

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.

Southern Environmental Law Center – Mike Mather, 434.333.9464, mmather@selcva.org
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League – Caitie Forde-Smith, 252.714.4790, caitiefs@scccl.org
Oceana – Dustin Cranor, 954.348.1314, dcranor@oceana.org
Natural Resources Defense Council – Anne Hawke, 646.823.4518, ahawke@nrdc.org
Earthjustice – Maggie Caldwell, 415.217.2084, mcaldwell@earthjustice.org
Center for Biological Diversity – Kristen Monsell, 914.806.3467, kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org
Defenders of Wildlife – Gwen Dobbs, 202-329.9295, gdobbs@defenders.org
A group of conservation organizations today asked a federal judge to block the start of harmful seismic airgun blasting in the Atlantic Ocean, a precursor to offshore drilling, until the case can be fully heard in court.
The motion for a preliminary injunction filed in federal court in Charleston contends, among other things, the Trump administration's approval for five companies to harm ocean animals with seismic airgun blasting violates three federal laws -- the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Separately, 16 South Carolina coastal communities and the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce also filed a lawsuit to prevent seismic blasting. That lawsuit has been merged with the one from the conservation groups. Ten East Coast attorneys general, including South Carolina's Alan Wilson, have intervened in the combined lawsuits.
However, without today's request from the conservation organizations, the blasting could begin before this case is fully resolved.
The filing asserts that:
The National Marine Fisheries Service has authorized one company to harm more than 50,000 dolphins and another company to harm 20,000 more.
The filing also claims the blasts could irreparably harm the small population of the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, a species on the verge of extinction. There are only about 400 right whales remaining in the Atlantic. Further, the filing shows that blasting ships would "concentrate their fire" on the world's densest population of acoustically sensitive beaked whales off North Carolina's Outer Banks.
The case number is 18-3326 in United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. It is assigned to Judge Richard Gergel.
The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Oceana, One Hundred Miles, Sierra Club and the Surfrider Foundation are bringing the case. The Southern Environmental Law Center is representing South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Defenders of Wildlife, North Carolina Coastal Federation, and One Hundred Miles. Earthjustice is representing Sierra Club and the Surfrider Foundation.
# # #
Quotes from participating organizations:
"Bombarding endangered whales with deafening blasts to search for dirty oil is indefensible. The court should prevent the devastating harm seismic airgun blasting would do to marine life," said Kristen Monsell, ocean legal director with the Center for Biological Diversity. "There's strong bipartisan opposition to Trump's proposal to allow offshore drilling in the Atlantic. We need to leave that oil in the ground and call off this sonic attack on North Atlantic right whales and other animals."
"The harm seismic blasting will inflict on dolphins and whales can't be reversed, that's why it is so important to have a full and open debate in court before allowing boats in the water," said Laura Cantral, executive director of the Coastal Conservation League. "We have a chance to stop harm before it begins and to prevent the precursor to offshore drilling, something that no coastal communities in South Carolina want."
"We are fighting to keep seismic ships and an estimated 5 million sonic blasts out of our oceans," said Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. "Seismic blasting poses unacceptable risks to vulnerable marine wildlife at every level, from plankton at the base of the food web to the critically imperiled North Atlantic right whale at the top. The Trump administration's decision to allow seismic blasting to proceed violates our nation's bedrock wildlife protections laws and flouts common sense. We will not stop fighting this illegal move by the Trump administration to pander to the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our marine wildlife heritage."
"Allowing oil and gas companies to proceed with the activity we are challenging while the case is heard is like letting a city build a highway through a community while that community is trying to stop the construction in court. Once the damage is done, it's done. The harm this activity will cause to thousands of whales, dolphins, and other marine wildlife has similarly irreversible consequences," said Steve Mashuda, Earthjustice attorney representing Sierra Club and Surfrider in the litigation.
"Seismic blasting will cause harm the moment it begins. We're asking the court to prevent any seismic activity from going forward while it considers our claims that the Trump administration is violating multiple federal environmental laws," said Michael Jasny, director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The North Carolina Coastal Federation is concerned that the continuous and cumulative airgun blasting associated with seismic testing surveys will negatively impact marine mammals, commercially and recreationally important fisheries, and dramatically decrease the abundance of zooplankton, which is a key organism in the marine food web and a main source of food for fish and baleen whales," said Michael Flynn, the group's Coastal Advocate. "Seismic testing surveys are the precursor to offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling -- an activity that the federation strongly opposes."
"This important issue deserves a fair day in court. We can't let this dangerous activity cause a species to go extinct just so the oil industry can open our oceans to offshore drilling. Up and down the Atlantic coast, businesses, communities and bipartisan elected officials are overwhelmingly opposed to seismic airgun blasting. Every East Coast governor and over 90 percent of coastal municipalities in the blast zone are opposed to opening our coast to drilling - this is states versus President Trump," said Diane Hoskins, campaign director at Oceana. "We are going to do everything in our power to stop this unlawful, irreparable and needless harm."
"Georgia's coast, and the Southeastern United States, is home to rich, diverse, and valuable marine life upon which our local economies depend. One Hundred Miles will do whatever it takes to protect these assets from the damage caused by seismic blasting," said Alice Keyes of One Hundred Miles.
"There are so few right whales left that risking harm or death to a single calf or a single female would be a devastating blow to the population," said Catherine Wannamaker, an attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charleston. "This season, we know seven calves were born, which is a remarkable turnaround from last year when none were. These new calves are a small but critical step for this species, and we shouldn't do anything to jeopardize that."
"We will not back down in our efforts to protect America's public waters from expanded drilling and the dangerous seismic blasting that precedes it," said Sierra Club Lands Protections Program Director Athan Manuel. "To allow this destructive activity to move forward before these challenges have been settled would be inexcusable."
"Seismic testing can be harmful and even fatal to the millions of dolphins, whales and other marine animals in the Atlantic," said Surfrider's Legal Director, Angela Howe. "We will fight to prevent this damaging first step to offshore drilling at every turn, and this preliminary injunction motion is intended to stop the destructive activity before it starts. Together, we will continue to stand up to protect our marine environment and our ocean ecosystems for this and future generations."
Oceana is the largest international ocean conservation and advocacy organization. Oceana works to protect and restore the world's oceans through targeted policy campaigns.
In a primetime address, President Donald Trump reiterated his threat to destroy Iranian energy infrastructure and provided no timeline for an end to his illegal war.
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday delivered an incoherent primetime address in which he threatened to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages" while also claiming negotiations to end the conflict were ongoing, remarks that provided no clear indication of when or how the illegal war of choice would end.
Trump's speech marked his first major address on the war since the US, in partnership with Israel, started bombing Iran more than a month ago, without congressional approval and in violation of international law. A day after declaring that Iran "doesn’t have to make a deal" to end the war, Trump said during his Wednesday speech, "If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously"—a grave war crime.
In the face of polls showing the Iran War is deeply unpopular with the American public, Trump sought to justify continuing the assault by comparing its duration to that of the two World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. At the president's direction, thousands of troops are currently heading to the Middle East to join the tens of thousands already there, fueling fears of a ground invasion and a devastating quagmire.
After baselessly claiming Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, Trump insisted Wednesday night that the country's leadership was "rapidly building a vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles" that could soon "reach the American homeland"—an assertion contradicted by US intelligence.
The president also waved away concerns about rising gas prices, which have already cost American drivers billions of dollars collectively. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical route through which roughly 25% of global seaborne oil trade passes each year, will "just open up naturally" once the conflict is over, Trump asserted, adding that "the gas prices will rapidly come back down."
Collin Rees, US campaign manager at the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement that "Trump's rambling lies can't conceal how his reckless, illegal war of aggression is sending energy prices for working families through the roof."
