

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.

Rebecca Bowe, Earthjustice, (415) 217-2093
Steve Parker, Endangered Wolf Center, (636) 938-5900
Collette Adkins, Center for Biological Diversity, (651) 955-3821
Maggie Howell, Wolf Conservation Center, (914) 763-2373
Catalina Tresky, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-0253
A coalition of wolf conservation groups, environmental organizations and a retired federal wolf biologist today announced a court settlement requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) to prepare a long-delayed recovery plan for Mexican gray wolves by November 2017.

With only 97 individuals existing in the wild at the end of 2015, and fewer than 25 in Mexico, the Mexican gray wolf is one of the most endangered mammals in North America and faces a serious risk of extinction. Thanks to the courts, the Service is finally required to meet its legal obligation of completing a legally-sufficient recovery plan, with the ultimate goal of a healthy, sustainable population of Mexican gray wolves in the wild.
"The settlement announced today provides hope that the lobo can be a living, breathing part of the southwestern landscape instead of just a long-lost frontier legend," said Tim Preso, Earthjustice attorney. "But to realize that hope, federal officials must take up the challenge of developing a legitimate, science-based recovery plan for the Mexican wolf rather than yielding to political pressure."
Earthjustice filed a lawsuit in November 2014 to challenge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's multi-decade delay in completing a recovery plan for the Mexican wolf. Earthjustice represents Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, retired Fish and Wildlife Service Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator David R. Parsons, the Endangered Wolf Center and the Wolf Conservation Center in the case. Today's announcement of a settlement agreement follows a September 2015 ruling by a federal judge in Tucson that rejected the government's effort to dismiss the case.
"Wolves love to follow paths," said former Mexican wolf recovery leader David Parsons. "Now, finally, the path to recovery for the critically endangered lobos of the southwest will be blazed."
"After four decades of delay, a scientific roadmap for recovery of the Mexican gray wolf will finally be reality," said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. "The recovery plan should trigger new releases of captive-bred wolves into the wild and establish new Mexican wolf populations in the Grand Canyon and southern Rocky Mountain ecosystems."
The Service developed a document it labeled a "recovery plan" for the Mexican wolf in 1982--but the Service itself admits that this document was incomplete, intended for only short-term application, and "did not contain objective and measurable recovery criteria for delisting as required by [the Endangered Species Act]." Most importantly, the 34-year-old document did not provide the necessary science-based guidance to move the Mexican gray wolf toward recovery. Without a recovery plan in place, the Service's Mexican gray wolf conservation efforts have been hobbled by insufficient releases of captive wolves into the wild population, excessive removals of wolves from the wild, and arbitrary geographic restrictions on wolf occupancy of promising recovery habitat. The Service in 2010 admitted that the wild Mexican gray wolf population "is not thriving" and remains "at risk of failure," and further admitted that "failure to develop an up-to-date recovery plan results in inadequate guidance for the reintroduction and recovery effort."
"We are racing extinction on the Mexican gray wolf," said Eva Sargent, senior Southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife. "The best available science, not political pressure, should lead the recovery planning for the Mexican gray wolf. We need more wolves and less politics."
The plaintiffs joining today's settlement agreement include two environmental education organizations that operate captive-breeding facilities that have supported recovery efforts by providing Mexican gray wolves for release into the wild. Despite their efforts, Mexican gray wolf survival continues to be threatened by the lack of a recovery plan to ensure that wolf releases are sufficient to establish a viable population.
"Failing to plan is planning to fail," said Maggie Howell, executive director of the Wolf Conservation Center in New York. "And for these iconic and imperiled wolves, failure means extinction. This settlement represents a necessary and long overdue step toward recovering America's most endangered gray wolf and preventing an irrevocable loss from happening on our watch."
"Education is a key component to the recovery of a species, especially for an animal that has been historically misunderstood and misrepresented. Equally important is an active, up-to-date recovery plan for the species in the wild," said Virginia Busch, executive director of the Endangered Wolf Center in St. Louis, Mo. "The genetic variability that organizations like the Endangered Wolf Center hold with the Mexican wolf population is hugely valuable for releases and cross-fostering opportunities in the wild. We are pleased to hear that the Service will be taking an active role in developing a recovery plan in a timely manner."
The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)--the "lobo" of southwestern lore--is the most genetically distinct lineage of wolves in the Western Hemisphere, and one of the most endangered mammals in North America. By the mid-1980s, hunting, trapping, and poisoning caused the extinction of lobos in the wild, with only a handful remaining in captivity. In 1998 the wolves were reintroduced into the wild as part of a federal reintroduction program under the Endangered Species Act. Today in the U.S., there is a single wild population in the Blue Range area of Arizona and New Mexico comprising only 97 individuals, all descendants of just seven wild founders of a captive breeding program. These wolves are threatened by illegal killings, legal removals due to conflicts with livestock, and a lack of genetic diversity. Within the past year alone, escalating mortalities and illegal killing, along with reduced pup survival, reduced the wild population from 110 to 97 individuals.
The Service has never written or implemented a legally sufficient Mexican gray wolf recovery plan. Its most recent recovery team has done extensive, rigorous work to determine what needs to be done to save the Mexican gray wolf. Recovery team scientists agreed that, in order to survive, lobos require the establishment of at least three linked populations. Habitat capable of supporting the two additional populations exists in the Grand Canyon ecoregion and in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. The recovery team drafted a plan in 2012 that called for establishing three interconnected Mexican gray wolf populations totaling at least 750 animals in these areas, but the plan has never been finalized.
The settlement today requires the Service to complete a valid recovery plan by November 2017 and requires peer review of the recovery plan to ensure its scientific integrity. The settlement has been presented to the federal judge overseeing the case, who must approve it before the settlement becomes binding on the parties.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"The American people want affordable healthcare, not to spend billions or more on ‘running’ Venezuela," said US Rep. Joaquin Castro.
A pair of House Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation that would prohibit the Trump administration from using any taxpayer funding to control Venezuela or exploit its vast oil reserves, an effort launched after the US president said he expects his illegal plunder operation in the South American country to last years.
The new bill, titled the No Occupation of Venezuela (NOVA) Act of 2026, would bar "any federal funds from being used to support US possession, supervision, jurisdiction, or control over Venezuelan territory or resources, whether through military or civilian means," according to a summary released by Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) and Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), the measure's lead sponsors.
The legislation would also prevent "taxpayer dollars from being used to subsidize, reimburse, or otherwise support oil company expansion, reconstruction, or resource control in Venezuela" and halt any effort by the White House to shift "from military action to civilian governance or economic administration without explicit congressional authorization."
“The American people want affordable healthcare, not to spend billions or more on ‘running’ Venezuela,” Castro said in a statement. “The NOVA Act would block the president from occupying Venezuela and prevent him from enriching himself, his cronies, and oil companies in the process.”
The Democratic lawmakers unveiled their legislation a day after the US Department of Energy released a document outlining, with few specific details, how the Trump administration intends to exploit Venezuela's oil with the help of American fossil fuel corporations.
The document states that the US government "has begun marketing Venezuelan crude oil in the global marketplace for the benefit of the United States, Venezuela, and our allies."
"All proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan crude oil and oil products will first settle in US-controlled accounts at globally recognized banks to guarantee the legitimacy and integrity of the ultimate distribution of proceeds," the fact sheet continues.
"At a time when families are stretching every dollar for groceries, housing, and healthcare, American taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll an overseas occupation or subsidize Big Oil’s return to Venezuela at Donald Trump’s direction."
Trump has repeatedly suggested that US taxpayers could "reimburse" oil companies that agree to invest in Venezuela in the wake of the administration's illegal assault on the country and abduction of its president, Nicolás Maduro. The president is set to meet with the top executives of major US oil companies at the White House on Friday.
"We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” Trump said of Venezuela's oil infrastructure in an interview with the New York Times on Wednesday. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that the Trump administration is "about to execute on a deal to take all the oil." Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA, said Wednesday that it was in active negotiations with the Trump administration, but did not say a deal was in place.
The Trump administration's military campaign against Venezuela directly and its massive buildup of forces in the Caribbean have already cost US taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Fortune reported Thursday that the administration's ongoing naval blockade against Venezuelan oil tankers has cost "an estimated $700 million and counting," while the Center for American Progress noted earlier this week that US military deployments to the Caribbean have cost upwards of $600 million.
“At a time when families are stretching every dollar for groceries, housing, and healthcare, American taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll an overseas occupation or subsidize Big Oil’s return to Venezuela at Donald Trump’s direction,” Krishnamoorthi said in a statement Thursday. “The NOVA Act draws a clear line: No president gets to spend Americans’ money on foreign occupations or oil deals without Congress—and without the consent of the American people.”
"You don’t cut out investigators unless you’re hiding something."
The FBI on Thursday informed investigators in Minnesota that it would not be cooperating with them in probing the deadly shooting of Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good by a federal immigration agent.
Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), said that the probe into Good's death "would now be led solely by the FBI," which would leave his agency without "access to the case materials, scene evidence, or investigative interviews necessary to complete a thorough and independent investigation."
"Without complete access to the evidence, witnesses, and information collected," Evans added, "we cannot meet the investigative standards that Minnesota law and the public demands. As a result, the BCA has reluctantly withdrawn from the investigation."
As noted in a post on Bluesky from MPR News reporter Jon Collins, the Minnesota BCA has a Force Investigations Unit that was created in the wake of the 2020 murder of George Floyd to "restore trust in investigations when law enforcement kills civilians."
Insider sources told independent journalist Radley Balko that the FBI was "initially open to a concurrent investigation" with the Minnesota BCA, but then Trump-appointed Minnesota US Attorney Daniel Rosen "intervened" and barred the agency from cooperating with local officials on the probe.
"Practically, unless something changes, Rosen's intervention means there will be no independent police agency investigating the shooting," Balko added. "It will be left entirely to Kash Patel's FBI. Any chance of state charges will be entirely reliant on the FBI investigation and what evidence it decides to share."
When asked by a journalist about the decision to end cooperation with Minnesota investigators on Thursday, US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem insisted that "they have not been cut out," but said that rather "they don’t have any jurisdiction in this investigation."
Reporter: The state investigation agency said they were cut out of the investigation. Can you explain that reversal?
Noem: They have not been cut out. They don’t have any jurisdiction in this investigation. pic.twitter.com/aI5s0XWMMh
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 8, 2026
Noem's assertion drew immediate criticism from Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee in the US House of Representatives.
"You don’t cut out investigators unless you’re hiding something," they wrote in a social media post. "Kristi Noem’s DHS is covering up the killing of a US citizen."
Several legal experts also debunked Noem's claim that Minnesota state law enforcement agencies have no jurisdiction to investigate the killing of a resident on the streets of their state's largest city.
Fordham University School of Law professor John Pfaff accused Noem of "openly lying," and pointed to a statement on the FBI's own website stating that "state and local law enforcement agencies are not subordinate to the FBI, and the FBI does not supervise or take over their investigations."
Attorney Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, argued that Noem's statement should be a wakeup call to other state governments when it comes to cooperating with federal agencies during Trump's second term.
"It is the position of the Trump administration that its agents can come into any state and city in America... and kill people," he wrote, "and that state and city have no jurisdiction to inquire about it. Treat any Trump official accordingly."
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, meanwhile, vowed to investigate Good's death, regardless of the federal government's cooperation.
"State authorities can investigate anyway," Ellison told CNN. "We don't need their authority. I mean, it's at least arguable, and I believe substantially arguable, that there's a violation of Minnesota statutes here, you know, and I can think of a number of potential charges. All of them depend on an investigation, though, and the federal government can't stop Minnesota from doing its own."
Thousands of people across the country expressed support for their president, Gustavo Petro, who spoke to President Donald Trump ahead of the rallies and struck a diplomatic but defiant tone.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro struck a relatively diplomatic tone Wednesday at a rally in Bogotá, where he spoke about the Trump administration's threats to launch military strikes against his country—but thousands of people who gathered in the Colombian capital and across the country were happy to say exactly what they thought of US President Donald Trump's recent attack on neighboring Venezuela and his saber-rattling across Latin America.
"He’s a maniac,” 67-year-old José Silva told the Guardian at a march in the border city of Cúcuta. “The US Congress needs to do something to get him out of the presidency... He’s a thug.”
“Trump is the devil," another marcher, Janet Chacón, told the outlet.
And demonstrators held English-language signs proclaiming, "Yankees Go Home!" as well as banners reading, “Fuera los yanquis!" or "Out with the Yanks!"
Colombians were rallying after Petro called for a mass mobilization days after Trump ordered a military attack in Venezuela, including a bombing and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Maduro and Flores have pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism charges in a court in New York City, while Trump and other White House officials have made clear in recent days that their objective in Venezuela is not to stop drug trafficking—a crime in which the country is not significantly involved—but to take control of its oil reserves.
Colombians marched together with Venezuelans in Cúcuta, with one man telling Reuters, "If they kidnap your president, they kidnap the entire homeland."
Protesters gathered at the Simon Bolivar Bridge in Cucuta, Colombia, to demonstrate against US President Donald Trump, responding to a call by Colombian President Gustavo Petro under the slogan 'Colombia is free and sovereign' pic.twitter.com/y5FIMweCbN
— Reuters (@Reuters) January 8, 2026
Soon after invading Venezuela, Trump and other officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested they could soon attack other Latin Amercian countries and try to overthrow their leaders.
Officials in Cuba's socialist government, said Rubio, are "in a lot of trouble," while Trump said the US is "going to have to do something" about drug cartels operating in Mexico.
Regarding Colombia, Trump cited no evidence as he accused the left-wing Petro of "making cocaine and selling it to the United States" and said an invasion of the country "sounds good to me." Petro has not been linked to the drug trade in Colombia.
Petro has vehemently condemned Trump's escalation in Latin America in recent months and has accused the president of murder in the Caribbean, where the US has bombed dozens of boats and killed more than 100 people since September, accusing them of drug trafficking without releasing any evidence.
After the Venezuela attack and the threats toward other countries in the region, Petro warned that Trump had awakened a "jaguar," referring to the opposition of the public in Colombia and across Latin American regarding US imperialism.
After calling on Colombians to take to the streets, Petro spoke to Trump on the phone at the US president's request and accepted an invitation to the White House. Trump said it was "a great honor" to speak with the Colombian leader.
Petro told protesters in Bogotá that the speech he had planned to give had been "quite harsh."
“For 34 years, peace has been my priority,” he said. “And I know that peace is found through dialogue. That is why I accept President Trump’s proposal to talk.”
"If there is no dialogue, there is war. The history of Colombia has taught us that," the president added.
But he also made clear to thousands of supporters, many of whom carried placards with pictures of Petro, that “what happened in Venezuela was, in my opinion, illegal."
"We cannot lower our guard," he said. “Words need to be followed by deeds."
In Cúcuta, a teacher named Marta Jiménez denounced a number of European leaders who have refused to clearly condemn Trump's invasion of Venezuela's neighbor, even as legal scholars have said it was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter.
“They are leaving him to fly, free as a bird over every single country, to do whatever he likes," she said, expressing concern that Trump's next target "might be Nicaragua, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru—any of them."
En Colombia, la sociedad salió masivamente en 12 ciudades, para rechazar la injerencia y las amenazas del presidente de EEUU. Se trató de una jornada con mensajes en favor de la unidad de los pueblos de Nuestra América y El Caribe. @teleSURtv @TobarteleSUR @petrogustavo pic.twitter.com/0RD4QvjHsu
— teleSUR Colombia (@teleSURColombia) January 8, 2026
Protests were also held this week in countries including Argentina and Brazil, with demonstrators expressing solidarity with the rest of Latin America in light of Trump's threats and attacks.
“The message from the people of Latin America is: ‘Donald Trump, get your hands off Latin America,'" Brazilian Congressman Reimont Otoni said at a rally outside the US consulate in Rio de Janeiro. "Latin America isn’t the [United States'] backyard."