December, 10 2018, 11:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Natural Resources Defense Council – Anne Hawke, 646.823.4518, ahawke@nrdc.org
Oceana – Dustin Cranor, 954.348.1314, dcranor@oceana.org
Southern Environmental Law Center – Mike Mather, 434.333.9464, mmather@selcva.org
Earthjustice – Maggie Caldwell, 415.217.2084, mcaldwell@earthjustice.org
Center for Biological Diversity – Kristen Monsell, 914.806.3467, kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org
Coastal Conservation League – Caitie Forde-Smith, 252.714.4790, caitiefs@scccl.org
Sierra Club – Gabby Brown, 914.261.4626, gabby.brown@sierraclub.org
Surfrider Foundation – Angela Howe, 949.732.6414, ahowe@surfrider.org
Groups Sue Feds to Stop Seismic Airgun Blasting in Atlantic Ocean
First step toward offshore drilling jeopardizes critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, puts marine life at risk
Charleston, S.C
Leading environmental groups sued the federal government today to prevent seismic airgun blasting in the Atlantic Ocean. This extremely loud and dangerous process, which is used to search for oil and gas deposits deep below the ocean's surface, is the first step toward offshore drilling. If allowed, seismic airgun blasting would harm marine life, including whales, dolphins, fish and zooplankton - the foundation of the ocean food web.
The lawsuit, filed in South Carolina, claims that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs) in late November. Those permits authorize five companies to harm or harass marine mammals while conducting seismic airgun blasting in an area twice the size of California, stretching from Cape May, New Jersey to Cape Canaveral, Florida. The legal complaint is HERE.
The government has estimated that seismic airgun blasting in the Atlantic could harass or harm marine mammals like dolphins and whales - which depend on sound to feed, mate and communicate - hundreds of thousands of times. Seismic airgun blasting would also jeopardize the iconic North Atlantic right whale, a critically endangered species, according to 28 leading right whale experts.
Below are statements from the groups involved in the lawsuit:
"This action is unlawful and we're going to stop it," said Diane Hoskins, campaign director at Oceana. "The Trump administration's rash decision to harm marine mammals hundreds of thousands of times in the hope of finding oil and gas is shortsighted and dangerous. Seismic airgun blasting can harm everything from tiny zooplankton and fish to dolphins and whales. More than 90 percent of the coastal municipalities in the blast zone have publicly opposed seismic airgun blasting off their coast. We won this fight before and we'll win it again."
"The Trump administration has steamrolled over objections of scientists, governors and thousands of coastal communities and businesses to enable this dangerous activity. Now it wants to steamroll the law," said Michael Jasny, director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "Allowing seismic blasting at this scale in these waters is not consistent with the laws that protect our oceans."
"Ignoring the mounting opposition to offshore drilling, the decision to push forward with unnecessarily harmful seismic testing defies the law, let alone common sense," said Catherine Wannamaker, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). "An overwhelming number of communities, businesses, and elected officials have made it clear that seismic blasting-a precursor to drilling that no one wants-has no place off our coasts."
"Seismic airgun surveys pose a dual threat to the biologically rich waters off the Atlantic coast," said Steve Mashuda, managing attorney for oceans at Earthjustice. "Their continuous blasts can injure and deafen whales, dolphins and other marine life, and they are the sonic harbingers of even greater risks associated with offshore oil and gas drilling."
"The Trump administration is letting the oil industry launch a brutal sonic assault on North Atlantic right whales and other marine life," said Kristen Monsell, ocean program legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Right whales will keep spiraling toward extinction if we don't stop these deafening blasts and the drilling and spilling that could come next. That's why we're taking the administration to court."
"South Carolina has spoken: We don't want offshore oil and gas drilling," said Laura Cantral, executive director at Coastal Conservation League. "Seismic blasting is a big step in that direction, threatening our fragile coast and economy. We will firmly defend our communities and vulnerable marine life."
"Seismic blasting poses unacceptable risks to vulnerable marine wildlife, especially the critically imperiled North Atlantic right whale," said Jane Davenport, senior staff attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. "The species already faces effective extinction within a few short decades. The right whale simply cannot withstand the direct harm and habitat degradation seismic blasting will cause."
"Seismic testing and offshore drilling is incompatible with our coast in North Carolina," said Todd Miller, executive director at North Carolina Coastal Federation. "There's never a window that would be a good time for seismic testing to happen. Studies show that seismic affects the behaviors of marine mammals, fish and zooplankton, and seismic is harmful for fisheries. And on top of all that, it's a precursor to offshore drilling which is strongly opposed here in North Carolina."
"With a vibrant commercial fishery industry and the only known calving ground for endangered North Atlantic right whales just off our coast, Georgians oppose seismic testing for offshore oil exploration and the threats it poses to our state's wildlife, wild places, and quality of life," said Alice Keyes, vice president at One Hundred Miles. "Our coastal communities have spoken out for years against seismic testing and offshore drilling because they understand what's at stake--risks to our coastal economy and wildlife ranging from right whales to zooplankton. We are proud to stand with our fellow Georgians and thousands of others across the East Coast in opposition to this dangerous plan."
"As usual, the Trump administration is pulling out all the stops to give favors to the fossil fuel industry, whatever the cost to coastal communities and wildlife," said Athan Manuel, program director at Sierra Club. "We will continue to fight back against their dangerous plans to subject our coasts to seismic blasting and expanded offshore drilling."
"Seismic testing can be harmful and even fatal to the hundreds of thousands of dolphins, whales and other marine animals in the Atlantic," said Angela Howe, legal director at the Surfrider Foundation. "This litigation is aimed at protecting the Atlantic Ocean from the destruction of seismic testing, which is the first step of proposed offshore oil drilling. We will continue to stand up to protect our marine environment and our ocean ecosystems for this and future generations."
As of today, opposition and concern over offshore drilling activities in the Atlantic includes:
- Governors of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire
- More than 240 East Coast state municipalities
- Over 1,500 local, state and federal bipartisan officials
- An alliance representing over 42,000 businesses and 500,000 fishing families
- All three East Coast Fishery Management Councils
- Commercial and recreational fishing interests such as Southeastern Fisheries Association, Snook and Gamefish Foundation, Fisheries Survival Fund, Southern Shrimp Alliance, Billfish Foundation and International Game Fish Association
Background
In April 2017, President Trump issued an executive order to expedite permitting for harmful seismic airgun blasting, reversing the previous administration's decision to deny all pending permits for such activity in the Atlantic.
The Obama administration concluded that the "value of obtaining the geophysical and geological information from new airgun seismic surveys in the Atlantic does not outweigh the potential risks of those surveys' acoustic pulse impacts on marine life."
NMFS issued permits to five companies on November 30, 2018. Before those companies can begin seismic airgun blasting, they must also receive permits from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
A recent economic analysis by Oceana finds that offshore drilling activities, including seismic airgun blasting, along the Atlantic threaten over 1.5 million jobs and nearly $108 billion in GDP, and would yield less than seven months'-worth of oil and less than six months'-worth of gas.
A May 2017 poll by Oceana, NRDC and the International Fund for Animal Welfare revealed that 76 percent of Americans support protecting marine mammals from threats, including injury and death resulting from offshore oil and gas drilling.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
'A Good Day for Our Democracy': Judge Orders Trump to End National Guard Deployment in LA
"For more than five months, the Trump administration has held California National Guard troops hostage as part of its political games," said California's attorney general. "But the president is not king."
Dec 10, 2025
In a win for Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Attorney General Rob Bonta, and the residents of Los Angeles, a federal judge on Wednesday ordered President Donald Trump to stop deploying the National Guard in the nation's second-largest city.
"The founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances," wrote US District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. "Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one."
Trump mobilized around 4,000 California National Guard troops in June amid protests against his violent crackdown on undocumented immigrants. Since then, the Republican leader has also pursued deployments in other Democrat-led cities, including Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; and Washington, DC, where two soldiers were recently shot.
The new ruling from San Francisco-based Breyer comes as the administration was cutting troops in LA from 300 to 100, according to the New York Times.
"Once again, a court has firmly rejected the president's attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force."
"Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, defendants still retain control of approximately 300 guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly," the judge said. "What's more, defendants have sent California guardsmen into other states, effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops."
After ruling in September that Trump's deployment of Marines in Los Angeles violated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, the judge on Wednesday blocked the president's federalization of California National Guard troops—but he also halted his own decision until next Monday, allowing for appeals.
Despite the prospect that the Trump administration would continue the court fight, Bonta and Newsom—who is expected to run for president in 2028—welcomed the ruling.
"Once again, a court has firmly rejected the president's attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force," Bonta said in a statement. "For more than five months, the Trump administration has held California National Guard troops hostage as part of its political games."
"But the president is not king. And he cannot federalize the National Guard whenever, wherever, and for however long he wants, without justification," the attorney general declared. "This is a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law."
In addition to battling Trump's invasion of LA, Bonta has backed lawsuits filed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, and DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb challenging the president's deployments in their cities and filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court for the Chicago fight.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Threatens ICC With More Sanctions to Prevent Future Prosecution of Trump: Report
"Amending the Rome Statute to exclude non-state parties will never happen," said one professor of international law.
Dec 10, 2025
Exclusive reporting by Reuters on Wednesday cites an anonymous government official who says that the Trump administration has privately reached out to the International Criminal Court in order to threaten new sanctions against the ICC unless it pledges not to prosecute President Donald Trump for any crimes he may have committed.
According to the news agency:
The Trump administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Washington has communicated its demands to ICC members, some of whom are U.S. allies, and has also made them known to the court. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC in 2002 as a court of last resort, with the power to prosecute heads of state.
The demand and the threat to resume the U.S. sanctions campaign towards the court have not been previously reported.
In February, just a month after taking office for his second term, Trump announced US sanctions against ICC officials following the issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli government leaders for their role in the military assault and humanitarian embargo on Gaza, characterized by a United Nations investigative body and numerous human rights groups worldwide as a genocide.
The unnamed official who spoke to Reuters said there "is growing concern" that after Trump leaves office in January of 2029, "the ICC will turn its attention to the president, to the vice president, to the secretary of war and others, and pursue prosecutions against them. That is unacceptable, and we will not allow it to happen."
According to the source, the solution is for ICC members states "to change the Rome Statute to make very clear that they don't have jurisdiction" over US heads of state, including Trump, for any possible crime no matter its nature or where it takes place.
As Reuters notes, "Enshrining blanket immunity for specific individuals would be seen as undermining the court's founding principles and would need approval by the court's governing body, the Assembly of States Parties."
Kevin Jon Heller, a professor international law as the University of Copenhagen and a special adviser to the ICC Prosecutor on War Crimes, said in a social media post Wednesday that it is highly unlikely that member states would bow to the US pressure. "Amending the Rome Statute to exclude non-state parties will never happen," said Heller.
The official did not say which acts of the president have caused the most worry within the administration as it concerns a possible prosecution.
During his second term Trump has—among other possible crimes and violations of international law—ordered the bombing of Iran, unleashed numerous strikes against Somalia and Yemen that have resulted in civilian casualties, provided political support and armed Israel as it carries out a genocide in Gaza, and conducted, since September, a series of extrajudicial murders in the Caribbean and Pacific with aerial bombings that have claimed the lives of at least 87 people.
Reuters reports Friday that it was told by two ICC deputy prosecutors that they had not received any requests to investigate US actions regarding Venezuela.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate GOP Healthcare Plan Decried as ‘Utter Joke’ That Would Devastate Sick Americans
One campaigner said Republicans want to force people "onto junk plans that leave them at risk of crippling medical debt."
Dec 10, 2025
The Republican healthcare proposal that's set for a vote in the US Senate on Thursday would not prevent insurance premiums from skyrocketing for tens of millions of Americans and would likely harm sicker people by promoting high-deductible plans.
The GOP bill, led by Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), would allow enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits to expire, replacing them in 2026 and 2027 with an annual payment of up to $1,500 in tax-advantaged health savings accounts to help cover out-of-pocket costs.
The catch is that only Americans enrolled in high-deductible bronze or catastrophic plans on the ACA exchanges would be eligible for the funding, which could not be used on monthly premiums. In 2026, the average individual deductible for bronze plans is $7,476, and the average for catastrophic plans is $10,600.
Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, said Tuesday that "premium payments would still more than double next year" under the GOP plan, which does not have enough support to overcome the Senate's 60-vote filibuster.
"Healthy people could be better off in a high deductible plan with a health savings account," Levitt noted. "People who are sick would face big premium increases or a deductible they can't afford."
Brad Woodhouse, president of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, called Senate Republicans' legislation "an utter joke that would set healthcare progress back by decades and leave Americans high and dry without the care and coverage they deserve."
"Republicans are proving once again how unserious they are," said Woodhouse. "Instead of protecting hard-working families, Sens. Cassidy and Crapo want to force them off the insurance plans they like and onto junk plans that leave them at risk of crippling medical debt. That’s not what American families want, and it’s certainly not what they deserve.”
Asked earlier this week if he supports the Crapo-Cassidy bill, President Donald Trump responded, "I like the concept."
The Senate GOP plan was introduced as a counter to Democrats' push for a clean three-year extension of the enhanced ACA subsidies. Republicans, who passed legislation over the summer that enacted the largest-ever cuts to Medicaid, are expected to vote down the Democratic plan on Thursday.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that if the ACA tax credits lapse at the end of the year, "a couple making $44,000 (208% of the poverty level) will see their monthly marketplace premium rise from $85 to $253—an annual increase of $2,013."
With the Senate vote looming, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La) is "still trying to figure out" his healthcare proposal, Politico reported Tuesday.
"The goal is for GOP lawmakers to have 'something' to vote on before the end of next week, according to one of the senior House Republicans involved in the talks," the outlet added, "even if there is no time left for the Senate to pass it before the subsidies lapse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


