September, 19 2017, 12:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Zach Klein, Communications Specialist, (917) 363-4149, zklein@defenders.org.
Department of the Interio Draft Report Leaves Giant Sequoia and Other National Monuments at Risk
Late Sunday, a leaked copy of the Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Zinke's recommendations on national monuments was obtained by The Washington Post and revealed his plan to vastly reduce the boundaries
PORTERVILLE, Calif.
Late Sunday, a leaked copy of the Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Zinke's recommendations on national monuments was obtained by The Washington Post and revealed his plan to vastly reduce the boundaries of at least four. The recommendations came after Zinke received more than 2.8 million public comments about our national monuments -- with over 99 percent of Americans urging for their current and future protection. Zinke's recommendations are unprecedented in American history and could boost drilling, mining and timber harvesting in some of our nation's most ecologically and historically important lands.
In California, Zinke recommended eliminating vast portions of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which crosses the state border into Oregon, opening it up to "traditional uses" like mining, logging and drilling. However, aside from Cascade-Siskiyou, none of the six other California monuments, including the Giant Sequoia National Monument, are addressed in the draft report, leaving them open to future boundary or management changes. The release expressed DOI's intent to review management plans and alter the protective nature of the monuments, potentially impacting all of California's national monuments. The recommendations signal the Trump administration's consistent favoring of harmful extractive industries, putting places like the Giant Sequoia National Monument, threatened by logging, very much at risk. Residents across the Central Valley and throughout California continue to oppose the administration's arbitrary review process and disregard for the economic, environmental and historical value of protected public lands.
"This is an attack on public lands, on our climate, and on communities," said Sarah Friedman, Senior Campaign Representative at Sierra Club. "The recommendations were made without logic, transparency, or respect for science. We expect our representatives in Congress to fight back on behalf of fishermen, scientists, families, teachers and so many other diverse groups who cherish and rely on our national monuments."
"Secretary Zinke is monumentally out of touch with the American public. Giant Sequoia National Monument, which Secretary Zinke's recommendations leave in limbo, is emblematic of the incredible outdoor wonders and wildlife found in California and preserved for all Americans, present and future generations alike," said Kim Delfino, California program director for Defenders of Wildlife. "From the giant sequoias themselves -- the largest trees on the planet -- to a rich diversity of wildlife, including the potential return of the California condor, Giant Sequoia National Monument was established to protect one of the most precious landscapes in the country. Secretary Zinke's recommendations threaten the protection of these irreplaceable resources and wildlife and communities that depend on them."
"Giant Sequoia National Monument has a special connection for me and my family," said Lori de Leon, Business Manager of the Dolores Huerta Foundation. "Growing up, our family didn't have a lot of money for expensive travel. My mother, Dolores Huerta, Cesar Chavez, other leaders in the labor struggle, and our families used the Giant Sequoia National Monument as a place to recharge and gain strength for the fight. Today, our Giant Sequoia National Monument continues to provide inexpensive outdoor recreation opportunities for local, underserved and 'park-poor' communities. These beautiful spaces give families and communities an opportunity to enjoy all the benefits of recreation and to create memories that will last a lifetime."
Local businesses are pushing the Trump administration to consider the financial impact of erasing so much protected land.
"As investors in California's economy, we know the value of public lands in attracting visitors and supporting plenty of local businesses," said Steve Frisch, President of Sierra Business Council. "The Giant Sequoia and Kings Canyon region attracts millions of visitors a year who stay in hotels, buy gear, eat in local restaurants and patronize local businesses. Leaving Giant Sequoia in limbo risks that income."
- In California, outdoor recreation accounts for more jobs than the wine, television and film industries combined.
- Since designation in 2000, average earnings in the Giant Sequoia region have increased on average by $625 annually, greater than the five year average before designation.
- Total employment in surrounding counties has also increased over the same period -- averaging more than 13,100 jobs annually.
- Research from VisitCA found tourism is a $2.23 billion dollar industry in California's Central Valley, generating almost 24,00 jobs. In Tulare County alone, travel dollars generated $37.8 million in local and state sales tax receipts.
- Since 2001, service jobs in the Giant Sequoia National Monument region have grown by 35 percent, with travel and tourism making up 16 percent of total private employment in 2015.
- Outdoor recreation in California generates $92 billion in consumer spending annually, supporting 732,000 direct jobs, $30.4 billion in wages in the state, and $6.2 billion in state and local tax revenue.
Immigrant groups are joining business and environmental groups in denouncing the federal administration's sham process.
"Local immigrant communities in Tulare County have often been left out of the conversation on environmental issues," said Fernando Serrano, Vice-Chair of CAPS (Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety). "However, the threat to the Giant Sequoia National Monument has awoken many of us to the importance of participating in the defense of our public lands. Our communities will not stand by as Secretary Zinke takes private industry more seriously than communities. Public lands should stay in public hands."
"This monument, like others, was created with broad local and statewide support, and full public engagement," said Soapy Mulholland, President and CEO of Sequoia Riverlands Trust, rancher and long-time resident of the Southern Sierra. "Local communities have worked many years to protect these places for future generations."
The attempt to reduce or eliminate protections for our public lands continues the federal administration's pattern of undermining the Antiquities Act, one of the nation's most important conservation tools. The Antiquities Act was signed by President Teddy Roosevelt in 1906 to safeguard and preserve U.S. public lands and cultural and historical sites for all Americans to enjoy. Sixteen presidents -- eight Republicans and eight Democrats -- have used this authority to protect many of California's iconic landscapes, from Muir Woods National Monument in Northern California, to Joshua Tree National Park in Southern California.
In June, the California State Legislature passed a resolution (Assembly Joint Resolution 15) demonstrating the commitment of state leaders to protecting California's national monuments. The measure was introduced in direct response to Trump's Executive Order, and passed with bipartisan support. The resolution sends a strong message that California does not want its monuments changed or rescinded, and that state leaders will stand firm against attacks on our public lands.
"National monuments like Giant Sequoia help define who we are as a nation and as Californians. The Giant Sequoia National Monument provides a place for residents of the Central Valley to experience nature for the first time. WildPlaces, Audubon chapters, and Sequoia ForestKeeper regularly bring youth from the region to the national monument and their experiences are transformative. Reducing these public lands protections to benefit extractive industries destroys this opportunity," said Mehmet McMillan, founder and Executive Director of WildPlaces.
"The Giant Sequoia National Monument includes most of the Kern and Tule Rivers, which support downstream whitewater rafting and fishing in local towns like Kernville and Springville where rafting companies, guides, outfitters, and local hospitality businesses have sprung up in the last twenty years. Changes to the monument will hurt the anglers, sportsman and local businesses that rely on the monument and river," said Steve Evans, Wild & Scenic Rivers consultant for CalWild.
"The recommendations in this leaked report undermine the statewide goal of making our communities and our forests more resilient to climate change. Our research has shown that the giant sequoia and its relative, the coast redwood, sequester more carbon per acre than any forest on the planet. Weakening protections of these ancient giants and surrounding forestlands threatens our natural resources and the local communities that depend on them," said Sam Hodder, President and CEO of Save the Redwoods League.
"Americans have stood up in record-breaking numbers to show their overwhelming opposition to the assault on national parks, public lands and waters. More than 2.8 million comments poured in during the DOI's 60-day public comment period, and more than 99 percent of the comments expressed support for maintaining or expanding national monuments. In Bakersfield, approximately 150 citizens stood up in 95oF heat to rally to show support for the Giant Sequoia National Monument outside Kevin McCarthy's office," said Ara Marderosian, Executive Director of Sequoia ForestKeeper(r).
Defenders of Wildlife is the premier U.S.-based national conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled species and their habitats in North America.
(917) 363-4149LATEST NEWS
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


