

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.

Conservation groups filed a lawsuit today challenging the authority of the federal wildlife-killing program Wildlife Services to kill any of the approximately 81 remaining gray wolves in Oregon. The legal challenge, filed by the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of four conservation groups, with Cascadia Wildlands representing itself, comes weeks after a federal court ruled that Wildlife Services' controversial wolf killing program in Washington is illegal.
Conservation groups filed a lawsuit today challenging the authority of the federal wildlife-killing program Wildlife Services to kill any of the approximately 81 remaining gray wolves in Oregon. The legal challenge, filed by the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of four conservation groups, with Cascadia Wildlands representing itself, comes weeks after a federal court ruled that Wildlife Services' controversial wolf killing program in Washington is illegal.
The groups contend that Wildlife Services failed to explain why killing wolves on behalf of livestock interests should replace common-sense, proactive and nonlethal alternatives such as those reflected in the Oregon Gray Wolf Management Plan. The National Environmental Policy Act requires this analysis and public disclosure. In Oregon and Washington, Wildlife Services completed vague plans to target wolves for livestock depredations but did not explain why nonlethal alternatives would be inadequate.
"Federal law requires Wildlife Services to conduct a full and fair evaluation of the ecological impacts of its wolf-killing program in Oregon, and it failed to do so," said John Mellgren, the Western Environmental Law Center attorney arguing the case. "In addition to protecting gray wolves from being killed, our recent victory in Washington will help to shed light on this secretive federal program, and we hope to continue that process in Oregon."
A federal extermination program under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services kills roughly 1.5 million to 3 million native animals per year, including wolves, grizzly bears, mountain lions, otters, foxes, coyotes, birds and even domestic pets -- with little oversight or accountability. Wildlife Services employs inhumane tools to kill wildlife including aerial gunning, leghold traps, snares and poisons. A 2013 internal audit revealed that Wildlife Services' accounting practices lacked transparency and violated state and federal laws.
"Wildlife Services has for decades taken advantage of a legal loophole to avoid conducting any meaningful analysis of its deplorable killing program, or any assessment of whether its programs are effective at all," said Nick Cady, legal director at Cascadia Wildlands. "We believe if the agency truly takes a hard look at its activities, the impacts and the costs, these killing programs will be terminated."
NEPA requires Wildlife Services to rigorously examine the environmental effects of killing wolves and to consider alternatives that rely on proven nonlethal methods like range riders, livestock-guarding dogs and shepherds, and disposing of livestock carcasses to avoid attracting wolves and other predators. In both Oregon and Washington, Wildlife Services completed vague analyses that did not consider alternatives and rejected evidence that nonlethal methods are more effective. NEPA also mandates a public comment period for the proposal.
"Oregon is no place for Wildlife Services," said Amy Atwood, endangered species legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Wildlife Services is a rogue agency that uses ineffective, cruel and costly methods to kill wolves instead of common-sense, nonlethal methods that foster coexistence."
"Wildlife Services' refusal to ensure its activities are based on the best available science leads to unnecessary and harmful killing and strips the public of an opportunity to meaningfully understand and contribute to decisions impacting the health of ecosystems on which we all depend," said Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians. "It's past time the dark practices of Wildlife Services are subjected to the sunshine of a transparent public process."
Wildlife Services claims that killing wolves reduces wolf-related losses of livestock, yet recent peer-reviewed research finds that killing wolves leads to an increase in wolf-livestock conflicts. Wildlife Services also failed to address the effects of killing wolves in Oregon, including impacts on ecosystems, wolf populations in neighboring states and on non-target animals that may be killed or injured as a result of the wolf killing program.
"It is telling that Wildlife Services was formerly called Animal Damage Control," said Brooks Fahy, executive director of Predator Defense. "They changed their name, but nothing more. This misnomer of a program is notorious for abuse of power, lack of transparency, illegal activity and brutal treatment of wildlife. It has been criticized by members of Congress, the public and leading predator biologists. Further scrutiny of Wildlife Services' activities in Oregon is long overdue, particularly now, as the gray wolf faces imminent delisting from state endangered species protections."
"Wildlife Services' predator control program is ecologically destructive, ethically indefensible and economically unjustifiable," said Camilla Fox, founder and executive director of Project Coyote. "The science is clear that killing wolves is not effective at reducing conflicts and likely exacerbates problems by destabilizing wolf social structures. How many lawsuits will it take for Wildlife Services to do what's right?"
Wolves were driven to extinction in Oregon by the late 1940s through a government-sponsored eradication program. The species began to return to Oregon from neighboring states and Canada in the early 2000s. In 2012, wolf recovery got back on track in Oregon. It took a legal challenge, but the state's wolf killing program (separate from Wildlife Services') was put on hold and the wolf population grew from 29 to 81. In November 2015, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission stripped Oregon's wolves of much needed state endangered species protections. Oregon's wolves face a long road to recovery and ongoing threats -- including that of being shot and killed by Wildlife Services.
John Mellgren of the Western Environmental Law Center and Nick Cady with Cascadia Wildlands represent the following organizations in the lawsuit: Cascadia Wildlands, the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, Predator Defense and Project Coyote.
Download a copy of the complaint 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“They may have won this race, but we have changed the narrative about what kind of city Minneapolis can be,” Omar Fateh said.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey fended off a challenge from democratic socialist Omar Fateh to secure a third term by winning enough support in the second round of the city's ranked-choice voting system.
City election officials declared Frey, a Democrat, the winner Wednesday morning after tabulating second- and subsequent-choice votes. Frey won 42% of first-choice votes, followed by Fateh with 32%, former pastor DeWayne Davis with 14%, and entrepreneur Jazz Hampton with 10%.
Fateh—a Democratic state senator and son of Somali immigrants—congratulated Frey on his victory.
“They may have won this race, but we have changed the narrative about what kind of city Minneapolis can be,” he said. “Because now, truly affordable housing, workers’ rights, and public safety rooted in care are no longer side conversations; they are at the center of the narrative.”
Thank you, Minneapolis!While this wasn’t the outcome we wanted, I am incredibly grateful to every single person who supported our grassroots campaign. I’ll keep fighting alongside you to build the city we deserve. Onward.
[image or embed]
— Omar Fateh (@omarfatehmn.com) November 5, 2025 at 10:03 AM
Frey said in a statement Wednesday, “From right now through my final seconds as mayor, I will work tirelessly to make our great city a place where everyone, regardless of who you are or where you come from, can build a brilliant life in an affordable home and a safe neighborhood."
Fateh’s campaign drew comparisons with that of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, another progressive state lawmaker and democratic socialist who was bombarded with racist, Islamophobic, and xenophobic hate by prominent right-wing figures. Like Mamdani, Fateh hoped voters would focus on his record of serving his constituency in the state Legislature.
Among the dozens of bills authored by Fateh were a successful proposal to fund tuition-free public colleges and universities and tribal colleges for students from families with household incomes below $80,000, including undocumented immigrants, and another measure that exempted fentanyl test strips from being considered drug paraphernalia.
Fateh was also the chief state Senate author of a bill that would have ensured that drivers on ride-hailing applications like Uber and Lyft were paid minimum wage and received workplace protections. Although the bill was approved by both houses of the state Legislature, it was vetoed by Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Gov. Tim Walz, sparking widespread outrage among progressives.
Initially chosen over Frey by state DFL delegates, Fatah's endorsement was rescinded in August by state party officials, sparking widespread outrage from progressives including Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who condemned the "inexcusable" move, which she chalked up to "the influence of big money in our politics."
One social media user wrote that the hedge fund executive Bill Ackman "went from acting like Mamdani was going to import ISIS to extending a friendly handshake… in like six hours."
After his resounding election victory on Tuesday night, New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's most prominent billionaire antagonist immediately pivoted to kiss the ring of the man he has spent the last more than half-year portraying as an existential threat to the city and the country.
Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman poured over $1.75 million into the mayor's race with a laser focus on stopping Mamdani, whom he often ambushed with several-thousand-word screeds on his X account, which boasts nearly 2 million followers. He accused Mamdani—a staunch critic of Israel—of "amplifying hate" against Jewish New Yorkers, while suggesting that his followers (which happened to include many Jewish New Yorkers) were "terror supporters."
Meanwhile, the billionaire suggested that the democratic socialist Mamdani's "affordability" centered agenda, which includes increasing taxes on corporations and the city's wealthiest residents to fund universal childcare, free buses, and a rent freeze for stabilized units, would make the city "much more dangerous and economically unviable," in part by causing an exodus of billionaires like himself.
In turn, Mamdani often invoked Ackman's name on the campaign trail, using him as the poster boy for the cossetted New York elite that was almost uniformly arrayed against his candidacy. In one exchange, Mamdani joked that Ackman was "spending more money against me than I would even tax him."
After Mamdani's convincing victory Tuesday night, fueled in large part by his dominant performance among the city's working-class voters, Ackman surprisingly did not respond with "the longest tweet in the history of tweets" to lament the result as some predicted. Instead, he came to the mayor-elect hat in hand.
"Congrats on the win," he told Mamdani on X. "Now you have a big responsibility. If I can help NYC, just let me know what I can do."
Many were quick to point out Ackman's near-immediate 180-degree turn from prophecizing doom to offering his help to the incoming mayor.
"This guy went from acting like Mamdani was going to import ISIS to extending a friendly handshake… in like six hours," noted one social media user.
But Mamdani graciously accepted the billionaire's congratulations when asked about them on Wednesday's "Good Morning America."
"I appreciated his words,” Mamdani said. "I think what I find is that there is a needed commitment from leaders of the city to speak and work with anyone who is committed to lowering the cost of living in the city—and that’s something that I will fulfill."
As Bloomberg and Forbes noted, Ackman was just one of many on Wall Street and from the broader finance world who came to kiss the ring.
Ralph Schlosstein, a co-founder of the investment fund BlackRock, Inc., pledged to work with Mamdani despite their different politics: "I do care deeply about the city, and I’m not going anywhere, whoever the mayor is. I’m going to do whatever I can to help him be successful," he said.
Another former BlackRock executive, Mark Kronfeld, said: "Is it a dystopian, post-apocalyptic environment because Mamdani has won? No."
Crypto billionaire Mike Novogratz even credited Mamdani with "tapping into a message that’s real: that we’ve got a tale of two cities in the Dickensian sense," and asked if the incoming mayor could "address the affordability issue in creative ways without driving business out."
But while Mamdani has left the door open to business, he has made it clear that he will not allow them to commandeer his work at City Hall.
After his victory, he called on his base of largely small-dollar donors to resume their financial support for him in order to fund "a transition that can meet the moment of preparing for January 1.”
He announced that this historic all-female transition team will include at least one renowned titan of economic populism, the trust-busting former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, as well as other progressive city administrators with backgrounds in expanding the social safety net and public housing.
"I’m excited for the fact that it will be funded by the very people who brought us to this point," Mamdani said, "the working people who have been lost behind by the politics of the city."
One critic warned a Trump win “will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way.”
As the US Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing arguments on the sweeping powers claimed by President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on foreign goods, many critics warned that the court would create a "presidency without limits" if it ruled in his favor.
In April, Trump unveiled unprecedented tariffs on nearly every nation in the world using powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law passed in 1977 that allows the president to regulate international commerce during major emergencies such as wars.
Many Trump critics believe that using this law as the legal foundation of a global tariff regime is a gross abuse of the law's original intent, and are urging the Supreme Court to shut it down.
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, warned that granting the president this level of authority over the taxation of imported goods would "open the door to broader abuses of power" by emboldening Trump to usurp even more authority from the US Congress.
“We’re already dangerously close to a presidency without limits," he said. "It’s time for the right-wing majority on the court to stand up for our Constitution and serve as a check on Trump’s power, starting with this case."
Josh Orton, president of progressive legal advocacy organization Demand Justice, also said that the tariff case before the Supreme Court "is about far more than an economic debate or a trade-law dispute," given its implications for the separation of powers laid out in the US Constitution.
"Trump is demanding that the court hand him raw power over the economy," said Orton. "If Trump wins here, he won’t just raise costs on American families. He will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way—letting any president unilaterally rewrite trade law, punish certain industries, harm consumers, or leverage international allies for personal gain."
Leor Tal, campaign director at the progressive advocacy coalition Unrig Our Economy, argued that the Supreme Court wouldn't even need to hear the case on the Trump tariffs if Congress reasserted its authority given under the US Constitution to levy taxes.
“As the Supreme Court hears a case with implications for whether Americans can afford groceries, school supplies, and more, people will remember that Republicans in Congress could end these disastrous tariffs today and should have done so a long time ago," she said. “These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on working Americans, and Republicans in Congress have voted time and again to keep them in place... Republicans in Congress must act immediately to repeal Trump’s tariffs and finally put working people first."
During Wednesday's hearing on the tariffs case, conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about allowing the president to usurp congressional powers in perpetuity by issuing emergency declarations that Congress must then vote to revoke before it can resume its duties outlined in Article I of the US Constitution.
"So Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president," Gorsuch remarked. "It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives."
Sauer tried to counter this by pointing to former President Joe Biden agreeing in 2023 to sign bipartisan legislation ending the national health emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Gorsuch, however, countered that this only occurred with the president's consent, and that it would otherwise take a supermajority to end a declared emergency if the president elected to veto the congressional resolution.
Gorsuch: So congress as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.. one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives. pic.twitter.com/secLyWMX7H
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 5, 2025
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also grilled Sauer on concerns about separation of powers, and she noted that the Constitution explicitly delegates taxation powers to Congress.
"It's a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax," she said. "You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are. They're generating money from American citizens, revenue."
Justice Sotomayor asks about tariffs being a kind of tax on Americans and compares President Trump's emergency tariff Executive Orders to President Biden's student loan forgiveness policy and a hypothetical climate emergency. pic.twitter.com/nD0MYgVjv3
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 5, 2025
Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing this week, Trump posted a frantic message on his Truth Social platform warning justices that his power to unilaterally impose tariffs was a matter of "life or death" for the United States.
""With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, financial and national security," he claimed. "Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us."
Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media Wednesday that "Trump’s tariffs are sending small businesses to an early grave."
"Trade authority begins and ends with Congress," the senator added. "I’ll keep battling to rein in Trump’s tariff madness and protect small businesses, farmers, and families."