

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.
Yetta Stein, Communications Associate
Western Values Project
yetta@westernvaluesproject.org
(406) 529-1682
Right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation have previously recommended revoking the mineral withdrawal area, which would again allow dangerous uranium mining around Grand Canyon National Park. Meanwhile, the White House Nuclear Fuel Working Group -- a working group reviewing how to support the uranium and nuclear energy industry -- missed another deadline for delivering its recommendations to the administration, prolonging a decision on whether the Trump administration will revoke the Grand Canyon Mining Withdrawal Area.
"Should the Trump administration opt to side with the extreme measures recommended by an industry-funded think tank like the Heritage Foundation, the future of one of America's most cherished national parks will be at risk," said Jayson O'Neill, Deputy Director of Western Values Project. "Our public lands, waterways and national parks are far too important to allow industry-backed groups to dictate policy, but that has been the hallmark of the Trump presidency."
The Heritage Foundation's recommendations include the so-called restoration of the 1984 Arizona Wilderness Act. This would repeal a 2012 Obama-era decision that halted mineral mining on over 1 million acres of wilderness and public lands around the Grand Canyon National Park. Repealing the mineral mining withdrawal area would grossly over-benefit uranium mining corporations by allowing access to uranium deposits on formally federally-protected public lands.
Heritage's recommends also go as far as suggesting the administration repeal the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) -- a 50-year-old environmental law that ensures federal agencies consider the potential environmental consequences of any large-scale project they take on. The Trump administration has a history of repealing conservation and environmental protections, with presently 85 rules being challenged or rolled back.
It would be unsurprising if the Trump administration and Interior Secretary Bernhardt opted to follow Heritage's recommendations in siding with uranium mining corporations. The Trump administration is stacked with former Heritage alumni and at least four current appointees with connections to the group work at the Interior Department.
Additionally, allowing further access to mineral mining corporations around the Grand Canyon would potentially benefit one of Bernhardt's former lobbying clients: Ur-Energy USA Inc. The mining corporation, along with Energy Fuels Inc., petitioned the Trump administration in January 2018, to impose import quotas on uranium by filing a 'Section 232' probe.
Background:
The Trump administration inexplicably included uranium on the 'critical minerals' list even though it failed to meet the criteria of the original executive order. This move signaled a threat to the 20-year moratorium on new uranium and other hard-rock mining claims in the Grand Canyon's watershed.
Previously, Sec. Bernhardt has shown a pattern of siding with mining corporations, already proposing a dangerous rule that would allow the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to rent public lands to non-energy mineral extractive corporations at a cheaper price and cut royalty rates on public lands -- a boon for the former mega-lobbyist's clients. The proposed rule raised questions, once again, about the Secretary's ties to industrial mining corporations and his allegiances to his former clients.
Bernhardt provided 'legal services' for Ur-Energy USA Inc. from 2009 to 2012. Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Andrew Wheeler, another ex-lobbyist, previously represented Energy Fuels Inc. where he successfully lobbied the Trump administration to illegally reduce the size of the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah because of its proximity to the corporation's uranium mine and processing facility.
The Trump administration's Forest Service recommended that the Grand Canyon Withdrawal Area be lifted "as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to sweep away regulations impeding development." The Department of Commerce also released sweeping recommendations on 'critical minerals' that call for the deregulation of mining and an expedited permitting process for industrial-scale development on federal public lands.
The Koch Brothers have funded both the Heritage Foundation and other industry front groups that opposed a ban on uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. Acting Interior Solicitor Daniel Jorjani was a former 'key Koch employee' and became one of their 'highest paid employees.'
The Charles Koch Foundation gave $300,000 to the Heritage Foundation in 2013. "Other major contributions during 2013 went to free market-oriented think tanks, research groups and educational organizations. Among them are the American Enterprise Institute ($910,000); Liberty Source, known now as Strata ($653,000); the Bill of Rights Institute ($350,000) and the Heritage Foundation($300,000)." [The Center For Public Integrity, 10/30/15]
Koch-Funded Donors Trust also gives money to the Heritage Foundation. "Donors Trust is not the source of the money it hands out. Some 200 right-of-center funders who've given at least $10,000 fill the group's coffers. Charities bankrolled by Charles and David Koch, the DeVoses, and the Bradleys, among other conservative benefactors, have given to Donors Trust." [Mother Jones, 02/13/13]
Charles And David Koch funded the Arizona-based Prosper Inc. and Prosper Foundation Inc. "A dark money group backed by Charles and David Koch is behind a well-funded effort to undermine protections at the Grand Canyon and overturn the Antiquities Act, the law President Teddy Roosevelt used to permanently protect the area in 1908. If successful, the campaign could stop a permanent ban on uranium mining near the canyon's rim, despite support for such a ban by a vast majority of Arizonans. [...] The Koch brothers' anti-park effort is being run through the Arizona-based Prosper Inc. and its sister organization the Prosper Foundation Inc., which share a physical address, a logo, a staff, and a founder -- Kirk Adams. Adams served as Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives from 2009 to 2011, ran a failed attempt for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2012, and is currently the Chief of Staff to Arizona Governor Doug Ducey." [ThinkProgress, 03/02/16]
Prosper Inc.'s website only touted two major issues, one of which included defeating the Grand Canyon Monument. "Adams' group and its sister organization, Prosper Inc., are touted as 'social welfare that supports and defends free-market principles,' but according to Prosper Inc.'s website, it only has two big issues: Defeating the Grand Canyon Monument and drumming up support for Proposition 123, Ducey's proposal to raise money for public education by dipping into the state's land trust fund." [Phoenix New Times, 04/18/16]
Prosper received more than 80% of its total budget from an organization led by a consultant with "deep ties" to the Koch Brothers. "Interested in learning more about the Prosper Foundation, [Greg] Zimmerman [of the Center for Western Priorities looked through its 990 tax forms, which not-for-profit groups must file with the Internal Revenue Service. He found that between 2013 and 2014, the foundation received more than $1.5m - or 83% of its total budget - from a political-advocacy organization called American Encore." [The Guardian, 04/21/16]
Western Values Project brings accountability to the national conversation about Western public lands and national parks conservation - a space too often dominated by industry lobbyists and their allies in government.
Environmental and public health advocates on Wednesday ripped the US Environmental Protection Agency's fifth approval of a "forever chemical" pesticide during the current term of President Donald Trump, who campaigned on a promise to "Make America Healthy Again."
Despite that pledge, Trump's second administration—much like his first—has served the pesticide industry in various ways, including by putting out a MAHA report that echoes industry talking points, installing a former industry lobbyist in a key EPA post, backing Bayer-owned Monsanto over cancer patients at the US Supreme Court, and issuing an executive order that mandates the production of glyphosate.
Under Trump, the EPA has also approved or reapproved various controversial pesticides, from atrazine and dicamba to trifludimoxazin, which was approved late Tuesday. Like diflufenican and epyrifenacil, which were authorized by the EPA earlier Tuesday, as well as cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, which got a green light from the agency last November, trifludimoxazin is what some scientists and campaigners call a forever chemical pesticide.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—which have been used in not only pesticides but also fabrics, firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, and other household products—are widely known as forever chemicals because they don't break down naturally. They're also linked to a range of health issues, including various cancers.
"This is the PFAS presidency brought to you by Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin," Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, declared Wednesday.
As with his Tuesday critique of the Trump EPA approving diflufenican and epyrifenacil, Donley pointed to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in favor of Trump-backed Bayer, rather than the thousands of Americans who argue that Monsanto's glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
"Waiting to open the floodgates on new pesticide approvals until after the Supreme Court granted immunity to pesticide companies takes a special kind of callousness," he said.
Bill Freese, science director at Center for Food Safety (CFS), similarly said Wednesday that "with yesterday's pesticide approvals, the Trump administration's EPA is once again showing its disdain for Americans' health and the natural world."
"The EPA's pesticide division is seemingly no longer able to recognize evidence that a pesticide causes cancer, even when it's the pesticide company's own studies that show it," he continued. "And as per usual, EPA dismisses out of hand incriminating independent studies by scientists not affiliated with the pesticide industry."
In addition to the PFAS pesticides, the EPA is under fire this week for approving new uses for chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide tied to reproductive issues, and the fungicide fluoxapiprolin.
CFS co-executive director Sylvia Wu pointed out that the agency dismissed studies showing that fluoxapiprolin and epyrifenacil both produce tumors in laboratory rodents and classified both as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."
"The EPA's illegitimate rejection of the evidence that these two pesticides cause cancer is very similar to the tricks it pulled in denying glyphosate could cause cancer," Wu said. "These blatant violations of the agency's own cancer guidelines are unacceptable."
As for chlormequat, Freese said that "EPA should never have approved this endocrine-disrupting pesticide, particularly since its persistence and potential for widespread use on wheat and other widely consumed grains will mean universal exposure."
Already, "chlormequat is found in the urine of 90% of Americans, thought to come mostly from residues on imported foods where the pesticide has been used," the Center for Biological Diversity noted Wednesday. Like Freese, the group warned that "approval of its use on US wheat and oats ensures that exposure to the US population will increase dramatically."
“USPS’ plan was unwise, unlawful, and a threat to the millions of voters who rely on mailed ballots to participate in our democracy," said one case litigant.
In a ruling hailed by democracy defenders, a federal court on Wednesday halted the US Postal Service's implementation of President Donald Trump's March executive order targeting mail-in ballots as part of his administration's broader attack on voting rights.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted a request by the NAACP to enforce a 2021 settlement agreement requiring the USPS to protect mail-in voting and prioritize delivery of mail related to elections through 2028.
The request followed the Postal Service's publication last month of a proposed rule that would block the delivery of mail-in ballots to voters in states where election officials refused to provide certain information to USPS or use a specific envelope design. That proposal came after Trump's March executive order directing federal agencies to create a nationwide list of eligible voters using federal data.
The directive also requires the Postal Service to verify that mail-in ballots are sent and returned only by eligible voters, preserve election-related records for a longer period, and exercise heightened oversight of mailed ballots.
The Public Citizen Litigation Group and Legal Defense Fund (LDF) filed a motion on behalf of the NAACP asserting that the proposed rule "manifests USPS’ intent not to deliver certain mail-in ballots, establishing a process that directly violates its obligations under the agreement."
“The court today correctly recognized that USPS’ plan to create roadblocks to mail-in voting was inconsistent with its commitment to timely deliver election mail,” Public Citizen Litigation Group director Allison Zieve said in a statement following Sullivan's ruling. “USPS’ plan was unwise, unlawful, and a threat to the millions of voters who rely on mailed ballots to participate in our democracy.”
🚨BREAKING: In the latest blow to President Donald Trump’s anti-voting agenda, a federal court on Wednesday granted the NAACP’s request to halt the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) implementation of his executive order against mail voting. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
[image or embed]
— Marc Elias (@marcelias.bsky.social) July 1, 2026 at 1:41 PM
LDF associate director-counsel Sam Spital said, “Today’s decision recognizes that USPS cannot disregard its legal obligation to timely deliver mail-in ballots to all voters."
"We are glad that the court blocked a blatant attempt to renege on this commitment through a proposed rule that ran the risk of undermining the fairness of our national elections, creating particular dangers for Black voters," Spital continued. "LDF will continue to defend our democracy and combat unlawful restrictions of the right to vote.”
Anthony P. Ashton, senior associate general counsel at the NAACP, called the decision "a critical step in protecting the rights of voters who rely on the timely delivery of mail-in ballots to participate in our democracy."
Ashton continued:
The proposed USPS changes would have created unnecessary and unlawful barriers, in direct violation of the USPS’ mandate to prioritize election mail. Those barriers could have disproportionately harmed Black voters, who are more likely to rely on mail voting due to long-standing inequities in access. Put simply, the use of mail-in voting helps reduce voter intimidation at the polls and election day dirty tricks. This decision makes clear that access to the ballot cannot be tied to arbitrary requirements. The NAACP will continue to hold this government accountable when it attempts to undermine fair and equal access to the electoral process.
Wednesday's order—from a judge who's been appointed to various positions by Republican and Democratic presidents throughout his career—is the latest in a string of federal court rulings against Trump's attacks on voting rights, crowned by Monday's Watson v. Republican National Committee US Supreme Court decision, in which the justices affirmed that states may count ballots received after Election Day if they were postmarked in time.
Last week, a federal judge in Massachusetts sided with Democratic state attorneys who challenged Trump's March 2025 executive order that requires Americans to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote, while another judge in the same district blocked parts of the president's March 2026 order, which included the USPS directive.
"The $1.1 trillion that governments are pouring into fossil fuel subsidies this year is not a safety net, it is a ransom payment."
With the US and Iranian governments engaged in 60 days of peace talks, the United Nations' latest projections about the illegal war's impact on fossil fuel subsidies this week triggered new demands for taxing the windfall profits of climate-wrecking Big Oil.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) on Monday released "Military Escalation in the Middle East: Cushioning the Global Shock," a report detailing how governments have navigated the "most severe oil supply shock in history," caused by Iran limiting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in response to the Trump administration and Israel's unlawful assault.
As fossil fuel prices have soared worldwide, the report states, "governments have moved quickly to cushion households and firms from higher energy prices through fuel subsidies, tax cuts, price caps, strategic stock releases, emergency procurement, export restrictions, demand-management measures, and fuel switching."
"While energy subsidies had fallen by roughly half in 2024 as energy markets stabilized, the downward trajectory has sharply reversed," the document notes. "We estimate that global fossil fuel subsidies are currently on track to reach $1.1 trillion in 2026 and could reach as high as $1.43 trillion in a severe scenario where the average oil price reaches $110/barrel... This represents an estimated $410-$740 billion increase from 2025."
UNDP Administrator Alexander De Croo said in a statement that "the global spillover of the Middle East conflict is profound and potentially long-lasting. Developing countries, many already struggling with debt, have temporarily managed to protect people from the worst of the energy shock."
"These countries are doing everything they can, but there is a hidden cost," he stressed. "To deal with today's crisis, governments are postponing tomorrow's investments. Money that should be building schools, hospitals, and clean energy systems is being used simply to keep economies afloat. Without international support, these countries won’t escape the shock. They are absorbing it at the expense of future growth."
"No country should have to sacrifice its future development to manage a crisis it did not create," De Croo argued. "First, we must unlock multilateral liquidity in ways that are easy to access for low- and middle-income countries. Second, we must accelerate investment in renewable energy. Every clean energy investment reduces exposure to future shocks. The crisis has made one thing clear: Energy security and the energy transition are no longer separate agendas. They are one and the same."
In addition to reiterating calls for a just transition to clean energy, the advocacy group 350.org has repeatedly advocated for a windfall profits tax targeting oil and gas giants cashing in on the conflict in the Middle East. Executive director Anne Jellema pushed for such policies again on Wednesday, noting the new UNDP numbers.
"The $1.1 trillion that governments are pouring into fossil fuel subsidies this year is not a safety net, it is a ransom payment," Jellema declared. "Every dollar spent shielding the fossil fuel industry from the consequences of its own price volatility is a dollar not spent on the clean energy systems that can bring costs down for good."
"We need a phaseout to end public subsidies for fossil fuel companies, and a permanent windfall tax on fossil fuel profits," she continued. "Not a one-off levy, but a permanent, legislated mechanism that redirects the extraordinary profits of an industry driving this crisis into the just transition every country needs. That means affordable clean energy, retrofitted homes, and funding to protect people from the extreme weather unleashed by fossil pollution."
In the United States, where President Donald Trump's war has cost Americans tens of billions of dollars at the pump, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act in March, just weeks into the war.
Backing the bill, Food & Water Watch managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones said at the time that "historical evidence could not be any clearer: Big Oil will undoubtedly leverage the current crisis in the Middle East to maximize profit margins, pinching American families and enriching their executives and Wall Street speculators."
"This demands a policy response—namely, a windfall profits tax... which would recover much of these egregious, opportunistic gains and return them to everyday Americans," Jones added. "Fossil fuel companies must be held accountable for the profiteering they are orchestrating as we speak."