon's request.
The Post reported Wednesday that "it remains unclear how much the White House will ultimately ask congressional lawmakers to approve," and that "some White House officials do not think the Pentagon’s request has a realistic shot of being approved in Congress."
Prior to the start of the Iran assault, Trump called for a $1.5 trillion US military budget for the coming fiscal year even after the Pentagon failed its eighth consecutive audit.
The Pentagon's push for $200 billion in Iran war funding comes after US investigators reportedly determined that American forces were responsible for the bombing—on the first day of the war—of an Iranian elementary school that killed around 175 people, mostly young children.
News of the Pentagon's funding request came as Reuters reported that the Trump administration is "considering deploying thousands of US troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the US military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran."
"The deployments could help provide Trump with additional options as he weighs expanding US operations, with the Iran war well into its third week," Reuters reported. "Those options include securing safe passage for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a mission that would be accomplished primarily through air and naval forces, the sources said. But securing the Strait could also mean deploying U.S. troops to Iran's shoreline, said four sources, including two U.S. officials."
"The Trump administration has also discussed options to send ground forces to Iran's Kharg Island, the hub for 90% of Iran's oil exports," Reuters added. "One of the officials said such an operation would be very risky. Iran has the ability to reach the island with missiles and drones."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said Wednesday that "we are seeing the Iran war become a quagmire in real time."
"Asking US taxpayers to spend $50 billion on a war Trump claims we have already won was outrageous enough," said Williams. "Quadrupling that within a week shows a total lack of understanding or control over what he has gotten us into."
Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen, author of the Diplomatic newsletter, wrote Wednesday that "Trump blundered into what he thought would be a few day 'excursion' as he calls it, maybe Venezuela 2.0."
"That is not what Israel had in mind, the military has hit all of its targets," Rozen added. "He has no idea what he is doing, his intelligence and other aides were appointed not to tell him anything he does not want to hear; not a single one of them can explain what the goal is. Congressional Republicans have their heads deep in the sand, and now talk of a $200 billion Pentagon supplemental and sending more potential ground troops."
Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, highlighted the Post's reporting on social media and called $200 billion "the tip of the iceberg."
"Ordinary Americans can thank Benjamin Netanyahu and his lackeys in Congress for the trillion-dollar 'Israel First tax' that's about to hit the US economy," he wrote.
"Chicagoans and all Americans suffer from a healthcare system that is insanely complicated, medically unsound, and ruinously expensive for individuals, businesses, and the nation as a whole."
As Americans contend with skyrocketing health insurance premiums and a Republican congressional majority unwilling to extend even meager subsidies, the City Council in the third-largest US city—Chicago, Illinois—on Wednesday unanimously approved a resolution pressuring Congress to pass Medicare for All legislation.
Chicago's resolution from Alderwoman Ruth Cruz, a Democrat representing Ward 30, "enthusiastically" endorses the Medicare for All Act introduced last year by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), and calls on federal legislators "to work toward its swift enactment."
The resolution notes that if passed, the congressional bill would cover "all necessary primary, preventative, and medical care; including hospital, surgical, and outpatient services, prescription drugs, mental health, and substance abuse treatment; emergency services; reproductive care; dental, hearing and vision care; and long-term care" for all Americans throughout lifetimes without without co-payments, deductibles, or other out-of-pocket costs.
Speaking at Wednesday's five-hour meeting, Cruz declared that "healthcare is a human right."
"Chicagoans and all Americans suffer from a healthcare system that is insanely complicated, medically unsound, and ruinously expensive for individuals, businesses, and the nation as a whole," Cruz said in a statement. "Medicare for All would put actual medical care back at the center of our healthcare system, leading to better outcomes and lower costs for millions of Americans."
"Every other developed nation on Earth—and some developing nations as well!—has figured out how to provide universal health coverage to their people," she continued. "It is long past time for Congress to do the rational, responsible thing and adopt Medicare for All in the United States."
Chicago has now joined dozens of US cities and counties that have, in recent years, formally supported replacing the nation's for-profit healthcare system with a public single-payer one. The Board of Commissioners for Illinois' Cook County—which includes Chicago—approved a similar resolution in 2019.
US Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.), a cosponsor of the federal bill and "proud" supporter of the Chicago resolution, argued Wednesday that "Medicare for All is the right step toward addressing high costs and inequalities in the current system, which particularly affect underserved populations and minorities."
García, who plans to retire after this term, represents Illinois' 4th Congressional District, which spans parts of Cook and DuPage counties. He said that "my district in Chicago has a 14% uninsurance rate, and many cannot afford healthcare even though they work full time."
President Donald Trump's "cruel spending bill passed in 2025 will leave 10 million more people nationwide without health insurance by 2034, because of changes his bill made to the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid," he highlighted, referring to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. "Passing the Medicare for All Act is more urgent than ever."
"At a time when people are struggling to pay for medications, groceries, and gasoline because of President Trump's policies, Medicare for All will guarantee that all Chicago and other US residents will be fully covered for healthcare anywhere in the United States, regardless of employment status, marital status, citizenship status, income, age, or geography," García concluded. "We owe it to America. We owe it to the hardworking people in our communities."
Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that fights for a single-payer system at the federal level, pointed out on social media Wednesday that "this makes Chicago the biggest city in the country to endorse Medicare for All."
Breaking news: Chicago’s City Council has voted unanimously to pass a resolution in support of Medicare for All 🎉This makes Chicago the biggest city in the country to endorse Medicare for All, and sends a message to federal legislators that their constituents expect them to support single payer.
[image or embed]
— Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) (@pnhp.bsky.social) March 18, 2026 at 9:01 PM
The Chicago-based group's national coordinator, Dr. Claudia Fegan, retired as chief medical officer of Cook County Health in December 2024. While publicly advocating for the resolution earlier this month, she said that "I am reminded of a woman I admitted to the hospital one night a few years ago. Both of her breasts were rock hard. They were infiltrated with cancer with palpable lymph nodes in her axilla. She worked as a hairdresser, owned her own shop, but had no health insurance."
"She was sitting at home waiting to die," Fegan explained. "She believed she had no other choice. She knew she could not afford her care. Her daughter made her come in. Remarkably, we were able to get a dramatic response with treatment. No one should ever have to sit at home waiting to die in this country, when we have treatments that can be lifesaving."
Eagan Kemp, healthcare policy advocate at another national group, Public Citizen, said Wednesday that "the fragmentation of our healthcare system creates instability and inequity for Chicago residents every day."
"Right now, the situation is dire," Kemp acknowledged, "with the recent actions by the Trump administration and its MAGA allies in Congress to further unravel an already tenuous system that leaves tens of millions of Americans without coverage and even more without adequate coverage."
"But the federal government already has the capacity and funding to efficiently address this through a universal insurance program," the advocate emphasized. "Thankfully, we also have an excellent plan for how to accomplish that in the Medicare for All Act of 2025. This resolution ushers the solution into the spotlight as a key demand for Americans to voice to our government."
After the Chicago resolution's approval, Susan Hurley, executive director of the Illinois Single Payer Coalition, which organized communities to advance the measure, stressed that "our collective misery, suffering, and impoverishment is allowed to happen so that health insurance CEOs and others in our bloated, corrupt system can make hundreds of millions of dollars."
"The companies hoard billions in profits," Hurley said. "It is monstrous madness to allow this to continue for no other reason than satisfying greed beyond all comprehension at the expense of human lives."
The city's Wednesday move came on the heels of Illinois' primary elections, in which state residents chose Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, a supporter of Medicare for All, in a nationally watched race to run for retiring US Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-Ill.) seat in November, when Democrats aim to reclaim both chambers of Congress.
Undaunted, the New Jersey Democrat vowed to introduce similar measures "again and again and again as more Americans on both sides of the aisle see this war for what it is."
Republican senators on Wednesday blocked Sen. Cory Booker from forcing a final vote on a resolution to curb President Donald Trump's ability to continue waging the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran without congressional authorization.
"All of us—all 100—swore an oath to the Constitution," Booker (D-NJ) said on the Senate floor ahead of Wednesday's 47-53 vote against the measure. "The Constitution is clear. Congress has the authority to declare war and authorize the use of military force, but in this case, Congress and the United States Senate in particular has done nothing."
"This is why I urge my colleagues soon to support the motion to discharge Senate Joint Resolution 118," Booker continued. "I ask for that because of what is at stake: Billions of taxpayer dollars. Hundreds of American lives. What is at stake is the Constitution of the United States of America."
All 100 Senators swore an oath not to Donald Trump, but to the Constitution. That’s why I’m fighting in the Senate tonight to end this reckless war.
[image or embed]
— Sen. Cory Booker (@booker.senate.gov) March 18, 2026 at 3:24 PM
The resolution would have ordered the "removal of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress."
"We swore an oath. We have an obligation.This is the moment now," the senator added. "This is not left or right; this is a moral moment and a solemn, sacred, patriotic duty to uphold the Constitution—especially when the president of the United States is so willfully violating it."
Every Democrat except Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted to advance Booker's resolution. Every Republican with the exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky voted "no." Both Independent senators—Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Maine's Angus King—voted "yes."
Earlier this month, Fetterman joined all upper chamber Republicans save Paul in blocking a war powers resolution aimed at reining in Trump's US-Israeli war on Iran.
On Sunday, Booker said that "both parties have been feckless in allowing the growth of the power of the presidency."
"At this scale, at this magnitude, at this cost, why is Congress just laying down and doing nothing?” he added.
Undaunted by Wednesday's defeat, Booker vowed to introduce similar resolutions "again and again and again as more Americans on both sides of the aisle see this war for what it is: one president's decision costing all Americans."
According to a poll published Wednesday by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, nearly 8 in 10 Trump voters want the war to end quickly.
"Even after this vote, there are many of us here in this body who will fight to uphold the Constitution," Booker said.