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
May, 29 2019, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Kyle Tisdel, Western Environmental Law Center, 575-770-7501, tisdel@westernlaw.org
Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians, 303-437-7663, jnichols@wildearthguardians.org
Barbara Gottlieb, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 202-587-5225, bgottlieb@psr.org
Samantha Ruscavage-Barz, WildEarth Guardians, 505-401-4180, sruscavagebarz@wildearthguardians.org
Another Win for the Climate: Judge Orders Feds to Disclose Climate Impacts of Public Lands Fracking in Colorado and Utah
WASHINGTON
In the wake of a legal victory by WildEarth Guardians, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Western Environmental Law Center, the U.S. government asked for and a federal judge ordered a climate review of the impacts of public lands fracking in Colorado and Utah.
"This is another win for the climate and another step forward for defending our public lands from unchecked fracking," said Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians' Climate and Energy Program director. "The Trump administration simply has no defense; it can't deny its duty to disclose and take action on the climate impacts of fossil fuel development on public lands."
"Fracked gas is dangerous for people and terrible for the climate," said Barbara Gottlieb, Environment and Health Program director for Physicians for Social Responsibility. "This latest win is not only another victory for our health and future, but it reinforces that the oil and gas industry doesn't get a free pass to pollute."
Last Friday May 24, the U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) asked a U.S. District Court for a "remand" of several decisions to sell public lands for oil and gas development that were issued in 2015 and 2016 in Colorado and Utah. This would return the decisions to the agency for revision.
Today, the Court granted the motion in a short order, meaning the agency is now on the hook to complete new assessments of the climate impacts of oil and gas leasing
The remand comes results from a landmark federal court ruling in March 2019.
That ruling held the Interior Department failed to account for the cumulative climate implications of leasing more than 300,000 acres of public lands in Wyoming for fracking.
The Judge stated the agencies must "consider the cumulative impact of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions generated by past, present, or reasonably foreseeable BLM lease sales in the region and nation." The ruling signaled that unless Interior and the BLM account for the climate costs of all oil and gas leasing in the U.S., the agencies will run afoul of federal law.
The case originally targeted more than 450,000 acres in total of oil and gas leasing in the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
A map of the leases included in the lawsuit can be accessed here >>
For case management purposes, the Wyoming portion of the case was briefed first. In the wake of the March ruling on leasing in Wyoming, the feds have now conceded they similarly failed to account for the climate impacts of leasing on more than 150,000 acres in Colorado and Utah.
In response, the groups intend to ask the judge to order a halt to the issuance of any new drilling permits on the leases while Interior and the BLM complete their climate assessments. In the March ruling, the judge ordered a similar halt to drilling in Wyoming.
"While this motion continues to affirm the Trump administration can't legally turn its back on climate change, we need accountability," said Samantha Ruscavage-Barz, managing attorney for WildEarth Guardians. "This isn't a matter of doing more paperwork, it's a matter of enforcing restraint to preserve our ability to keep making progress for the climate."
Last fall, scientists with the Department of the Interior released an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the production and consumption of fossil fuels from public lands. The report found these emissions, which come from federal coal, as well as offshore and onshore oil and gas, accounted for nearly 25 percent of all U.S. climate pollution.
At the same time, federal climate scientists released Volume II of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which sounded new alarms over the costs of climate change to the U.S. The report called for "immediate and substantial global greenhouse gas emissions reductions" to prevent the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
"With the science mounting that we need to aggressively rein in greenhouse gases, this latest concession by the Trump administration is critical," said Kyle Tisdel, attorney and Energy and Communities Program director for the Western Environmental Law Center. "Our initial court win is proving to be a powerful reality check on the Trump administration and a potent tool for reducing climate pollution."
More than 25 million acres of public lands in the U.S. have been leased to the oil and gas industry for development. More than 20 million of these acres are located in the western states of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.
Under Trump, the pace of leasing public lands for oil and gas development has surged. In 2018, nearly 4 million acres were put up for sale to the oil and gas industry. So far in 2019, the administration auctioned off or proposed leasing more than 2.1 million acres.
The Western Environmental Law Center uses the power of the law to safeguard the public lands, wildlife, and communities of the American West in the face of a changing climate. We envision a thriving, resilient West, abundant with protected public lands and wildlife, powered by clean energy, and defended by communities rooted in an ethic of conservation.
(541) 485-2471LATEST NEWS
Outrage as House Republicans Advance 'Cruel and Reckless' Medicaid Cuts
"President Trump repeatedly promised Republicans were not going to cut Medicaid, but that was a lie since Republicans just voted for the largest Medicaid cut in history," noted one Democratic lawmaker.
May 14, 2025
A committee in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives voted Wednesday to advance a bill containing deep cuts to Medicaid and other vital social services while rejecting every single Democratic amendment that would have protected access to healthcare for millions of the most vulnerable Americans.
After a marathon 26-hour session, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 30-24 along party lines for legislation that's part of the GOP budget reconciliation package, or U.S. President Donald Trump's desire for one "big, beautiful bill." The proposal—which is aimed at slashing $880 billion in federal spending—would give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest U.S. households and corporations while eviscerating social programs and cost an estimated $3.8 trillion through 2034.
"House Speaker Mike Johnson said his party wouldn't cut Medicaid. And then they did."
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as many as 13.7 million Americans would lose healthcare coverage by 2034 if the bill is passed as written. The proposal will now head to the House Budget Committee, which is set to convene Friday. Meanwhile, the House Agriculture Committee continued debating part of the reconciliation package that includes a $290 billion cut in funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
"It's outrageous Republicans forced this debate to occur late into the night when most of the country was asleep and couldn't see what they were up to," Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) said Wednesday. "After 26 hours, Republicans failed to justify their draconian Medicaid cuts."
"The truth is Republicans want to rush this legislation through because they know the American people will be outraged by what's in the bill," Pallone added. "President Trump repeatedly promised Republicans were not going to cut Medicaid, but that was a lie since Republicans just voted for the largest Medicaid cut in history."
Ranking Member Pallone on the 26+ hour fight through the night to protect Americans against Republicans’ draconian health care cuts:
[image or embed]
— Energy and Commerce Democrats ( @energycommerce.bsky.social) May 14, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) noted that during the 26-hour session, House Republicans "rejected every single Democratic amendment... that would have protected Americans' healthcare, lowered out-of-pocket costs for working families, kept pollution out of our children's schools, and so much more."
"Instead, every Republican member of this committee voted to preserve a cruel and reckless bill that will rip health coverage away from millions of Americans," she added.
Activists and advocacy groups also decried Wednesday's vote, which came a day after more than two dozen demonstrators were arrested at the U.S. Capitol while protesting the bill.
"This partisan bill is nothing more than an attack on the healthcare system on which we all rely, to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations," Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement.
"Many Republicans on that committee said they wouldn't touch Medicaid and that the word Medicaid was not even in the bill," Wright added. "We can see that these were just empty promises, but we hope that other Republicans in the House and Senate come to their senses soon. The bill just doesn't cut Medicaid, it guts Medicaid."
This is who Trump and Republicans are targeting with their proposed Medicaid cuts.
[image or embed]
— CAP Action (@americanprogressaction.org) May 14, 2025 at 2:40 PM
People's Action Institute executive director Sulma Arias also issued a statement that began: "Promises made; promises broken. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said his party wouldn't cut Medicaid. And then they did."
"For months, Trump and House Republicans tried to hide the fact that they planned to cut Medicaid," Arias continued. "We warned the public that they were lying, and after this week's votes in committee, there can be no doubt."
"Medicaid is a lifeline for millions; when politicians take it away, they kill people," Arias added. "Through this budget, the billionaires and the bullies plan to do exactly that so they can steal these funds for themselves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gabbard Fires Intel Officials After Memo Counters Trump Lies About Migrants Sent to El Salvador Prison
Critics called the ousters "ominous" and warned that "an intelligence service will not protect you from real-life threats if its members get fired for not lying."
May 14, 2025
Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial director of national intelligence, is generating alarm this week for firing two top officials after a memo contradicting the administration's claims about deported migrants was made public.
As Fox News first reported Tuesday, Gabbard fired Mike Collins, acting chair of the National Intelligence Council, and his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, and moved the NIC from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
As The Hilldetailed:
Collins has spent nearly three decades in the intelligence community and has served as chief of staff for the CIA's deputy director. He started his career as an analyst focused on East Asia.
Langan-Riekhof also has more than 30 years of experience in the intelligence community, including as an expert on the Middle East. The ODNI previously listed her as an exceptional analyst. She also previously served as director of the Strategic Futures Group at the National Intelligence Council.
While an ODNI spokesperson told The Hill that "the director is working alongside President Trump to end the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community," critics framed the firings as "the DEFINITION of politicizing intelligence."
"I am concerned about the apparent removal of senior leadership at the National Intelligence Council without any explanation except vague accusations made in the media," Congressman Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, toldThe Washington Post. "Absent evidence to justify the firings, the workforce can only conclude that their jobs are contingent on producing analysis that is aligned with the president's agenda, rather than truthful and apolitical."
The NIC leaders were fired after last week's release of an NIC memo confirming that U.S. intelligence agencies never agreed with Trump's claim that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro controls the criminal gang Tren de Aragua. The April 7 document states that "while Venezuela's permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States."
Although, as the Post noted, "it was unclear what, if any, direct role Collins or Langan-Riekhof had in drafting the assessment," its release provoked pushback from Gabbard, who said last week that it was "outrageous that as President Trump and his administration work hard every day to make America safe by deporting these violent criminals, some in the media remain intent on twisting and manipulating intelligence assessments to undermine the president's agenda to keep the American people safe."
Trump has used dubious claims about Maduro controlling the gang to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center as part of his mass deportation agenda.
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) said on social media Wednesday: "Gabbard is purging intelligence officials over a report that the Trump administration finds politically inconvenient. Whatever the administration is trying to protect... it's not our national security."
Other critics called Gabbard's moves "ominous" and warned that "an intelligence service will not protect you from real-life threats if its members get fired for not lying."
The U.S. intelligence community (IC) "provides analysis independent of policy preferences," said James Madison University professor and former CIA analyst Stephen Marrin. "When those in power do not want to hear inconvenient facts and unwanted interpretation and punish messengers that provide it, that undermines the reason the IC was created in the first place."
Jonathan Panikoff, a former career U.S. intelligence officer who is now a director in the Atlantic Council's Middle East Program, said that "having spent five years working at the NIC, I can personally attest the [organization] is the heartbeat of apolitical U.S. all-source analysis, traditionally drawing the best of the IC's analysts together to tackle and produce assessments on the hardest issues. Anything that reduces its independence because policymakers don't like the independent conclusions it reaches, is the definition of politicization they are decrying. Mike and Maria are unbelievable leaders and IC professionals, not political actors."
Eric Brewer, who also worked for NIC, expressed full agreement with Panikoff's "excellent comments" and issued his own warning.
"This is a big deal. The result will be an IC less willing to tell the president and other leaders what they need to know rather than what they want to hear. America will be less secure because of it," Brewer said. "The professionals in the IC can withstand a lot, and will no doubt do their utmost to continue to provide objective assessments. But this act is blatant politicization and will have a chilling effect."
The memo that seemingly led to the NIC firings was revealed as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Lauren Harper, the group's Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, shared the Post's reporting about the ousters on social media Wednesday along with an observation.
"The director of national intelligence's FOIA website (which has reappeared after the entire site was briefly down) no longer has a reading room of released documents or links to its FOIA regulations which, were we to be picky, violates the EFOIA amendments of 1996," Harper highlighted. "Amazing timing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump EPA Guts Rules Against Toxic Forever Chemicals in Drinking Water
"Once again, the Trump administration has demonstrated that its priority is bending to corporate interests, not protecting the safety and well-being of everyday people," said one critic.
May 14, 2025
Bowing to industry pressure, the Environmental Protection Agency is planning to roll back limits on so-called "forever chemicals" in drinking water—a move that critics said belies President Donald Trump's dubious pledge to "ensure that America has among the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet."
In a misleading announcement, the EPA said Wednesday that it will "keep maximum contaminant levels" (MCLs) for two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—PFOA and PFOS—as part of an effort to "provide regulatory flexibility and holistically address these contaminants in drinking water."
However, the EPA plans to scrap MCLs for four other forever chemicals: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX, and PFBS.
"These four chemicals are the ones currently in use because industry developed them to replace PFOA and PFOS, so they are the chemicals most likely to increase contamination in the future," explained former senior EPA water official Betsy Southerland in a statement issued by the Environmental Protection Network on Wednesday.
"It is incredibly inefficient to regulate them years after the treatment has been installed only for PFOA and PFOS," Southerland added. "[EPA Administrator Lee] Zeldin's announcement on PFAS drinking water standards ensures that America's children will be drinking PFAS for another decade while he slows drinking water and wastewater PFAS treatment for years."
The EPA just announced its decision on PFAS, toxic forever chemicals, that reverses course on most of a crucial public health rule from just last year. We need more action, not less, to protect Americans from PFAS.
[image or embed]
— NRDC (@nrdc.org) May 14, 2025 at 7:34 AM
The EPA also pushed back the deadline for compliance with a Biden administration rule finalized last year aimed at ensuring polluters pay forever chemical cleanup costs, from 2029 to 2031. Earlier this week, the EPA said it is delaying a key PFAS reporting rule by one year.
"This is a betrayal of public health at the highest level," Environmental Working Group president Ken Cook said in response to Wednesday's announcement. "You can't make America healthy while allowing toxic chemicals to flow freely from our taps. The EPA is caving to chemical industry lobbyists and pressure by the water utilities, and in doing so, it's sentencing millions of Americans to drink contaminated water for years to come."
"The cost of PFAS pollution will fall on ordinary people, who will pay in the form of polluted water and more sickness, more suffering, and more deaths from PFAS-related diseases," Cook added.
"Zeldin's announcement on PFAS drinking water standards ensures that America's children will be drinking PFAS for another decade."
Approximately half of the U.S. population is drinking PFAS-contaminated water, "including as many as 105 million whose water violates the new standards," according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which added that "the EPA has known for decades that PFAS endangers human health, including kidney and testicular cancer, liver damage, and harm to the nervous and reproductive systems."
Forever chemicals—so called because some of them take up to 1,000 years to break down in the environment—have myriad uses, from nonstick cookware to waterproof clothing to firefighting foam. Increasing use of forever chemicals has resulted in the detection of PFAS in the blood of nearly every person in the United States and around the world.
"The PFAS contamination crisis is much larger than just two chemicals, and there is increasing evidence that other PFAS chemicals that pollute water harm health," Cook said. "Eliminating all PFAS chemicals from drinking water is an urgent public health priority."
"If this administration is serious about making America healthier, it needs to prove it by stopping PFAS from contaminating our drinking water," he added.
NRDC senior strategic director of health Erik Olson said Wednesday that "with a stroke of the pen, the EPA is making a mockery of the Trump administration's promise to deliver clean water for Americans."
"With this action, the EPA is making clear that it's willing to ignore Americans who just want to turn on their kitchen taps and have clean, safe water," Olson asserted. "The EPA's plan to retain but delay standards for two legacy forever chemicals may offer modest consolation to some, but throwing out protections against four others will be devastating."
"The law is very clear that the EPA can't repeal or weaken the drinking water standard. This action is not only harmful, it's illegal," Olson stressed. The Safe Drinking Water Act contains an "anti-backsliding" provision prohibiting the EPA from repealing or weakening the standard.
"With a stroke of the pen, the EPA is making a mockery of the Trump administration's promise to deliver clean water for Americans."
Kelly Moser, senior attorney and leader of the Water Program at the Southern Environmental Law Center—which successfully sued the industrial chemicals giant Chemours to stop PFAS contamination in North Carolina—said Wednesday that "when this administration talks about deregulation, this is what they mean—allowing toxic chemicals in drinking water at the request of polluters."
"This action also undercuts Administrator Zeldin's acknowledgment of the severe health harms of PFAS; what people need are protections from pollution, not press releases feigning concern," Moser added.
Food & Water Watch water program director Mary Grant said Wednesday that "today's decision is a shameful and dangerous capitulation to industry pressure that will allow continued contamination of our drinking water with toxic PFAS."
"Once again, the Trump administration has demonstrated that its priority is bending to corporate interests, not protecting the safety and well-being of everyday people," Grant continued. "Nothing is safe from Trump's greed-driven agenda—not even our drinking water."
"This will cost lives," she warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular