SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 18 2016, 05:00pm EDT
Contact:
Regina Romero, Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 343-4038
Gabrielle Villarreal, Latinos for Parks, (520) 647-4013
July 20 Hike Celebrates Latino Conservation Week in Tucson
Public Event Links Greater Grand Canyon Heritage National Monument to History, Culture at “A” Mountain
TUCSON, Ariz.
The heat's not stopping Arizonans from hiking in 100+ degrees Fahrenheit to support efforts to create the Greater Grand Canyon Heritage National Monument during the 100-year anniversary of both the National Park Service and the "A" on Sentinel Peak, one of Tucson's most cherished urban natural areas.
| What: | Greater Grand Canyon Heritage National Monument Hike at "A" Mountain |
| When: | Wednesday, July 20, 5:30 p.m. Meet at Mercado San Agustin, 100 S. Avenida Del Convento -- Seis Mexican Restaurant. At 6:30, join our 3.8-mile round-trip hike up from the Mercado to Sentinel Peak "A" Mountain. |
Background
An effort led by Congressman Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) calls on President Obama to use his authority under the Antiquities Act to permanently protect public land surrounding the Grand Canyon from uranium mining. Momentum is building just two weeks after the delivery of more than 550,000 petition signatures and comments in support of the monument designation, including more than 20 tribal nations and tens of thousands of businesses, outdoor recreation and conservation groups, and national and local elected leaders.
Advocates from the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of "A" Mountain, Latino Outdoors and Latinos for Parks have been working to recruit more advocates for the measure in Arizona. Recent polling shows that 86 percent of Latinos across Arizona and 4 out of 5 Arizonans favor a national monument designation.
"We are excited to join efforts to support increased protection for our public lands, rich with outdoor experiences and opportunities for all our communities," said Jose Gonzalez, founder of Latino Outdoors. "We want to increase access for all and want to ensure the Latino voice is present in this effort."
Latino Conservation Week: Disfrutando y Conservando Nuestra Tierra was launched by the Hispanic Access Foundation and is supported by many organizations working to get Latinos into the outdoors and participating in activities to protect natural resources.
"It's our moral responsibility to care for our land, water and wildlife, with a commitment to collaboration and inclusivity," said Regina Romero, director of Latino engagement at the Center for Biological Diversity.
#GrandCanyonHeritage #Latinos4Conservation #MonumentsforAll
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) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Executive Order Attacking State AI Laws 'Looks a Lot Like' Industry Dictating Trump's Policies
"Big Tech companies have spent the past year cozying up to Trump," said one critic, "and this is their reward. It’s a fabulous return on a very modest investment—at the expense of all Americans.”
Nov 20, 2025
The White House is rapidly expanding on its efforts to stop state legislatures from protecting their constituents by passing regulations on artificial intelligence technology, with the Trump administration reportedly preparing a draft executive order that would direct the US Department of Justice to target state-level laws in what one consumer advocate called a "blatant and disgusting circumvention of our democracy"—one entirely meant to do the bidding of tech giants.
The executive order would direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to create an AI Litigation Task Force to target laws that have already been passed in both red and blue states and to stop state legislators from passing dozens of bills that have been introduced, including ones to protect people from companion chatbots, require studies on the impact of AI on employment, and bar landlords from using AI algorithms to set rent prices.
The draft order takes aim at California's new AI safety laws, calling them "complex and burdensome" and claiming they are based on "purely speculative suspicion" that AI could harm users.
“States like Alabama, California, New York and many more have passed laws to protect kids from harms of Big Tech AI like chatbots and AI generated [child sexual abuse material]. Trump’s proposal to strip away these critical protections, which have no federal equivalent, threatens to create a taxpayer-funded death panel that will determine whether kids live or die when they decide what state laws will actually apply. This level of moral bankruptcy proves that Trump is just taking orders from Big Tech CEOs,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project.
The task force would operate on the administration's argument that the federal government alone is authorized to regulate commerce between states.
Shakeel Hashim, editor of the newsletter Transformer, pointed out that that claim has been pushed aggressively in recent months by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
President Donald Trump "and his team seem to have taken that idea and run with it," said Hashim. "It looks a lot like the tech industry dictating government policy—ironic, given that Trump rails against 'regulatory capture' in the draft order."
The DOJ panel would consult with Trump and White House AI Special Adviser David Sacks—an investor and cofounder of an AI company—on which state laws should be challenged.
The executive order would also authorize Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to publish a review of "onerous" state AI laws and restrict federal broadband funds to states found to have laws the White House disagrees with. It would further direct the Federal Communications Commission to adopt a new federal AI law that would preempt state laws.
The draft executive order was reported days after Trump called on House Republicans to include a ban on state-level AI regulations in the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, which House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) indicated the party would try to do.
The multipronged effort to stop states from regulating the technology, including AI chatbots that have already been linked to the suicides of children, comes months after an amendment to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was resoundingly rejected in the Senate, 99-1.
Travis Hall, director for state engagement at the Center for Democracy and Technology, suggested that legal challenges would be filed swiftly if Trump moves forward with the executive order.
"The president cannot preempt state laws through an executive order, full stop," Hall told NBC News. "Preemption is a question for Congress, which they have considered and rejected, and should continue to reject."
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, said harm the draft order could pose becomes clear "once you ask one simple question: What is an AI law?"
The draft doesn't specify, but Dayen posited that a range of statutes could apply: "Is that just something that has to do with [large language models]? Is it anything involving a business that uses an algorithm? Machine learning?"
"You can bet that every company will try to get it to apply to their industry, and do whatever corrupt transactions with Trump to ensure it," he continued. "So this is a roadmap to preempt the vast majority of state laws on business and commerce more generally, everything from consumer protection to worker rights, in the name of preventing 'obstruction' of AI. This should be challenged immediately upon signing."
The draft order was reported amid speculation among tech industry analysts that the AI "bubble" is likely about to burst, with investors dumping their shares in AI chip manufacturer Nvidia and an MIT report finding that 95% of generative AI pilot programs are not presenting a return on investment for companies. Executives at tech giant OpenAI recently suggested the government should provide companies with a "guarantee" for developing AI infrastrusture—which was widely interpreted as a plea for a bailout.
At Public Citizen, copresident Robert Weissman took aim at the White House for its claim that AI does not pose risks to consumers, noting AI technologies are already "undermining the emotional well-being of young people and adults and, in some cases, contributing to suicide; exacerbating racial disparities at workplaces; wrongfully denying patients healthcare; driving up electric bills and increasing greenhouse gas emissions; displacing jobs; and undermining society’s basic concept of truth."
Furthermore, he said, the president's draft order proves that "for all his posturing against Big Tech, Donald Trump is nothing but the industry’s well-paid waterboy."
"Big Tech companies have spent the past year cozying up to Trump—doing everything from paying for his garish White House ballroom to adopting content moderation policies of his liking—and this is their reward," said Weissman. "It’s a fabulous return on a very modest investment—at the expense of all Americans.”
JB Branch, the group's Big Tech accountability advocate, added that instead of respecting the Senate's bipartisan rejection of the earlier attempt to stop states from regulating AI, "industry lobbyists are now running to the White House."
"AI scams are exploding, children have died by suicide linked to harmful online systems, and psychologists are warning about AI-induced breakdowns, but President Trump is choosing to protect his tech oligarch friends over the safety of middle-class Americans," said Branch. "The administration should stop trying to shield Silicon Valley from responsibility and start listening to the overwhelming bipartisan consensus that stronger, not weaker, safeguards are needed.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Secret ‘Mass Surveillance Network’ by Border Patrol Tracks 'Suspicious' Driving Patterns of Americans
The Border Patrol is engaging in "dragnet surveillance of Americans on the streets, on the highways, in their cities, in their communities," charged one critic.
Nov 20, 2025
The Associated Press has exposed what it describes as a "mass surveillance network" being run by the US Border Patrol that is increasingly ensnaring US drivers who have committed no crimes.
In a report published on Thursday, the AP revealed that the Border Patrol has been using a "predictive intelligence program" that surveils and flags drivers as suspicious based solely on "where they came from, where they were going, and which route they took."
The Border Patrol then passes this information on to local law enforcement officials, who will then pull over the targeted vehicles based on flimsy pretexts such as minor speed-limit violations, having tinted windows, and even having "a dangling air freshener" that purportedly obstructs drivers' views.
From there, the drivers are subjected to aggressive questioning and vehicle searches that in some cases have resulted in arrests despite no evidence of criminal behavior on the part of the drivers.
To illustrate this, the AP told the story of Lorenzo Gutierrez Lugo, a truck driver whose work entails "transporting furniture, clothing, and other belongings to families in Mexico" across the US border.
After Gutierrez Lugo's driving routes got him flagged by the surveillance system, he was pulled over in southern Texas by local law enforcement officials, who proceeded to search his vehicle for contraband.
Although officials found no illicit goods in his truck, they nonetheless arrested him on suspicion of money laundering because he was in possession of thousands of dollars in cash. However, Luis Barrios, who owns the trucking company that employed Gutierrez Lugo, explained to the AP that customers who receive deliveries often pay drivers directly in cash.
Although no criminal charges were ultimately brought against Gutierrez Lugo, Barrios nonetheless said that his company had to spend $20,000 in legal fees to both clear his driver's name and to return company property that had been impounded by police.
The AP notes that operations such as this are symbolic of "the quiet transformation of [the US Border Patrol's] parent agency, US Customs and Border Protection, into something more akin to a domestic intelligence operation."
Former law enforcement officials also tell the AP that the Border Patrol has gone to great lengths to keep its mass surveillance program a secret by trying to ensure that it is never mentioned in court documents and police reports. In fact, the Border Patrol in some cases has even dropped criminal cases against suspects for fear that details about the mass surveillance program would be revealed at trial.
In a post on X, journalist Mike LaSusa remarked that this Border Patrol program represents "another example of powerful, invasive, mass surveillance tech being wielded by US immigration authorities." He added that "so much about these programs is hidden from the public, making it difficult to know whether they keep Americans safe or violate privacy protections."
The program has been increasingly expanding from the border regions of the US into the interior of the country as well, and it discovered that US Customs and Border Protection "has placed at least four cameras in the greater Phoenix area over the years, one of which was more than 120 miles (193 kilometers) from the Mexican frontier, beyond the agency’s usual jurisdiction of 100 miles (161 kilometers) from a land or sea border."
Additionally, the AP found that the program is "impacting residents of big metropolitan areas and people driving to and from large cities such as Chicago and Detroit, as well as from Los Angeles, San Antonio, and Houston to and from the Mexican border region."
Nicole Ozer, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Democracy at UC Law San Francisco, told the AP that US Customs and Border Protection is engaging in "dragnet surveillance of Americans on the streets, on the highways, in their cities, in their communities" while "collecting mass amounts of information about who people are, where they go, what they do, and who they know."
“These surveillance systems do not make communities safer," Ozer emphasized.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'How Many More Have to Die?' Asks Democrat as Another Texas Woman's Death Blamed on Abortion Ban
"Let's be very clear: Republicans are killing women," said one abortion rights advocate. "Democrats need to start calling them murderers loudly and often."
Nov 20, 2025
After new reporting detailed the latest known woman who died because doctors would not provide her with abortion care under Texas' ban, the Democratic lawmaker who authored the Women's Health Protection Act condemned Republicans in Congress for refusing to "protect women’s basic freedom to survive their own pregnancies."
"It would take only six Republicans in the House to join with us and pass this vital legislation to restore bodily autonomy to every person in this country, regardless of their state or zip code," said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), whose bill would create a new legal protection for the right to provide and obtain abortion care.
Chu's call came as ProPublica reported on the death of Tierra Walker, a 37-year-old pregnant mother of a teenage son who asked doctors to terminate her pregnancy in October 2024 after she experienced seizures and feared she would develop preeclampsia, a life-threatening complication that had led to the stillbirth of her twins a few years earlier.
“Wouldn’t you think it would be better for me to not have the baby?” Walker asked doctors at Methodist Hospital Northeast in San Antonio.
The medical staff assured her there was nothing wrong with her pregnancy and blamed her symptoms on pre-existing conditions including diabetes and high blood pressure—but more than a dozen OB/GYNs reviewed her case and told ProPublica doctors had not followed standard medical practice, which would have been to advise Walker early on in the pregnancy that her health conditions could lead to complications and "to offer termination at any point if she wanted."
Had doctors done do, all of the medical experts said, Walker would not have died at 20 weeks pregnant on her 14-year-old son's birthday last December.
"Her death was preventable, and it was caused by a law written by Republicans to control women’s bodies, no matter the consequences. This is the disgraceful reality of Republican abortion bans that criminalize care and sacrifice women’s lives," said Chu.
Walker found out she was five weeks pregnant in September 2024 after experiencing a seizure. Doctors also noted she had "hypertension at levels so high that it reduces circulation to major organs and can cause a heart attack or stroke," which put her at increased risk for preeclampsia.
But instead of warning Walker of the risks, the medical staff sent her home, where she continued having seizures through her first trimester and her fiance and aunt took turns watching over her.
Texas law prohibits medical providers from "aiding and abetting" abortion care, with doctors facing the loss of their medical license and up to 99 years in prison if they provide an abortion. Abortions are ostensibly permitted in cases when a pregnant person's life or major body function is at risk—but Walker's case demonstrates how medical exceptions within abortion bans often do nothing to ensure a dangerous pregnancy can be terminated to protect a woman's life.
At least one of the more than 90 doctors—including 21 OB/GYNs—who became involved in Walker's care last year, when she was repeatedly hospitalized, acknowledged in a case file that she was at "high risk of clinical deterioration and/or death."
But none of them ever talked to her about terminating the pregnancy.
As Walker's pregnancy progressed, she developed a blood clot in her leg that didn't respond to anticoagulation medicine, and her seizures and high blood pressure remained uncontrolled.
She was diagnosed with preeclampsia at 20 weeks pregnant on December 27—but doctors did not even label her condition as "severe" in her files, let alone provide her with the standard care for the condition at that point in pregnancy, which is an abortion.
Instead, they gave her more blood pressure medication and sent her home, where her son, JJ, found her dead days later.
Author and abortion rights advocate Jessica Valenti said Republicans would likely respond to the news of Walker's death—as they have in the cases of other women who have died after being unable to get abortions in states that ban them—with claims that doctors were legally allowed to "intervene" or "treat" Walker.
"They won't say she could have had an abortion because they don’t believe in life-saving abortions," she said.
This year, in the months after Walker's death and following outrage over numerous similar cases, Texas lawmakers passed a law that Republicans claim would make it easier for women to obtain abortions in cases where they face life-threatening conditions in pregnancy; their conditions no longer need to put them in "imminent" danger for them to obtain care.
But doctors told ProPublica that hospitals in Texas are still likely to avoid providing abortions in cases like Walker's, even under the new statute.
“How many more women have to needlessly suffer?" asked Chu. "How many more have to die? How many more children have to grow up without their mother? How many more parents have to lose their adult daughters before Republicans in Congress finally do what’s right and protect women’s basic freedom to survive their own pregnancies?"
"This doesn't have to be our reality," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular