

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.

Ted Zukoski, Center for Biological Diversity
tzukoski@biologicaldiversity.org
Conservation groups on Thursday sued the Trump administration to challenge what would be the nation's first commercial-scale oil shale mine and processing facility. The lawsuit says officials failed to protect several endangered species when they approved rights-of-way across public lands to provide utilities to the proposed oil shale development.
The massive Enefit project in northeast Utah's Uintah Basin would also drain billions of gallons of water from the Green River, generate enormous amounts of greenhouse gas pollution and exacerbate the Uintah Basin's often-dismal air quality.
Today's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Utah, argues that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the law by ignoring the potential harm to endangered fish. In its biological opinion, the agency considered only the harm from water depletions necessary to build the pipeline, not the billions of gallons of Green River water that will be sent through the pipeline to Enefit's oil shale development.
The Bureau of Land Management also violated the law by failing to adequately analyze the significant environmental impacts of the proposed oil shale development, which likely would not occur but for the agency's approval of the rights-of-way.
"This is a prescription for disaster for our climate, wildlife, and the Colorado River Basin," said Ted Zukoski, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Draining the Green River to mine one of the most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet sends us in exactly the wrong direction. It's putting us on a collision course with climate catastrophe so a foreign fossil-fuel company can make big bucks."
The Trump administration paved the way for the project last year by approving rights-of-way for electricity, oil, gas, and water lines across public lands. At full buildout, the Estonian-owned Enefit American Oil facility would produce 50,000 barrels of oil every day for the next 30 years or more from the Green River Formation.
"The environmental destruction, air pollution and water pollution inherent in this proposed oil shale mining project is something that every citizen of Utah should be alarmed about," said Dr. Brian Moench, president and founder of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. "That it would become a long-term public health disaster is being callously dismissed by a BLM that is being run as a subsidiary of the dirty energy industry."
Huge amounts of water are required in the oil shale production process. The water pipeline will allow Enefit to drain more than 10,000 acre feet annually from the Green River, harming critical habitat for endangered fish, including the Colorado pikeminnow and the razorback sucker. The project comes as Western states struggle with record droughts and climate-driven declines in river flows in the Colorado River Basin.
"Our region is already feeling the effects of pollution and climate change. To destroy our public lands in order to drill for more polluting fossil fuels would be a disaster for our communities and our planet," said Dan Mayhew, conservation chair of the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club. "We should be accelerating the transition to clean energy, not sacrificing our water, air quality, and climate for an investment in one of the dirtiest fossil fuels in the world. Today we continue the fight to ensure that federal agencies can't continue to approve dangerous, dirty energy projects without fully considering the totality of environmental damage that would result."
Enefit intends to strip-mine about 28 million tons of rock a year over thousands of acres of high-desert habitat, generating hundreds of millions of tons of waste rock. It will also construct a half-square-mile processing plant, about 45 miles south of Dinosaur National Monument, to bake the rock at extremely high temperatures to turn pre-petroleum oil shale rock into refinery-ready synthetic crude oil. That will require vast amounts of energy and emit huge amounts of ozone precursors in an area recently listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as not in attainment with healthy ozone standards.
"The responsible federal agencies have worn blinders in approving this project, leaving themselves and the public in the dark about the immense ecological harm it would cause," said Alex Hardee, associate attorney at Earthjustice. "We're going to court to uphold the nation's environmental laws and save the Upper Colorado River Basin from the devastating effects of oil shale."
Oil shale is one of world's most carbon-polluting fuels, with lifecycle carbon emissions up to 75 percent higher than those of conventional fuels.
"BLM's approach here is to ignore the elephant in the room, which never ends well," said Ann Alexander, senior attorney with Natural Resources Defense Council. "They've focused exclusively on the relatively small impact of building some power lines and pipes, hoping no one will notice that this infrastructure will facilitate large-scale environmental destruction. Well, we noticed."
The project would produce 547 million barrels of oil over three decades, spewing more than 200 million tons of greenhouse gas -- as much as 50 coal-fired power plants produce in a year. Those emissions would contribute to global warming and regional drought already afflicting the rivers and their endangered fish.
"Enefit's proposed oil shale operation could deplete more than 100 billion gallons over three decades," said Sarah Stock, program director at Living Rivers. "That's water taken away from other current water users and the downstream river ecosystem. The BLM needs to stop side-stepping their responsibilities by ignoring the devastating impacts that oil shale development will have on the climate and downstream water availability in the Colorado River Basin."
"As a result of mismanagement, drought, and accelerating climate change, the Colorado River system is on the verge of collapse," said Daniel E. Estrin, advocacy director at Waterkeeper Alliance. "Yet despite this crisis, BLM and FWS have approved rights-of-way across public lands for a project that could remove 100 billion gallons of water from the basin, push several endangered species closer to extinction, and rapidly degrade the water supply of almost 40 million people. These approvals, that will allow an Estonian hard rock oil shale company to exploit US public lands and resources, must be reversed."
"The BLM approved the rights-of-way to service Enefit's proposed oil shale mine and processing facility based on an utterly inadequate analysis of potentially devastating air, water, climate and species impacts," said Michael Toll, a staff attorney at Grand Canyon Trust. "Considering the rights-of-way are a public subsidy of an otherwise economically unfeasible oil shale development, the public has a right to know exactly how Enefit's project will impact their health and environment."
The groups filing today's lawsuit are Living Rivers/Colorado RiverKeeper, Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Waterkeeper. The groups are represented by attorneys from Earthjustice, Grand Canyon Trust and the Center for Biological Diversity.
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) 623-5252"When we do get ICE out of Maine, it's important for people to understand that that came from below, that came from power from organizers, from a mobilized population," said Senate candidate Graham Platner.
At a rally outside Sen. Susan Collins' office on Thursday morning, soon after the Republican lawmaker claimed she had gotten assurances from the Trump administration that it would end its immigration enforcement surge in Maine, Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said he was not prepared to accept a "pinky promise" from the White House after the arrests of hundreds of Mainers in recent days.
"I don’t believe it,” Platner told a crowd of protesters. “I don’t take the word of an administration that continues to break the law. I don’t take the word of an administration that continues to stomp our constitutional rights. We need to see material change.”
Collins said in a statement Thursday morning that she had spoken with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and received information that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "has ended its enhanced activities in the state of Maine"—adding the caveat that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "does not confirm law enforcement operations."
"There are currently no ongoing or planned large-scale ICE operations here," said the senator. "ICE and Customs and Border Patrol will continue their normal operations that have been ongoing here for many years."
About 200 people have been detained in what ICE has called "Operation Catch of the Day" since it was launched earlier this month, and immigrant rights and mutual aid groups in Portland, Lewiston, and other cities have ramped up efforts to support the state's growing population of immigrants and asylum-seekers, including its Somali community, which includes many people who have become citizens since arriving in the US.
The administration said it had a list of more than 1,400 people in Maine it aimed to arrest—people it claimed were among the so-called "worst of the worst" violent criminals the White House wants to deport.
People abducted from their cars and homes in the state, however, include a corrections officer who was eligible to work in the US, a civil engineer on a work visa, a mother who was followed home by ICE agents and had a pending asylum application, and a father who was driving his wife and 1-month-old baby home from an appointment and whose car window was shattered by an agent, sending glass flying into the infant's car seat. None of those people had criminal records, according to background checks and attorneys.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) said that while the "visible federal presence" in Maine may be reduced following Collins' announcement, "it is important that people understand what we saw during this operation: Individuals who are legally allowed to be in the United States, whether by lawful presence or an authorized period of stay, following the rules, and being detained anyway.”
“That is not limited to this one operation," said Pingree. "That has been the pattern of this administration’s immigration enforcement over the past year, and there is no indication that policy has changed.”
Platner told local ABC News affiliate WMTW that Collins affirmed in her statement that "she still supports ICE operations, just not this expanded one. An agency that over the past week has abducted people that work for the sheriff's department, has abducted fathers bringing their newborn child home from the hospital, an agency that has murdered American citizens in the streets of Minneapolis."
"That is not an agency that has any welcome in Maine to conduct any operations," said Platner, who has spoken out in support of abolishing ICE, which was established in 2003.
Sen. Susan Collins said ICE has ended its enhanced operation in Maine. But Graham Platner, who is running for Collins' Senate seat, told @catemccusker that he will believe it when he sees it. https://t.co/7GL6qM3Bf6 pic.twitter.com/iE6O44Ok5t
— WMTW TV (@WMTWTV) January 29, 2026
Platner also emphasized in comments to the Maine Newsroom that Collins, who as the Senate Appropriations Committee chair has been working to pass spending bills to avert a government shutdown and has been fighting against a push to strip DHS funding out of the package, should not get credit for pushing ICE out of Maine, if the agency is actually retreating.
"When we do get ICE out of Maine, it's important for people to understand that that came from below, that came from power from organizers, from a mobilized population," said Platner. "It is that power that is going to push ICE out of Maine, and those in power, who have done nothing, are not the ones who get to take credit. The people of Maine get to take credit."
The government spending bills passed last week in the House with seven Democrats—including Rep. Jared Golden of Maine—supporting the DHS funding. The Senate needs to pass the package by the end of Friday to avoid a shutdown.
Portland City Council member April Fournier said the timing of Collins' announcement seemed "very convenient" for the senator, who is running for a sixth term.
"I take this with a grain of salt," said Fournier. "There's a very important budget vote today that Susan Collins will be a part of and there's a lot of pressure on her given all of these immigration operations, what's happened in Maine, what's happened in Minneapolis, and all over. She has a lot of pressure to decrease funding for ICE, and she has really put her line in the sand that she's not willing to do that."
Fournier added that Collins is "vulnerable" as the midterms approach, "so if she's able to somehow say, 'We got ICE out of Maine,' and then try and paint herself as the hero, I think that her political analysis of the situation is that will win her back some favor."
The council member noted that just over seven years ago, the senator assured voters that US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as she announced her vote to confirm him.
"I trust Susan Collins and her actions about as much as I trust thin ice in spring here in Maine," said Fournier.
"'In theater' is an expression that has no place anywhere within the United States," said one critic.
White House border czar Tom Homan on Thursday sparked alarm when he used terminology associated with overseas war to describe federal immigration operations taking place in Minnesota.
During a press briefing, Homan was asked about the number of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents operating in Minnesota.
"3,000," Homan replied. "There's been some rotations. Another thing I witnessed when I came here, I'll share this with you, I've met a lot of people, they've been in theater, some of them have been in theater for eight months. So there's going to be rotations of personnel."
Q: Can you be specific about how many ICE and Border Patrol agents are currently operating in the state?
HOMAN: 3,000. There's been some rotations. They've been in theater a long time. Day after day, can't eat in restaurants, people spin on you, blowing whistles at you. But my… pic.twitter.com/1Vz8mKYCAv
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 29, 2026
Typically terms such as "rotations" and "theater" are not used to describe domestic law enforcement operations, but overseas military deployments.
Many critics were quick to notice Homan's use of war jargon to describe actions being taken in a US city and said it was reflective of how the Trump administration sees itself as an occupying force in its own country.
"'In theater' like they're landing marines at Guadalcanal or something," wrote Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), in a post on X. "This stuff is happening in suburban American communities, that's where they're sending violent, masked invaders."
Northwestern University historian Kathleen Belew also expressed shock at Homan's rhetoric.
"'In theater' is an expression that has no place anywhere within the United States," she wrote on Bluesky. "'In theater' means in a war."
Andrew Lawrence, deputy director of rapid response as Media Matters, said Homan's war talk was "a crazy way to describe Minneapolis," while documentary filmmaker John Darwin Kurc described it as a "frightening characterization."
Shelby Edwards, a retired US Army major, also recognized the violent implications of Homan's words.
"Incredibly damaging how military language has infiltrated these agencies," she observed. "'In theater' is used for deployments into foreign nations, when we deploy soldiers we say things like this. This is America. This is an American agency assigned to an American city."
"ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
Amid the latest budget standoff in Congress, Senate Democrats on Wednesday said they may be willing to make a deal to fund the US Department of Homeland Security in exchange for a slate of "reforms" designed to rein in what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described as Immigration and Customs Enforcement's "state-sanctioned thuggery."
But just because something is written in law doesn't mean ICE agents will follow it.
That's what Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the US District Court in Minnesota—a conservative jurist appointed by former President George W. Bush—demonstrated when, as part of an order issued Wednesday, he published a list of nearly 100 court orders ICE has violated in just the month of January.
Schiltz issued the list as part of an order canceling a hearing for acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, whom he’d previously ordered to appear in court on Friday or face contempt. The judge demanded Lyon's personal appearance after ICE ignored the judge’s order to give a bail hearing to a detainee, Juan Hugo Tobay Robles, one of “dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to comply in recent weeks.” Schiltz canceled Lyons’ hearing when Robles was released from custody.
"That does not end the Court’s concerns, however," Schiltz wrote on Wednesday. "Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases."
"This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law," he went on. "ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
"ICE," he said, "is not law unto itself."
This scathing document of ICE's willful disregard for the law was top of mind for many critics of the compromise Democrats appear poised to make in exchange for passing a budget package that includes $64.4 billion in DHS funding, including $10 billion for ICE and $18 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
On Thursday, seven Republicans joined Democrats in a 45-55 vote to block the spending package, which needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Democrats have said they want to separate DHS funding from the rest of the bill in order to negotiate a series of "reforms." If a deal is not reached by January 30, funding for DHS and several other agencies will lapse, causing another partial government shutdown.
On Wednesday, Schumer told the press that Democrats are "united" behind three key reforms to DHS. Per TIME Magazine:
“We want to end roving patrols,” Schumer said, laying out Democrats’ first demand. “We need to tighten the rules governing the use of warrants and require ICE coordination with state and local law enforcement.”
Second, he said, Democrats want to “enforce accountability,” including a uniform federal code of conduct and independent investigations into alleged abuses. Federal agents, he argued, should be held to the same use-of-force standards as local police and face consequences when they violate them.
Third, Schumer said, Democrats are demanding “masks off, body cameras on,” a reference to proposals that would bar agents from wearing face coverings, require they wear body cameras and mandate that agents carry visible identification. “No more anonymous agents, no more secret operatives,” he said.
Journalist and political analyst Adam Johnson described these proposals as "superficial," with many already being codified into law or even the US Constitution.
"As many scholars have noted, Trump arresting people without warrants is already unconstitutional and illegal, but his DHS is doing it anyway," he wrote. "Passing laws to enforce existing law may dissuade the Trump regime in some contexts, but it’s unclear why Trump wouldn’t just ignore the new law since they duly ignored the previous one."
He also said, "It’s unclear how much power Congress or states would have to 'enforce accountability' while Trump’s cartoonishly corrupt DOJ continues to investigate and threaten state lawmakers and leaders with prison time."
Johnson noted that the list of demands made by progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was more comprehensive, including bans on arrest quotas and forcing ICE to end its reign of terror in Minneapolis, but said "it’s unclear how Congress would define, much less enforce, these parameters. And most conspicuous of all, their demands make zero mention of reducing DHS’s obscene budget."
DHS funds were already increased by $170 billion over the next five years in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress last year, and ICE funding tripled, from $10 billion per year to $30 billion, making it the equivalent of the 13th most expensive military in the world.
Aaron Regunberg, a writer at the New Republic, questioned what good it was to subject ICE to new laws when, as Schiltz's order showed, "ICE breaks the law, courts order them to stop, and then they keep breaking the law."
"You have to be dumb as bricks to think the answer is to pass a law saying it's against the law to break the law," he continued. "The answer is to stop giving these fascist goons billions of our tax dollars."