"Trump claims this conflict is different from past wars for oil, but it's playing out with exactly the same deadly patterns," said Rees. "War and volatility push prices higher and fossil fuel companies cash in on windfall profits, while every day people face rising costs for gas, food, and basic necessities. Instead of investing in what people actually need—like childcare, healthcare, and resilient communities—Trump is doubling down on senseless military escalation that serves the interest of his billionaire allies and fossil fuel CEOs."
"More and more people are seeing through this charade," Rees added. "This war isn't about energy security or safety, it's about protecting a system where fossil fuel profits come before people’s lives and livelihoods. The way to escape this cycle of death is to end this war and advance a swift and just transition to renewable energy sources that can break our dependence on volatile, unreliable fossil fuels."
"The human cost of this war is unconscionable. The economic cost is dangerous and growing."
Democratic members of Congress viewed Trump's speech as further confirmation that the president never had a clear objective for the unlawful war—which has killed nearly 2,000 Iranians and displaced millions—and has no serious exit plan, just a vow to bomb Iran "extremely hard over the next two to three weeks."
"Anyone watching that speech has no idea whether Trump is escalating or deescalating the war with Iran," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "But to be fair, neither does he."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media that Trump "campaigned for the presidency on avoiding foreign wars and lowering costs 'on day one.'"
"His promises are now in tatters," wrote Warren. "The human cost of this war is unconscionable. The economic cost is dangerous and growing. The president should end this war today."
The lone Iranian American in Congress, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), condemned Trump's threat to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages, where they belong."
"He’s talking about a country of 90 million people," said Ansari. "Vile, horrifying, evil."
The agreement funds most Department of Homeland Security operations—but punts on funding for President Donald Trump's deadly Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown.
House and Senate Republicans on Wednesday announced a deal to advance a plan to fund the US Department of Homeland Security, which would end a partial DHS shutdown but deliberately punt the most contentious issue—funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement—for a future reconciliation fight.
Under the plan—which was rejected last week by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) as a "crap sandwich"—most DHS operations will be funded via regular spending bill while Republicans will attempt to fund President Donald Trump’s deadly ICE crackdown via a two-step legislative process meant to thwart any potential Democrat filibuster.
“In the coming days, Republicans in the Senate and House will be following through on the president's directive by fully funding the entire Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks: through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process," Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a joint statement.
REMINDER: The Senate unanimously passed BIPARTISAN legislation to fund all of DHS except ICE and Border Patrol. Speaker Johnson called that deal “a joke,” killed it, and sent Congress home for two weeks. And now he’s apparently saying he wants that deal after all?
— Rep. Mike Levin (@levin.house.gov) April 1, 2026 at 1:59 PM
The deal would immediately restore pay for workers including Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents. However, it excludes ICE and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which have been the subject of a tense partisan standoff over Trump's anti-immigrant blitz.
The plan contains no restrictions on ICE, which Democrats sought in the wake of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as well as a record surge in immigrant deaths in the agency's custody.
“For the last 47 days, Donald Trump and Republicans have subjected the nation to chaos at airports, jeopardized our national security, and kept the government closed to allow ICE to continue to brutalize the American people without consequence,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said in response to the agreement.
“Through it all, House Democrats continue to stand up for the American people and aggressively push back against far-right extremism,” he added. “Mike Johnson and House Republicans have come to realize that we will never bend the knee.”
The DHS shutdown was the longest in history, according to The New York Times.
Opponents of more funding for ICE—which is flush with $75 billion in fresh allocations under last year's budget reconciliation package—weighed in on the deal.
"Today’s announcement signals a clear recognition of what the public knows and believes: No additional funds are needed, given the shocking and stark realities and horrors already coming from an out-of-control immigration enforcement apparatus with $150 billion left to spend," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement, referring to the total amount of ICE and CBP funding under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
“All members of Congress should vote to pass the bill immediately to fund DHS without sending any more money to ICE and CBP and bring this self-created crisis and chaos to an end," Schulte continued.
"Moving forward with a party-line, reconciliation process that would send hundreds of billions of dollars more to ICE and CBP—on top of the $150 billion they already have—and seemingly pay for it with cuts to healthcare would be a terrible policy outcome," he added, "and one that would be met with massive, overwhelmingly public opposition.”
"This is a direct threat to patient care across California," said the chief of staff at the union sponsoring the ballot measure.
The labor union leading the fight for California's billionaire tax on Wednesday pointed to recent reporting about hospital layoffs to make the case for the ballot measure, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on state billionaires' wealth to fund healthcare.
The Orange County Register reported last week that "the more than 400 hospitals statewide have already laid off more than 3,400 healthcare workers as of mid-March, with as many as 1,600 coming from Santa Barbara to Orange County and the Inland Empire area, according to a tally of layoffs provided by the state's Employment Development Department and data collected by Paul Young, senior vice president of public policy and reimbursement with the California Hospital Association of Southern California."
As the newspaper detailed, hospital executives "are hinting of a second wave of layoffs," citing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or HR 1, that congressional Republicans passed and President Donald Trump signed last summer. The law will cut about $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, which is expected to significantly impact the state's Medi-Cal program that covers more than 15 million lower-income residents.
The Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California, Berkeley "estimates the Medi-Cal cuts could lead to a loss of 72,000 to 145,000 healthcare jobs throughout California, representing 3% to 5% of the state's 2.65 million healthcare positions," the Register noted. "These job losses include positions in hospitals, clinics, and home care."
The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the lead sponsor of the ballot measure that Californians are set to vote on in November, highlighted the reporting in a Wednesday statement. SEIU-UHW chief of staff Suzanne Jimenez declared that "this is a direct threat to patient care across California."
"When hospitals lose funding, they lose staff," Jimenez said. "And when they lose staff, patients face longer wait times, fewer services, and reduced access to lifesaving care. Without urgent action, communities across California will lose access to the care they depend on."
In the union's statement, Mayra Castañeda shared concerns about losing her job as an ultrasound technologist at a hospital in Lynwood, California. She said: "Every day I come to work thinking about my patients, making sure they get the care they need, that they feel safe, that they're not alone. Now, I'm also thinking about whether I'll still have a job next month."
"We're already stretched thin, and the idea that more staff could be cut is terrifying," Castañeda continued. "It doesn't just impact us as staff. It impacts every patient who walks through our doors. You can't keep taking resources out of healthcare and expect people not to suffer."
Opinion: Unlike billionaires, we don’t need mansions or yachts. We're just asking for health care that our families can rely on.www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...
[image or embed]
— Billionaire Tax Now (@billionairetaxnow.bsky.social) April 1, 2026 at 3:40 PM
Experts estimate that, if passed, the billionaire tax ballot measure would raise about $100 billion from 2027-31 from California's 200 richest residents. Recent polling suggests the proposal is on its way to success.
It's drawn support from national progressive figures such as US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who last month partnered with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to introduce the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act. The bill would impose a 5% annual wealth tax and direct the revenue toward reversing GOP healthcare cuts from HR 1, expanding Medicare, building affordable houses, helping families pay for childcare, boosting teacher salaries, and sending direct payments to members of households making $150,000 or less.
Unlike the California ballot measure, that federal "tax the rich" bill and another introduced last month by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have no clear path to passage in the Republican-controlled Congress. However, hospital layoffs as a result of HR 1—which featured more tax giveaways for wealthy Americans—aren't limited to California.
According to a Public Citizen report released Tuesday, 446 hospitals across the United States could close or reduce services due to HR 1's cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. The publication notes that these "hospitals collectively have 68,986 beds and served approximately 6.6 million patients in 2024. They employ approximately 275,458 direct patient care workers (this does not include nonmedical workers, such as administrative staff)."
Public Citizen researcher and report author Eileen O'Grady stressed that "Trump's cuts to Medicaid will hurt millions of low-income and disabled Americans, and will deepen financial strains that are already plaguing rural and safety-net hospitals—compromising their ability to deliver care, potentially leading many to close."
"Congress should take urgent action to restore all Medicaid funding cuts enacted by Trump and Republicans in Congress," O'Grady argued, "and should extend the enhanced premium tax credits for coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces."